The URL can be used to link to this page

04/04/2002 - Minutes PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, APRIL 4 , 2002 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Tuesday, April 4, 2002 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance: Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Eric Jergensen, Nancy Saxton, Jill Remington Love, Dave Buhler and Dale Lambert. Also in Attendance: Mayor Ross C. "Rocky", Anderson; Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer; Jay Magure, Mayor' s Chief of Staff; Gary Mumford, Council Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor; Michael Sears, Council Budget & Policy Analyst; Steven Allred, Deputy City Attorney; Rick Graham, Director of Public Services; Steve Fawcett, Management Services Deputy Director; Max Peterson, City Engineer; Rick Johnston, Deputy City Engineer; David Dobbins, Acting Director of Community and Economic Development (CED) ; Stephen Goldsmith, Planning Director; LuAnn Clark, Deputy Director of Housing and Neighborhood Development(HAND) ; Brent Wilde, Deputy Director of Planning; Wayne Mills, Planner; Bill Nisonger, Community Development Action Committee (CDAC) ; and Chris Meeker, Chief Deputy Recorder. Council Chair Buhler presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:36 p.m. #1. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. View Attachment See File M 02-5 for announcements. #2. INTERVIEW REX OLSON PRIOR TO HIS RE-APPOINTMENT TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Mr. Olson said he wanted to continue to serve on the Board of Adjustment. #3. HOLD A DISCUSSION REGARDING CDBG, ESG, HOPWA AND HOME PROGRAMS. View Attachment Bill Nisonger, LuAnn Clark, Rick Graham and Michael Sears briefed the Council from the attached handout. Mr. Nisonger said an open house program had been developed and had gone well. He said an evaluation form had been developed for applications. He said the form was a pro-active approach. He said participation had been large and applications and recommendations by the Community Development Action Committee (CDAC) had gone well. Councilmember Buhler asked about a CDAC member resigning. Mr. Nisonger said he had only learned of the resignation yesterday. He said he did not know recommendations had not been supported. He said the member was speaking for himself. Councilmember Saxton said she had been a member of CDAC for six years. She said it was disappointing to members when recommendations were not supported. She said if decisions did not make a difference, board members would be hard to find. Mr. Sears reviewed funding recommendations. Ms. Clark said the Mayor had made changes to housing requests in order to show emphasis on public improvements and infrastructure. Mr. Sears said the Mayor' s changes applied to the first eight applicants on the attached list. Council Members Christensen and Buhler were in favor of more than the Mayor' s recommendation of $80,000 for physical access ramps at street corners. 02 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 2002 A discussion was held regarding funding the Fairmont Skate Park construction. Councilmember Jergensen asked about skate shops or national skateboard manufacturing groups sponsoring skate parks. Mr. Graham said skate shops were supportive of Youth City Government for the Jordan Skate Park. He said he was exploring alternatives. Councilmember Christensen said the City had a moral obligation to the youth and the process should be continued through Youth City Government. A discussion was held regarding funding for the Roberta LaConia parking lot. Councilmember Saxton asked Ms. Clark for information regarding the initial cost of the parking lot and when the lot was first constructed. Councilmember Christensen asked Mr. Graham if a staff member could meet him at Riverside Park to review what $140, 000 would buy for a playground vs. $100,000 for a playground. A discussion was held regarding program income. Councilmember Christensen said Our House Center was a day care center and was badly needed. Councilmember Saxton asked Ms. Clark to find out how many residents had gone through the Mobile Neighborhood Watch program. A discussion was held regarding the Children's Museum of Utah funding for moving to a new building. A discussion was held regarding the Sugarhouse Community study for the National Register and the Sugarhouse Business District Small Area Plan. Ms. Gust-Jenson said one of these had also requested funding from the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) . She asked Mr. Sears to find out which one had made the request to RDA. Mr. Sears said planners within the community were concerned with the request for the Business District Plan because the Master Plan had just been completed. #4. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING DEDICATING PRIVATE STREETS TO PUBLIC OWNERSHIP. View Attachment Michael Sears, Brent Wilde, Rick Johnston and Wayne Mills briefed the Council from the attached handout. Councilmember Buhler said the current policy was that capital improvement funds were not used for private streets. A discussion was held regarding what private streets were. Mr. Sears said most private streets were not through streets, they were mid-block streets and cul-de-sacs. Ms. Gust-Jensen said Private Unit Developments (PUD) were also private streets. She said the mix was older neighborhoods and PUD'S. Councilmember Saxton asked if tax assessment was different for property owners living on private streets. Mr. Sears said the County Assessor said taxes were assessed by property value. Councilmember Saxton asked if City policy would stop services like snow removal and garbage pick-up that had been provided incorrectly to private streets. Mr. Sears said he could find nothing in City policy to stop services incorrectly provided. Councilmember Saxton asked if it was legal for the City to pick up garbage and remove snow on private streets. Mr. Graham said there were situations where residents of private streets paid the City for garbage pick-up. He said if they paid for garbage pick-up and there was snow on the ground it needed to be plowed so garbage trucks could get on the private street. 02 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, APRIL 4 , 2002 Councilmember Saxton asked if assuming responsibility for private streets was being considered. Mr. Sears said the cost to assume the streets was approximately $8,000, 000 plus increased operating and maintenance costs. He said he was not aware of any consideration for assuming the streets. Councilmember Christensen said the City could create a process that specified a standard for a private street to be dedicated as a public street. He said the Special Improvement District (SID) process could be used. Mr. Wilde said the SID process could work for some of the older condominiums. He said the problem calls for dedication were coming from the old mid-block streets in Central City. He said most were renter occupied or owned by residents with modest incomes. Mr. Wilde said in the late 70's and early 80's the City had a block re-design program. He said some work was done in Central City and Capital Hill areas. He said the program went beyond street improvements and included improvement of street circulation. He said neighborhood parking lots and tot parks were created. He said many of the central community improvements and block grant programs evolved from the block redesign. Councilmember Lambert asked if the funding mechanism was the block grant program. He asked if there were many rejections for street dedication. Ms. Gust-Jensen said the City did not have a system to bring private streets up to City standards and accept a private street for dedication. She said staff needed policy direction from the Council. She asked if the Council felt it was reasonable to continue to accept Central District Block Grant (CDBG) approach, and was it reasonable to move into SID opportunities. She said part of the reason the block re-deigns were done was to spur re-investment from homeowners. A discussion was held regarding a process for street dedication requests. Councilmember Lambert asked what the Administration' s recommendation was. Mr. Mills said no recommendation was being made at this time. Councilmember Buhler said a process was needed so residents knew what options were available and which department they should be talking to. Councilmember Christensen said he was concerned because there were very few CDBG funds available. Mr. Sears said some of the private streets were not within the CDBG area. He said then the only option was an SID. Mr. Johnston said SID's were for public property only. He said an evaluation process could be put in place at the time of application. He said the evaluation could include valuating housing, transportation, and public utilities. Councilmember Turner said private streets in his district needed infrastructure. He said there were boarded up houses, no street, sidewalk, curb and gutter, or sewer. He said one private street in his district was in a commercial area and needed to be cleaned up by the business. Mr. Wilde said those private streets in Council District Two needed to be redeveloped with a new street. A discussion was held regarding CDBG funding. Councilmember Saxton asked if there would be a cost advantage for the City to do the project rather than residents doing the work privately. Mr. Johnston said there was an advantage through an SID because property owners got a lower interest rate. Mr. Johnston said the current process was if the private street met City standards then the City would take it over. Councilmember Christensen asked the Administration to create a process for property 02 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, APRIL 4 , 2002 owners to have the ability to dedicate private streets as public. He said until the process was completed he was reluctant to use CDBG funding for design. Councilmember Buhler said the Council would not consider funding through the CDBG funds for design. #5. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING AMENDMENT TO THE IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE. View Attachment David Dobbins and Michael Sears briefed the Council. Mr. Dobbins said the impact fee ordinance had some items which needed to be changed. He said currently an affordable housing exemption was funded through general fund. He said each exemption unit was $890. He said the administration felt the Housing Trust Fund was the appropriate funding source. He said the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board wanted the City to use the general fund. Mr. Dobbins explained that when an exemption was granted someone still had to pay the impact fee. Councilmember Christensen questioned the number of exceptions given. A discussion was held regarding the impact an exemption had on the City. He said a portion of project funding should be set aside for impact fees. He said the Housing Trust Fund was for moderate and low-income projects. A discussion was held regarding exemptions. Mr. Dobbins said approximately six exemptions had been granted. He said they were mostly for single- family homes. He said larger projects with many affordable units were the problem. Councilmember Buhler asked what the total amount of exemption had been. Mr. Dobbins said for housing the total amount was approximately $10,000. Ms. Gust-Jensen said there were many sources of funding. She said currently Salt Lake was picking up all impact fees. She said if exemptions were eliminated, cost for the impact fee would need to be rolled into the project cost. A discussion was held regarding consistency in exemptions. Councilmember Lambert asked if the Council approved the exemptions. Mr. Dobbins said exemptions were outlined in the ordinance. He said the Council authorized the budget opening. Councilmember Love said she agreed with Ms. Gust-Jenson' s suggestion that no exemptions were given and the price of the project included impact fees, and more partners were needed to make the project work. Mr. Dobbins said different areas were charged for different elements. He said developers were often not able to differentiate the elements they paid for. He said only housing units paid parking fees. Mr. Sears referred to Page 4 of the handout where the fees were listed. A discussion was held regarding areas of the City and fees. Councilmember Christensen said financing the impact fee and paying for it up front was the biggest issue for a developer. He said the City could loan funding interest free and have it paid back over time. He said projects should pay for the impact to the community. A discussion was held regarding fees vs. loans. Councilmember Christensen said the City could not afford to exempt project after project. Mr. Sears referred to Pages 2 through 4 of the handout. He said this was the area of automatic housing exemptions for consideration. Councilmember Saxton asked where the fees were placed when they were paid. Mr. Dobbins said they went to the Capital Improvement Project fund (CIP) . Mr. Sears said the funds were for growth only capital projects and were identified with a capital facilities plan. Councilmember Saxton said if the Council chose to fund impact fees from the Housing 02 - 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, APRIL 4 , 2002 Trust Fund it was important to credit the funds for housing. She said she was interested in Councilmember Christensen's loan concept. Councilmember Buhler said the City tried to encourage housing and commercial development. He said the impact fee was not an incentive. He said he was in favor of repealing the impact fee ordinance. He said another approach would be to repeal the ordinance as it related to housing. A discussion was held regarding housing projects. Mr. Sears read the Administration's proposal. He reviewed the recommendations that had been made. He said 1) was to change the funding source for the exempted impact fees for low-income housing; 2) was removing the exceptions of net positive fiscal gains, and 3) was eliminating exemptions which currently allowed development activity, either funded or subsidized by the City or Redevelopment Agency. Councilmember Buhler asked if any Council Members were in favor of looking at the Housing Trust Fund as a loan. Council Members Christensen, Love, Jergensen and Saxton were in favor of looking at the Housing Trust Fund as a loan. Councilmember Buhler suggested a sub-committee looking at the loan scenario and other funding sources. Council Members Christensen, Saxton and Jergensen would meet as a sub-committee. #6. CONSIDER ENTERING INTO AN EXECUTIVE SESSION, IN KEEPING WITH UTAH CODE, TO DISCUSS PENDING LITIGATION. No Executive Session was held. The meeting adjourned at 9:22 p.m. cm 02 - 5 City Council Announcements April 4, 200V I. Decisions, Feedback & Information needed by staff A. Alley Policy: Last December, the Council adopted revisigns IQ the Council's alley policy and requested that an ordinance be drafted. The Council's action was based on recommendations from a Council subcommittee established to address issues that had been raised relating to the process for closure and/or vacation of existing alleys and the subsequent disposition of the property. Key elements included: a. Shift the focus to consideration of a proposed request with demonstrated public benefit rather than supporting closure/vacation whenever possible. b. Require an evaluation and documented demonstration of public interest versus private interest. The standard should be to demonstrate an over- riding public purpose, rather than an over-riding private interest. c. Re-assess current options for disposition of the city's property interest in alleys. d. Re-evaluate the current procedure and include neighborhood and community council review and comment as part of the public process prior to the Administration formalizing their recommendation to the City Council. The City Attorney's office provided a draft ordinance for Council Member review. Please see attached draft. The ordinance addresses areas of the adopted policy that deals with legal requirements including policy considerations and petition/application processes. Would Council Members like to schedule this ordinance for formal action on an upcoming agenda? The Council also requested that the Administration not process any new alley vacation/closure requests until the Council finalized their policy review. Would Council Members like to indicate their preference for the Administration to resume processing alley applications? B. Utah Transit Authority Excursion to Los Angeles A UTA representative has contacted some Council Members to invite them to go on an excursion to look at the light rail and commuter rail systems in Los Angeles and San Diego. The excursion also would include a visit to the intermodal hub at San Diego. The excursion is scheduled tentatively for May 2 and 3. According to the representative, UTA officials would like the entire City Council to go on the excursion because UTA thinks it would be helpful to see how light rail and commuter rail systems interconnect and relate to each other. UTA would pay for the excursion, the representative said. The excursion would be part of an overall UTA program to take public officials from municipalities involved in commuter rail and light rail projects to locations where commuter rail and light rail systems already operate. The representative said that those who would go on the excursion would fly from Salt Lake City the afternoon of May 2, arrive in Los Angeles and stay the night. The morning of May 3 excursion participants would take a commuter train into Los Angeles and transfer to a light rail train. After that, they would take a commuter train from Los Angeles to San Diego and insftect the San Diego intermodal hub. They then would go back to Los Angeles and return to Salt Lake City that evening (May 3). The UTA representative plans to contact every City Council Member and may have a brief itinerary by the end of the week. Are City Council Members interested in going on the excursion? Also, Council staff did not ask the representative if anyone from Council staff should go on the excursion because that is a City Council decision. Should someone from the City Council staff go with City Council Members if they go on the excursion? C. Housing Authority Annual Report: Attached is the Annual Report to the Council from the Housing Authority. Would Council Members like to schedule a briefing? II. Council Office Policies III. For Your Information A. Airport: Council staff has attached hard copies of a presentation Salt Lake City Department of Airports Marketing Director Buzz Hunt made to the Airport Board at its meeting on March 20. Staff also has an electronic version for Council Members who may want it. In addition to the presentation, Mr. Hunt made the following points: • After the September 11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center the majority of airplanes that Delta Air Lines grounded were from routes along the East Coast. • Salt Lake City is no longer Delta Air Lines' least profitable hub. • Delta Air Lines' continues to work to redefine Salt Lake City's role as a hub. Part of the redefinition appears to involve an increase in Delta's market share of east-west traffic and increasing Delta's east-west market flow through Salt Lake City. • Delta Air Lines' will continue to increase its reliance on regional jets to serve passengers. Even so, Salt Lake City still has non-stop service 38 of the top 50 markets in the United States including non-stop service to the top 28 U.S. markets. • Ultimately, although the number of standard-sized jets may continue to decline in the future, the number of seats available for passengers is expected to grow. IV. Meetings LA DRAFT 4-2-02 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2002 w (Amending the Salt Lake City Code to provide a procedure for the disposition of City owned alleys) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE TO PROVIDE A PROCEDURE FOR THE DISPOSITION OF CITY OWNED ALLEYS, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council had previously adopted a policy dealing with the disposition of City owned alleys; and WHEREAS, the City Code currently contains a section dealing with the disposition of City owned real property,but that section does not specifically address the issues relating to the disposition of City owned alleys; and WHEREAS,the City Council finds that this ordinance is in the best interest on the City. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Chapter 14.52 of the Salt Lake City Code entitled "Disposition of City Owned Alleys," shall be and hereby is enacted to read as follows: Chapter 14.52 DISPOSITION OF CITY OWNED ALLEYS Sections: 14.52.010 Disposition of City's property interest in alleys. 14.52.020 Policy considerations for closure, vacation or abandonment of City owned alleys. 14.52.030 Processing Petitions. 14.52.040 Method of Disposition. 14.52.050 Appeals. 14.52.010 Disposition of City's property interest in alleys. The City supports the legal disposition of Salt Lake City's real property interests, in whole or in part, with regard to City owned alleys, subject to the substantive and procedural requirements set forth herein. 14.52.020 Policy considerations for closure,vacation or abandonment of City owned alleys. The City will not consider disposing of its interest in an alley, in whole or in part, unless it receives a petition in writing which demonstrates that the disposition satisfies at least one of the following policy considerations: A. Lack of Use. The City's legal interest in the property appears of record or is reflected on an applicable plat; however, it is evident from an on-site inspection that the alley does not physically exist or has been materially blocked in a way that renders it unusable as a public right-of-way; B. Public Safety. The existence of the alley is substantially contributing to crime, unlawful activity, unsafe conditions, public health problems, or blight in the surrounding area; C. Urban Design. The continuation of the alley does not serve as a positive urban design element; or D. Community Purpose. The Petitioners are proposing to restrict the general public from use of the alley in favor of a community use, such as a neighborhood play area or garden. 14.52.030 Processing Petitions. There will be three phases for processing petitions to dispose of City owned alleys under this section. Those phases include an administrative determination of completeness; a public hearing, including a recommendation from the Planning Commission; and a public hearing before the City Council. A. Administrative Determination of Completeness. The City administration will determine whether or not the petition is complete according to the following requirements: 1. The petition must bear the signatures of no less than 80 percent of the neighbors owning property which abuts the subject alley property; 2 2. The petition must identify which policy considerations discussed above support the petition. 3. The petition must affirm that written notice has been given to all owners of property located in the block or blocks within which the subject alley property is located; and 4. The appropriate City processing fee has been paid. B. Public Hearing and Recommendation from the Planning Commission. Upon receipt of a complete petition, a public hearing shall be scheduled before the Planning Commission to consider the proposed disposition of the City owned alley property. Following the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission shall make a report and recommendation to the City Council on the proposed disposition of the subject alley property. A positive recommendation should include an analysis of the following factors: 1. The City police department, fire department, transportation division, and all other relevant City departments and divisions have no reasonable objection to the proposed disposition of the property; 2. The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations stated above; 3. Granting the petition will not deny sole access or required off-street parking to any property adjacent to the alley; 4. Granting the petition will not result in any property being landlocked; 5. Granting the petition will not result in a use of the alley property which is otherwise contrary to the policies of the City, including applicable master plans and other adopted statements of policy which address, but which are not limited to, mid-block walkways, pedestrian paths, trails, and alternative transportation uses; 6. No opposing abutting property owner intends to build a garage requiring access from the property, or has made application for a building permit, or if such a permit has been issued, construction has been completed within 12 months of issuance of the building permit; 7. The petition furthers the City preference for disposing of an entire alley, rather than a small segment of it; and 3 . 8. The alley property is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for accessory uses. C. Public Hearing before the City Council. Upon receipt of the report and recommendation from the Planning Commission, the City Council will consider the proposed petition for disposition of the subject alley property. After a public hearing to consider the matter, the City Council will make a decision on the proposed petition based upon the factors identified above. 14.52.040 Method of Disposition. If the City Council grants the petition, the City owned alley property will be disposed of as follows: A. Low Density Residential Areas. If the alley property abuts properties which are zoned for low density residential use, the alley will merely be vacated. For the purposes of this section, low density residential use shall mean properties which are zoned for single family, duplex, twin home or triplex residential uses. B. High Density Residential Properties and Other Nonresidential Properties. If the alley abuts properties which are zoned for high density residential use or other non-residential uses, the alley will be closed and abandoned, subject to payment to the City of the fair market value of that alley property, based upon the value added to the abutting properties. C. Mixed Zoning. If an alley abuts both low density residential properties and either high density residential properties or non-residential properties, those portions which abut the low density residential properties shall be vacated, and the remainder shall be closed, abandoned and sold for fair market value. 14.52.050 Petition for Review. Any party aggrieved by the decision of the City Council as to the disposition of City owned alley property may file a petition for review of that decision within 30 days after the City Council's decision becomes final, in the Third District Court. 4 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 , 2002. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2002. Published: G:\Ordinance 02\Amending Code For disposition of alleys-Mar 19,2002.doc 5 • MAR 242Q MEMORANDUM TO: Dave Buhler, Chairperson Salt Lake City Council FROM: Rosemary Kappes Executive Director DATE: March 25, 2002 SUBJECT: Annual Briefing ➢ Housing Authority of Salt Lake City (HASLC) ➢ Housing Development Corporation(HDC) ➢ Housing Assistance Management Enterprise (HAME) STAFF CONTACT: Rosemary Kappes, Executive Director TELEPHONE NUMBER: 487-2161, extension 1202 RECOMMENDATION: ❑ That the City Council place this petition on their Consent Agenda calendar. x That the City Council holds a discussion regarding the attached reports. ❑ That the Council holds a discussion and schedules a public hearing regarding ❑ That the City Council takes note of the attached. DOCUMENT TYPE: ❑ Ordinance ❑ Motion ❑ Resolution x Briefing/Discussion ❑ Other BUDGET IMPACT: N/A DISCUSSION: See Attached ANNUAL REPORT TO THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SALT LAKE CITY MARCH 2002 1. HUD GRANTS RECEIVED A. Section 8 Fair Share Vouchers 100 Units $49 ,41. 00 Disabled Vouchers 75 Units $385,334.00 Family Unification Vouchers 50 Units $256,889.00 Family Self Sufficiency Program $51,086.00 Shelter Plus Care Renewal 25 Units $135,000.00 (Chronically mentally ill) HOPWA (HIV/Aids) 24 Units $116,000.00 Housing Search Assistance Program $909,129.00 $1,346,854.00 The Housing Authority of Salt Lake City was proud to be chosen as one of only 12 recipients nationwide for a HUD pilot program; the Housing Search Assistance Program. This new program will provide education to low income families who are employed or enrolled in a job-training program. Families will be taught budgeting skills, landlord/lease negotiations, credit counseling, and housekeeping skills. Families will be instructed on the benefits of living within higher income areas, and will receive financial assistance with the transportation costs associated with finding a rental unit. A large portion of Housing Search Assistance funds will be used to educate the community at large, as well as private landlords about the voucher program. Great efforts will be made to erase the stigma within the community often associated with low-income families and individuals receiving housing assistance. B. Drug Elimination $94,077.00 C. Capital Improvements $967,000.00 We received approximately $967,000 for capital repairs on our Public Housing stock for projects such as chiller replacement, roofing, site improvements, handicap and security items, and upgrades to exteriors at Romney Plaza(475 E 900 S) plus, replacement of furnaces at family sites. 2. VALOR HOUSE BROUGHT ON-LINE Veterans Affairs $324,285.00 Salt Lake City Corporation $180,000.00 Olene Walker Housing Trust Fund $175,000.00 State Homeless Grant/Operations $50,000.00 American Express Centurion Bank $15,000.00 Private donations including: Churches, individuals, Veterans organizations, and motor cycle clubs Over$600,000 was used to rehab the second floor of Building 3 on the Veterans Affairs Campus into a 58 bed clinical SRO (single room occupancy). This is a partnership with the VA and includes housing, medical, clinical, social services and 2 meals a day. The project is the first of its kind in our region and possibly the country. Wing C with 30 beds opened in October and was filled by November. Wing D was used by VA security forces for the Olympics and turned back to us March 1, 2002, and is now being leased. 3. OTHER A. Maintained Public Housing PHAS scores as a high performing agency B. First SEMAP scores (measures Section 8 Program) were 100% C. Financially sound with clean audits ANNUAL REPORT TO THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION MARCH 2002 The Housing Development Corporation is a non-profit arm of the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City. The City guaranteed a bond in 1985 and the following projects were produced: t • 1. PROJECTS OWNED Project Name Type #Units Riverside—610 S 900 W Elderly 41 Ben Albert— 130 S 500 E Elderly (51%) 68 Canterbury— 1841 W Morton Drive Family 78 Hawthorne Court—727 E 600 S Mixed 88 TOTAL 275 2. OCCUPANCY, RENTS AND MAINTENANCE Properties average 97% occupancy and are nicely maintained and managed. Rents continue to do well, with Ben Albert and Riverside Apartments still serving many low-income seniors with lower rents and subsidies. 3. CAPITAL REPAIRS AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION In 2001 a new chiller was installed at Riverside Apartments and a new roof on the Ben Albert. Repairs are made on all properties on a regular basis. 4. FINANCIAL INFORMATION Cash flow on the properties is tight, but we are making bond payments and covering operations through rental income. Repayment to Salt Lake City Corporation for the Loan Agreement between the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City and the Housing Development Corporation in the amount of $1,295,000 will begin in 2006. The City loaned funds to the HDC in the late 80's to bail them out of financial difficulties. ANNUAL REPORT TO THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL HOUSING ASSISTANCE MANAGEMENT ENTERPRISE (HAME) MARCH 2002 JEFFERSON SCHOOL APARTMENTS Tax Credits $2,077,000.00 Permanent Mortgage $3,623,000.0Q. . HASLC Equity $ 407,705.00 HASLC Develop. Fee $ 347,000.00 OWHTF Loan $ 146,250.00 Salt Lake County Loan $ 250,000.00 Salt Lake City Loan $ 850,000.00 This $7.7 million was used to produce a great new 84 unit project, Jefferson School, located at 1074 West Temple with many amenities including a playground,pool, hot tub, club house and security fencing. The complex is mixed income with 36 units designated as affordable and 5 units set aside for special needs. We are very excited about this unique project, which is located on the site of the old Jefferson school (hence the name). The surrounding neighborhood is composed of smaller older homes with several that are dilapidated. Our property creates an excellent buffer between the homes and the surrounding commercial area, helps stabilize the neighborhood, increases the surrounding property values, and encourages more new development in the area. This project also helps to meet the goals in Salt Lake City's Housing Plan including neighborhood revitalization and expansion of creative, attractive housing stock on the light rail corridor. The property was zoned Commercial Corridor but was downzoned to RMU by the City Council in June 1999. The Community Council was so excited about the project that they voted unanimously to support our rezoning petition and have been great partners in helping our dream become reality. Rents are structured as low as $305 for persons with special needs, $400-$590 for the affordable units and $576 - $840 for the market units. We believe this mix of incomes and rents will be very beneficial for the project and for the neighborhood. For the neighborhood the infusion of 48 market units will be the first"higher income' apartments in the neighborhood for over 20 years. For those of lower incomes and special needs, the addition of 36 units in the market(all ground floor units will be visitable) will be very helpful. Construction was mostly complete by December 2001 and rented to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and their bomb-sniffing dogs during the 2002 Winter Olympics. Special Agent In Charge, Virginia O'Brien said, "We couldn't have asked for a better location or accommodations. While other agencies had their employees scattered about, we were able to centrally locate most of our employees, thus providing ease of communication and coordination." We were the only non-profit to provide housing for the Olympics, plus the Olympics gave us an advantage in structuring the financing for the project. AWARDS &ARTICLES We were recognized by FannieMae and SLOC for our participation in the Olympics. Jefferson School was also featured in the national publication, Affordable Housing Finance in February 2002. City Council Announcements April 4, 2001 I. Decisions, Feedback & Information needed by staff A. Alley Policy: Last December, the Council adopted revisions to the Council's alley policy and requested that an ordinance be drafted. The Council's action was based on recommendations from a Council subcommittee established to address issues that had been raised relating to the process for closure and/or vacation of existing alleys and the subsequent disposition of the property. Key elements included: a. a. Shift the focus to consideration of a proposed request with demonstrated public benefit rather than supporting closure/vacation whenever possible. b. b. Require an evaluation and documented demonstration of public interest versus private interest. The standard should be to demonstrate an over-riding public purpose, rather than an over-riding private interest. c. c. Re-assess current options for disposition of the city's property interest in alleys. • d. d. Re-evaluate the current procedure and include neighborhood and community council review and comment as part of the public process prior to the Administration formalizing their recommendation to the City Council. The City Attorney's office provided a draft ordinance for Council Member review. Please see attached draft. The ordinance addresses areas of the adopted policy that deals with legal requirements including policy considerations and petition/application processes. Would Council Members like to schedule this ordinance for formal action on an upcoming agenda? Council requested a briefing on the current policy and proposed policy changes . The Council also requested that the Administration not process any new alley vacation/closure requests until the Council finalized their policy review. Would Council Members like to indicate their preference for the Administration to resume processing alley applications? B. Utah Transit Authority Excursion to Los Angeles A UTA representative has contacted some Council Members to invite them to go on an excursion to look at the light rail and commuter rail systems in Los Angeles and San Diego. The excursion also would include a visit to the intermodal hub at San Diego. The excursion is scheduled tentatively for May 2 and 3. According to the • representative, UTA officials would like the entire City Council to go on the excursion because UTA thinks it would be helpful to see how light rail and commuter rail systems interconnect and relate to each other. UTA would pay for the excursion, the representative said. The excursion would be part of an overall UTA program to take public officials from municipalities involved in commuter rail and light rail projects to locations where commuter rail and light rail systems already operate. The representative said that those who would go on the excursion would fly from Salt Lake City the afternoon of May 2, arrive in Los Angeles and stay the night. The morning of May 3 excursion participants would take a commuter train into Los Angeles and transfer to a light rail train. After that, they would take a commuter train from Los Angeles to San Diego and inspect the San Diego intermodal hub. They then would go back to Los Angeles and return to Salt Lake City that evening (May 3). The UTA representative plans to contact every City Council Member and may have a brief itinerary by the end of the week. Are City Council Members interested in going on the excursion? Also, Council staff did not ask the representative if anyone from Council staff should go on the excursion because that is a City Council decision. Should someone from the City Council staff go with City Council Memb rs if they go on the excursion? Council indicated they would be interested in participating in the excursion, but paying their own way. Suggestions were made to include the SRO' s in San Diego with this excursion . They also indicated they would like a Council staff member to accompany them. C. Housing Authority Annual Report: Attached is the Annual Report to the Council from the Housing Authority. Would Council Members like to schedule a briefing? Not discussed. II. Council Office Policies Cindy Gust-Jensen reminded Council they were not to give away their Conference tickets . Ill. For Your Information A. Airport: Council staff has attached hard copies of a presentation Salt Lake City Department of Airports Marketing Director Buzz Hunt made to the Airport Board at its meeting on March 20. Staff also has an electronic version for Council Members who may want it. In addition to the presentation, Mr. Hunt made the following points: • • After the September 11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center the majority of airplanes that Delta Air Lines grounded were from routes along the East Coast. • • Salt Lake City is no longer Delta Air Lines' least profitable hub. • • Delta Air Lines' continues to work to redefine Salt Lake City's role as a hub. Part of the redefinition appears to involve an increase in Delta's market share of east- west traffic and increasing Delta's east-west market flow through Salt Lake City. • • Delta Air Lines' will continue to increase its reliance on regional jets to serve passengers. Even so, Salt Lake City still has non-stop service 38 of the top 50 markets in the United States including non-stop service to the top 28 U.S. markets. • • Ultimately, although the number of standard-sized jets may continue to decline in the future, the number of seats available for passengers is expected to grow. Ms . Gust-Jensen asked Council to review the information on the Airport included in their packets . IV. Meetings SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: April 2, 2002 SUBJECT: Dedicating Private Streets to Public Ownership Briefing STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears, Budget & Policy Analyst CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rocky Fluhart, Jay Magure, Margaret Hunt, David Dobbins, Stephen Goldsmith, Brett Wilde, Wayne Mills, Luann Clark, Steve Fawcett, Gordon Hoskins, Randy Hillier, Chuck Call, Rick Johnston and Rick Graham Document Type Budget-Related Policy-Related Facts Miscellaneous Facts Facts Transmittal If the City Council The Council in the past The Administration from decided to accept the funded the engineering and was asked to do a cost Administration dedication of private design of some private analysis of the privat containing streets to public streets with CDBG funds. streets to public analysis and ownership without CIP or General Fund ownership issue.The background. requiring the streets money cannot be used to Administration did not to meet a quality fund rehabilitation or make any standard, the cost to improvements to private recommendations bring the streets up streets.The Council does concerning the to standard would be not have a written policy analysis.The Council over$8,000,000. regarding the funding of may make a policy There will be private streets before statement without increased O/M costs dedication to public adopting a resolution associated with the ownership. or ordinance. dedicated streets. The Administration has provided the attached analysis that the City Council requested during the CDBG budget process for fiscal year 2001-2002. The Administration did not make any recommendations concerning the analysis but has remained consistent in their funding recommendations to the Council. The Administration has not recommended funding the rehabilitation or improvements necessary to bring private streets up to City standards. For a private street to become publicly owned, the street must be of a certain standard. If the owners of the private street pay for the upgrade of the private street, the City has been willing to dedicate the street into the public way. Currently the only funding options available to private street owners are Community Development Block Grant funds. These funds can only be used for the engineering and design of the street. The funds cannot be used for the actual construction of the street unless the City is willing to dedicate the street into the public way without the street meeting certain standards. Page 1 The Council has several options relating to this issue. The Council can adopt policy that will guide the Council as funding requests are evaluated or pass a resolution or ordinance specifying how private streets will be considered when a dedication request is received. The Council may wish to form a subcommittee to make recommendations to the full Council on this topic. The Council may also wish to note that each year there are requests within the CDBG budget process for CDBG funds_for. the design and engineering of private streets. The Council will consider two such requests during the CDBG process for fiscal year 2002-2003. MATTERS AT ISSUE: • Some private streets have been receiving some City services. - The Council may wish to confirm the amount of service being provided on these streets and determine whether or not stopping service on these streets is feasible. The Council may also wish to evaluate the dedication of those streets that are receiving public services. • The cost to bring all private streets up to City standards will be approximately $8,000,000. There may be additional costs that will have to be paid for from Enterprise Funds, etc. - The Council may wish to clarify that the City has the resources to fund the rehabilitation of private streets and that there is sufficient revenue to provide for the additional public services that will be provided on the private streets. • There are several standards that are in place for the street and utility infrastructure on the private streets. The homeowners may have been able to purchase their property at a lower rate due to the lower standards, but are still responsible for paying the same property taxes as others and as such argue that they should receive the same services as other City residents. • The City may be faced with requests for dedication in the future. The Council may wish to clarify what criteria will be used to evaluate a request for dedication if the property owners do not wish to make a request while the City Council is reviewing this issue? ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The Administration will have several staff members available to answer questions during the briefing on April 4, 2002. The transmittal from the Administration contains a detailed analysis with background; estimated improvement costs, funding options, implementation strategies and estimated maintenance costs. Page 2 4 STEPHEN A. GOLDSMITH I 1,�)1 " " l C: l yt GI. �1®.,_W RDSS C. ANDERSON • PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B. WILDE PLANNING DIVISION DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL CL iill TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officerd' DATE: FROM: Stephen Goldsmith, Planning Director ..S.-- RE: Dedicating Private Streets to Public Ownership STAFF CONTACT: Wayne Mills 535-6173 RECOMMENDATION: The City Council schedule this item for a briefing DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing Document BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: Within the past few years, the Administration has received a number of requests from owners of residential properties that front on privately owned streets, to dedicate those streets to public ownership. These requests are mainly from residents who live on private mid-block streets in older,moderate to low-income neighborhoods within the Central Community. Since the dedication and improvement of additional streets will have a significant ongoing financial impact, the City needs to decide how to address this issue. Analysis: The attached report identifies 60 private streets that have residential frontage. An initial estimate of$8,154,150 would be needed to improve the streets so that they.comply with City standards. There are programs available to aid in funding these improvements; however, money is limited. Once the City improves and assumes responsibility of a street it is then responsible for the maintenance of that street. See the attached report for details on the identification of known private streets, a cost estimate to improve those streets, potential funding programs for improvements, and yearly maintenance costs of an average 15-foot wide publicly owned street. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1 TELEPHONE:801-535-7757 FAX: 801-535-6174 C. RECYCLED PAPER CITY COUNCIL POLICY DISCUSSION PRIVATE STREETS BACKGROUND Within the past few years,the Salt Lake City Administration has received a number of requests from owners of residential properties that front on privately owned streets, to improve and dedicate those streets to public ownership.These requests are mainly from residents who live on private mid-block streets in older,moderate to low-income neighborhoods within the Central Community. Changes in property ownership have resulted in many property owners being unaware that their street is private and asking why their street is not being maintained when they pay the same amount of taxes for municipal services as owners of similar properties fronting public streets.Many of these private streets do receive some City services such as garbage collection and snow removal. Others, such as Fenway Avenue, have City posted"No Parking"signs and the City receives revenue generated from parking tickets distributed on those streets. Since the dedication and improvement of additional streets will have a significant ongoing financial impact,the City needs to decide how to address this issue. ANALYSIS Private Streets Identified Attachment 1 shows the distribution of all known private streets throughout the City. Each street is identified as either a: • Private Access; • Private Right-of-Way; • PUD(Planned Development)and Condos; or • Apartments and Trailer Parks The following defines these classifications: Private Access: Adjacent property owners own the street,usually to the centerline. Private Right-of-Way: Adjacent property owners do not own the street; however,they have a right-of-way easement over the street. Planned Developments and Condos: Private streets created within planned developments and condominium projects.By ordinance,new private streets within planned developments and condos require a maintenance fund to be established so that the streets can be maintained. Apartments and Trailer Parks: Private streets that serve either as driveways or internal circulation systems for apai t,iients and trailer parks. The majority of inquiries received from property owners are regarding private access and rights-of-way that are characteristically narrow streets located in the middle of the ten acre blocks in the Central 1 Community. The adjacent land use is typically single-family residential. For the purpose of this analysis, calculations were made only on private rights-of-way and accesses that have residential properties fronting the street.Most of these streets are zoned residential; however, some may be identified that are zoned non-residential. Those that are zoned non-residential are mainly in or near the Central Business District and further analysis of the viability and future of these residential pockets may result in some of these streets being considered a lower priority for street and utility improvements Private streets that have residential frontage but have been targeted for redevelopment have been excluded from the calculations. Streets that provide frontage for planned developments and condominiums have not been included in staff's calculations because these properties were specifically designed to a private street standard. As indicated above,newer planned development and condominium developments are required to provide funds for street maintenance. Older developments may, or may not,have street maintenance funds set aside,but staff has viewed these streets as a lesser priority and costs of accepting and improving these streets have not been calculated. Costs for improving apai tuients and trailer court private streets and driveways have also not been calculated because they serve as access and circulation to those developments only.These generally have street names but were not created for the purpose of public access. Attachment 2 contains a spreadsheet of all known private streets.Those that are residential are highlighted.A map has been included to show the distribution of these streets. The following summarizes the number of identified residential private accesses and rights-of-way and their total number of lineal feet: Number of Private Accesses= 10 Number of Private Rights-of-way=50 Total=60 Total linear feet of Private Accesses=4,457 feet Total liner feet of Private Rights-of-way=21,435 feet Total=25,892 feet Estimated Improvement Costs As is stated above,many of the residential private accesses and rights-of-way have become deteriorated. The Salt Lake City Engineering Division and Public Utilities Department have calculated the following cost estimates for the City to improve all of the identified residential private accesses and right-of-ways. The calculations are based on a rough estimate only as each street differs in width and magnitude of deterioration. Pavement Calculations are based on an average street width of 15 feet. Overall Total Length of Residential Private Rights-of-Way and Accesses=25,892 feet Estimated cost of Pavement Improvements=$120.00 per linear foot Estimated Total Cosa: 25,892 linear feet @$120.00 per linear foot=$3,107,040.00 2 Utility Improvements(Attachment 3 Provides a Cost Estimate by Street for Each Type of Improvement) Water=$1,581,310 Sanitary Sewer=$2,666,000 Drainage=$799,800 Total Estimated Cost=$5,047,110 • Total Estimated cost of surface and utility improvements combined: $8,154,150 Funding Options Most of the requests by property owners to have their private street dedicated to the City are the result of the street becoming deteriorated,and the property owners'expectation that the City will provide maintenance. The cost of upgrading the street to the required standards is significant. There are several potential funding options to assist in the reconstruction of private streets.The following is a list of those options with some accompanying facts: Community Development Block Grant Program(CDBG) • Funding is limited. • Applicants may apply for,and receive,design funding prior to the street becoming publicly owned.The City must own the street before construction funding is received. • All property owners that own a portion of the street must be in support of dedicating the street to the City. • The City follows a street dedication policy that involves input from abutting property owners and affected City Departments. • The street must be located within a CDBG eligible district.The map in Attachment 2 shows which private residential streets fall within CDBG eligible areas. • Since 1981,thirty-nine private streets have been improved and dedicated to the City through the CDBG program.Attachment 4 contains a spreadsheet listing those streets and a map showing the distribution. Capital Improvement Program(CIP) • Funding is limited. • Funding private streets reduces available funds for a backlog of needs on existing public streets. • CIP funds can be used for public infrastructure only.A private street must be dedicated to the City prior to when the CIP board and staff present recommendations for funding to the Mayor.This causes a problem because the City is reluctant to take on a private street before funding is available. Special Improvement District(SID) • Costs to upgrade a private street may be shared by the City. • The program is similar to the CIP in that Special Improvement District funds must be used for public infrastructure. 3 General Fund • All applicable City departments could budget for additional street design,construction and maintenance money. Implementation Strategies to Aid the Funding Options Reversionary Clause • The City may elect to assume responsibility for a street without improvement funding secured.A reversionary clause would dedicate the street to the City; however, if funding were not received to upgrade the streets within an established time frame,the street would revert back to private ownership.This may allow for a more effective facilitation of the funding mechanisms mentioned above by assuring that public money would be spent on public infrastructure. City Initiated Block Redesign • The City assumes responsibility for design and funding of street and related block improvements in the form of a small area plan. • Funding would need to come from one of the above-mentioned funding options. Estimated Maintenance Costs When the City improves and assumes responsibility of a street,the City also assumes the responsibility of maintaining that street. The following numbers are rough estimates of the yearly maintenance cost of an average 15' wide street. Pavement Asphalt surface=$ .40 per linear foot Concrete surface=$ .25 per linear foot based on the replacement of 10%of concrete slabs over 20 years. Surface improvements do not necessarily occur on a yearly basis. Utilities Water=$1.08 per linear foot Sewer=$ .75 per linear foot Drainage=$ .73 per linear foot Utility maintenance includes cleaning out sewers and drains,exercising water valves, and flushing hydrants. Public Services Snow Removal=$0.10 per linear foot Signage=$0.01 per linear foot Signage may include new street identification signs,no parking signs, dead end signs, etc. 4 CONCLUSION In summary, Salt Lake City's transportation infrastructure consists of many privately owned streets. Through time several of these streets have become deteriorated resulting in property owners requesting the City to make improvements and take ownership of these accesses and rights of-way. An initial estimate of$8,154,150 will be needed to improve the sixty private residential accesses and rights-of-way identified in this report. Options exist within Salt Lake City's current funding programs; however,the use of programs such as the CIP and SID result in the reduction of money available to improve the City's existing public infrastructure.The report does show that the past program of using CDBG funds to dedicate and upgrade private streets has provided a beneficial improvement to many residential interior block streets. Attachments: 1. Salt Lake City Private Streets 2. Residential Private Streets 3. Utility Costs 4. Private Streets Improved and Dedicated through the CDBG Program 5 Attachment 1 Salt Lake City Private Streets • WOK ill! ! I ��" ) Map of °'�" AI r , SALT LAKE CITY „w , " � ► PRIVATE STREETS SALT LAKE CITY a II iIIII '\ 1111 1 a 1�1 I1l!•III ' ' A I. s ""°°M 11 Q ,»" 11�1■fill _ R�� ■_■�■m■ Il 'If�l■1 1 e ��WIZ/ -fl ■ ■ aausz� a a 1-80 nocrosewes ar ms H <1 _ �� ■� a I-80 - 7�lri / 1 111 SUN ERS �`►I _ i— woman wpmE.11r OF UTA• t ewe � :=fl� IL ■1111. filf�� i71mismirimr� w.° �.� ' 90 enrol.Avb .-■_I_ , I 1 2 lOW 11=1Traliritgill - ' -■■■■ un`sn' r\�■■ell■0■■►'IIII2 t"�..��g ..�.... 7. 1M _ ON III 441 w" �_ \t � rri_ `CG ,ex .p AVE 11 �9i! .�I — l 1 III I I = 1153S .! E I atio a „.° . 1.2e8 ! 1u1P1 1111 — — — 11 im.,...1 lam. irk _ii, ;•_ MOB _ 1 :Flii MA P LEGEND __ � ��- l+z 3vnal1 � `Private Street Ownershipi 1 �T J 71i 11111 � 0 - Apartments&Trailer Parks Private Access mim,.. �— P.U.D.&Condo Private Right of Way „' g Salt Lake City Planning Division Geographic Information System September 2001 Attachment 2 Residential Private Streets Private Str ets within Salt Lake City Private Access and Right of Ways that have residential address frontage and are zoned residential have been highlighted. Those identified as none/res are streets that serve as driveway access to a housing complex or are non- vehicular/pedestrian walkways. Some street names appear more than once even though they are in the same location.This is due to the use of ARCVIEW software,which lists every individual segment of a street.Example:Barbara Street, located between 500 South and 1100 East,is a curved street.Each segment of the curve is listed. FT ,ri)i ° 1,_ :�a1[ 4 a'L.3 .0 x!..8x..•°�l,.�r ova:i.�>eE t' 1 if41): Eote teAeces5 resdgiitre6 i .R=1=79Qf1<,: 1100 W Private Access 1200 E 1700 S-Blaine Private Access none 1250 S 3200 W Private Access none 1280 W Apts.,Trailer 1280 W Apts.,Trailer 1300 W Apts.,Trailer 1300 W Apts.,Trailer 1320 W Apts.,Trailer 1330 W Apts.,Trailer 1330 W Apts.,Trailer 1330 W Apts.,Trailer 1330 W Apts.,Trailer 1340 W Apts.,Trailer 140 N Apts.,Trailer 1650 W Apts.,Trailer 180 N Apts.,Trailer S$-;of -;i,i '^-f 1vat§.l1'ccg99, 1800 W S.of 1100 N. Private Access none 18g1.N, N14POP,i PnvatelVd ! [?agp6al s,s ;F. f I-7000 -` 200 N Apts.,Trailer 200 N Apts.,Trailer 200 N Apts.,Trailer 200 N Apts.,Trailer 200 N Apts.,Trailer 200 N Apts.Trailer 2100 W N.of North Temple Private Access commercial 240 N Apts.,Trailer 260 N Apts.,Trailer .aa --,*(f,fr .k a2? Yf- l# :.,*Pik 280 N Apts.,Trailer 280 N Apts.,Trailer 280 N Apts.,Trailer 3030 W N.of Calitomia Private Access none 3090 W N.of California Private Access none 3150 W N.of California Private Access none 345 S Orange-Redwood Private Access none 345 S Orange-Redwood Private Access none 345S Orange-Redwood Private Access none 450 W S.of 1700 S. Private Access commercial 450 W S.of 1700 S. Private Access commercial 500 W 500 N.-600 N. Private Access commercial 640 S 300 E.-400 E. Private Access none 6500 W N.of North Temple Private Access none 700 N 800 W.-1-15 Private Access none/res 1 Private Street within Salt Lake City • 700 S 800 W.-1-15 Private Access church 715 N 800 W.-1-15 Private Access none 800 N 400 W.-500 W. Private Access commercial 7tt Moat goon RQW d 6 —"i-w z -[3(?f" W Pi tat�;t O '= `�` ,i >'t =Ws` � = ALIfA s =-° wry'_WOW— _ " Y= ,r6e �';��oR.'e�'��r'r.- .',s'•:��'. ALLEN PARK E.of 1300 East Private Access none/res ANDREW Cheyenne-Navajo Private Access commercial ANGELITA P.U.D.,Condo e ANGELITA P.U.D.,Condo ANGELITA P.U.D.,Condo ANGELITA P.U.D.,Condo ANGELITA P.U.D.,Condo ANGELITA P.U.D.,Condo ANGELITA P.U.D.,Condo ANGELITA P.U.D.,Condo ANGELITA P.U.D.,Condo ANGELITA P.U.D.,Condo ANGELITA P.U.D.,Condo ANGELITA P.U.D.,Condo ARNOLD 300 E.-400 E. Private ROW none BAILEY 200 W.-300 W. Private ROW commercial tea, B LTfQ = Wes- ray ate RQ ;_: d a 1_yw } BAMBROUGH P.U.D.,Condo u + BARE `� � AWL:tt s raiim ai ts, Jam' 7=' � -K _='-- '` lt2„�- i€ BARBS ' ,� " s-',P aiiA 1 - d - ` t,s > 0: VOVViet BISHOP FEDERAL 400 E.-500 E. Private Access none/res 81;4t} r€ ; F.a R(l 1fr BLISS P.U.D.,Condo BOULEVARD GARDENS W.Temple-Main St Private Access none/res BRAMPTON Apts.,Trailer BRAMPTON Apts.,Trailer BRAMPTON Apts.,Trailer BRIAR ROSE Apts.,Trailer BRIGHT P.U.D.,Condo BRIGHT P.U.D.,Condo 0 k '4` -'?sf g�ey . ;ass �� .y#;� a';�"rd ",+ B$ �F `f7"-"`i'`. r't;rt �: { .i�€a- 'u". "' ""` ' BUNBURY Apts.,Trailer BUNBURY Apts.,Trailer BUNBURY Apts.,Trailer BUTTERWORTH 200 S.-300 S. Private ROW none CANYON OAKS P.U.D.,Condo 2 Private Streets within Salt Lake City CANYON OAKS P.U.D.,Condo CANYON OAKS P.U.D.,Condo CANYON OAKS P.U.D.,Condo CANYON OAKS P.U.D.,Condo CANYON OAKS P.U.D.,Condo CANYON OAKS P.U.D.,Condo CANYON OAKS P.U.D.,Condo CANYON OAKS P.U.D.,Condo CANYON OAKS P.U.D.,Condo CANYON OAKS P.U.D.,Condo 41* CANYON OAKS P.U.D.,Condo CANYON OAKS P.U.D.,Condo CANYON OAKS P.U.D.,Condo cCMY SIDE ti r :,M ,-0 W nd P"nvat f2 �; 2'> i<-- z.��. ,,� ��-:<`;�r:_. � � f�t� rssii�eiitia�m=� �:��:t�,_ CfEk+1F4 CAPITOL OAKS P.U.D.,Condo CAPITOL OAKS P.U.D.,Condo CAPITOL OAKS P.U.D.,Condo CAPITOL OAKS P.U.D.,Condo CAPITOL OAKS P.U.D.,Condo CAPITOL PARK P.U.D.,Condo CAPITOL PARK P.U.D.,Condo CAPITOL PARK P.U.D.,Condo CAPITOL PARK P.U.D.,Condo CAPITOL PARK P.U.D.,Condo CAPITOL PARK P.U.D.,Condo CAPITOL PARK P.U.D.,Condo CAPITOL PARK P.U.D.,Condo • CAPITOL PARK P.U.D.,Condo CAPITOL PARK P.U.D.,Condo CAPITOL PARK P.U.D.,Condo CAPITOL PARK P.U.D.,Condo CAPITOL PARK P.U.D.,Condo CAPITOL PARK P.U.D.,Condo CAPITOL PARK P.U.D.,Condo CARING P.U.D.,Condo CARING P.U.D.,Condo CARRIGAN P.U.D.,Condo CARRIGAN P.U.D.,Condo CARRIGAN P.U.D.,Condo CARRIGAN CANYON P.U.D.,Condo CARRIGAN CANYON P.U.D.,Condo CARRIGAN CANYON P.U.D.,Condo CARRIGAN CANYON P.U.D.,Condo CARRIGAN CANYON P.U.D.,Condo CARRIGAN CANYON P.U.D.,Condo _ CARRIGAN CANYON P.U.D.,Condo CARRIGAN CANYON P.U.D.,Condo CARRIGAN CANYON P.U.D.,Condo CARRIGAN CANYON P.U.D.,Condo CARRIGAN CANYON P.U.D.,Condo CATHERINE Riverview-Reclamal Private Access commercial CATON P.U.D.,Condo CATON P.U.D.,Condo CATON P.U.D.,Condo CATON P.U.D.,Condo • CATON P.U.D.,Condo CATON P.U.D.,Condo CATON P.U.D.,Condo 3 Private Street within Salt Lake City CHAPS.- * '=_ -:4 '="¢ .,_..Anita e.. s:4i 2 5 . _ . :�� _... ��- .�z--<-:.. �� ems- -red: a ��Rn- , ;w Y CHARITY P.U.D.,Condo CHARITY P.U.D.,Condo CHARITY P.U.D.,Condo CHASE U of U Private ROW none CLAWSON 400 E.-u00 E. Private Access commercial %-" . r PrvaCe ROWW1 WU' COMMONS 3800 W.-California Private Access none CONNECTICUT P.U.D.,Condo , CONNECTICUT P.U.D.,Condo CONNECTICUT P.U.D.,Condo CONNECTICUT P.U.D.,Condo CONNECTICUT P.U.D.,Condo CONNECTICUT P.U.D.,Condo CONNECTICUT P.U.D.,Condo CONNECTICUT P.U.D.,Condo CONNECTICUT P.U.D.,Condo CONNECTICUT P.U.D.,Condo CONNECTICUT P.U.D.,Condo CONNECTICUT P.U.D.,Condo CONNECTICUT LN P.U.D.,Condo COTTAGE 300 E.-400 E. Private Access none COVEY VIEW P.U.D.,Condo COVEY VIEW P.U.D.,Condo COVEY VIEW P.U.D.,Condo COVEY VIEW P.U.D.,Condo COVEY VIEW P.U.D.,Condo CRAGS P.U.D.,Condo CRAGS P.U.D.,Condo CRAGS P.U.D.,Condo G $!! t ? fib} Gib•° PNE==� = p DALTON E.of Redwood Private ROW mix DELMAR 200 S.-300 S. Private Access none/res DELWOOD 200 S.-300 S. Private ROW none DELWOOD 300 S.-400 S. Private ROW none DENVER 300 S.-400 S. Private ROW commercial DIAMOND ROSE P.U.D.,Condo DIAMOND ROSE P.U.D.,Condo DIAMOND ROSE P.U.D.,Condo DOUGLAS 100 S.-200 S. Private Access commercial DOUGLAS CORRIGAN Charles Lindberg-W Private Access commercial DOUGLAS CORRIGAN Charles Lindberg-W Private Access commercial DUBEI 200 S.-300 S. Private ROW commercial DUDER Redwood-North Ter Private Access residential CS DUDER Redwood-North Ter Private Access residential CS EARDLEY Main-Street Private ROW commercial EAST E.of 900 West Private ROW none EAST CAPITOL P.U.D.,Condo EAST CAPITOL P.U.D.,Condo EAST CAPITOL P.U.D.,Condo EAST CAPITOL P.U.D.,Condo EAST CAPITOL P.U.D.,Condo EAST CAPITOL P.U.D.,Condo EAST CAPITOL P.U.D.,Condo 4 Private Streets within Salt Lake City EAST CAPITOL P.U.D.,Condo EAST CAPITOL P.U.D.,Condo EAST CAPITOL P.U.D.,Condo ELIZABETH Apts.,Trailer ELIZABETH Apts.,Trailer ELIZABETH Apts.,Trailer ELIZA@ET17 4 *,50 -.'%. ateROWr ` @WiS°AA„S> ELM TREE Apts.,Trailer ELWOOD 500 E.600 E. Private Access none/res EI X WOO RO*Q{ 4.4 .,*1 00 s? ^F-30 EMERSOM -z 3 _0:.40d E; Pmlale ROk; resrdQiitral ;' is="fit RMF35,,,';, EMPIRE 1700 S.-Associated Private Access commercial ERIE. "_` :R §0,114..;.-`eil'Re ROW" resi iiilC 3 rim. FALL Apts.,Trailer FALL Apts.,Trailer FEDERAL POINTE P.U.D.,Condo FEDERAL POINTE P.U.D.,Condo FEDERAL POINTE P.U.D.,Condo FEDERAL POINTE P.U.D.,Condo FEDERAL POINTE P.0 D.,Condo FEDERAL POINTE P.U.D.,Condo FEDERAL POINTE P.U.D.,Condo FEDERAL POINTE P.U.D.,Condo FEDERAL POINTE P.U.D.,Condo FEDERAL POINTE P.U.D.,Condo FEDERAL POINTE(S) P.U.D.,Condo FEDERAL POINTE(S) P.U.D.,Condo FEDERAL POINTE(S) P.U.D.,Condo FEDERAL POINTE(S) P.U.D.,Condo FEDERAL POINTE(S) P.U.D.,Condo FEDERAL POINTE(5) P.U.D.,Condo FEDERAL POINTE(S) P.U.D.,Condo FEDERAL POINTE(S) P.U.D.,Condo FEDERAL POINTE(S) P.U.D.,Condo FEDERAL POINTE(S) P U.D.,Condo FEDERAL POINTE(S) P.U.D.,Condo * ROW,:x s i4411.44tIgitM.Y,Matei FIG TREE Apts.,Trailer FINCH University-100 S. Private Access none FLORAL 200 S.-300 S. Private Access commercial FORBES PARK P.U.D.,Condo FOREST FARM P.U.D.,Condo FOREST PARK P.U.D.,Condo FOREST SPRING P.U.D.,Condo FOREST SPRING P.U.D.,Condo FOREST SPRING P.U.D.,Condo FOREST SPRING P.U.D.,Condo FOULGER Paxton-Harvard Private ROW residential CC FULLER 600 E.-700 E. Private ROW none sw ?stCr( f_ • s"" :; GALE 500 S.-600 S. Private ROW commercial GIRARD 500 W.-600 W. Private ROW commercial GRANDRIDGE P.U.D.,Condo GRANDRIDGE P.U.D.,Condo 5 Private Street within Salt Lake City GRANDRIDGE P.U.D.,Condo J GRANDRIDGE P.U.D.,Condo GRANDRIDGE CT P.U.D.,Condo GRANDRIDGE CT P.U.D.,Condo GRANT S.of 1700 S. Private Access commercial GRANT S.of 715 N. Private Access none/res GRAYSTONE P.U.D.,Condo GREEN 600 S.-700 S. Private Access none GREGORY Main-State Private ROW none GUNNEtt:" -_,- -..6f141W411**,100:1444C7F 44444,1 =;'A; fN}4a ._ H HANOVER P.U.D.,Condo HANOVER P.U.D.,Condo HANOVER P.U.D.,Condo HANOVER P.U.D.,Condo HAROLD N.Temple-Redwooi Private Access residential CS HARVARD OAKS P.U.D.,Condo HARVARD OAKS P.U.D.,Condo HARVARD OAKS P.U.D.,Condo HARVARD OAKS P.U.D.,Condo HARVARD OAKS P.U.D.,Condo HARVARD OAKS P.U.D.,Condo HARVEST Apts.,Trailer t A- KE S 1'Po _0014,0034ZW NA_ HW LOti N rr- a bvatt R01 :<v==resr t _ , ' HEATHER 100 S.-200 S. Private Access none HIDDEN VILLA Apts.,Trailer HIDDEN VILLA Apts.,Trailer HIDDEN VILLA Apts.,Trailer HYDE PARK P.U.D.,Condo INDIAN SUMMER Apts.,Trailer INDIAN SUMMER Apts.,Trailer INDIAN SUMMER Apts.,Trailer INDIAN SUMMER Apts.,Trailer INDIAN SUMMER Apts.,Trailer INDIAN SUMMER Apts.,Trailer INDIAN SUMMER Apts.,Trailer tSABEW-f_v 4' -. S j ROWram : 0,11014ff ISOM G St-H St. Private Access none IVz _ ='vim E3{ . }__ : JACKSON 800 W.-900 W. Private ROW none JACKSON PARK P.U.D.,Condo JEFFERSON 700 S.-800 S. Private ROW none JUNIPERPOINT P.U.D.,Condo JUNIPERPOINT P.U.D.,Condo JUNIPERPOINT P.U.D.,Condo JUNIPERPOINT P.U.D.,Condo JUNIPERPOINT P.U.D.,Condo JUNIPERPOINT CT P.U.D.,Condo JUNIPERPOINT CT P.U.D.,Condo KIERSTIN P.U.D.,Condo KILBY 700 S.-800 S. Private ROW mix KNIGHTSBRIDGE P.U.D.,Condo KNIGHTSBRIDGE P.U.D.,Condo KNIGHTSBRIDGE P.U.D.,Condo KNIGHTSBRIDGE P.U.D.,Condo 6 Private Street within Salt Lake City 140NET . :, ems.-. r;,.- IN3 >`Prntate R 41 it :Mt =MO 011:EggeM 4401aVa,Prix!a Rtt}" tx . t" --- LAYTON 700 W.-900 W. Private Access commercial LAYTON 700 W.-900 W. Private Access commercial LAYTON 700 W.-900 W. Private Access commercial L EtJ ;'ZIMai "'. te.IQ.. � C 5r,`.?`'ti;^_._..,..,-3:..r i � -»,. •'t�-3�g4•-�: LOGAN 300 E.-400 E. Private Access none/res • [LO�WEFLjL { State-200 E. Private ROW government r_—01,0 4 Prn'rafe Rmat,%s"i e' '. Ta0WE U i " =,_ t r �. PnyateRCS' . _ e ir. : , * E''MAN_. ._.4I__-...*- ? &` :, ,. F?rwateRO :_:attaimmoiajtMet MAJOR 700 S.-800 S. Private ROW commercial MAJOR Paxton-Fremont Private ROW commercial MAPLE TREE Apts.,Trailer MARGUERITE 300 S.-400 S. Private ROW none Vtlaitt 'fix Bolo ,•Pivai,.RC, w , MCCLELLAND S.of Sugarmont Private ROW government OPOPIPMe fgl MEND(} t :. _, MIDLAND S.of 1900 N. Private Access commercial MOFFATT 300 S.-400 S. Private ROW commercial MONTROSE 200 W.-300 W. Private ROW commercial MijislTF M:= O v._ ,. �.- �., •��-ems 4114' MORTENSEN 500 S.-600 S. Private ROW none MOTOR S.of 1000 W. Private Access none ::; :.atligy -„ 001 RE} tc2 n,fi 30/113 NEW BEDFORD P.U.D.,Condo NEW BEDFORD P.U.D.,Condo NEW BEDFORD P.U.D.,Condo NEW BEDFORD P.U.D.,Condo NEW BEDFORD P.U.D.,Condo NEW BEDFORD P.U.D.,Condo NEW BEDFORD P.U.D.,Condo NEW BEDFORD P.U.D.,Condo NEW BEDFORD P.U.D.,Condo NEW BONNEVILLE P.U.D.,Condo NEW BONNEVILLE P.U.D.,Condo NEW BONNEVILLE P.U.D.,Condo NEW BONNEVILLE P.U.D.,Condo NEW BONNEVILLE P.U.D.,Condo NEW BONNEVILLE P.U.D.,Condo NEW BONNEVILLE P.U.D.,Condo NEW BONNEVILLE P.U.D.,Condo NEW BONNEVILLE P.U.D.,Condo NEW BONNEVILLE P.U.D.,Condo NEW BONNEVILLE P.U.D.,Condo NEW BONNEVILLE P.U.D.,Condo NEW BONNEVILLE P.U.D.,Condo NOBLE 700 E.-800 E. Private Access none/res kW" , NORTHPOINT P.U.D.,Condo NORTHPOINT P.U.D.,Condo NORTHPOINT P.U.D.,Condo NORTHPOINT P.U.D.,Condo 7 Private Street within Salt Lake City NORTHPOINT P.U.D.,Condo NORTHPOINT P.U.D.,Condo NORTHPOINT P.U.D.,Condo NORTHPOINT P.U.D.,Condo NORTHPOINT P.U.D.,Condo NORTHPOINT P.U.D.,Condo NORTHPOINT P.U.D.,Condo OAK FOREST P.U.D.,Condo OAK FOREST P.U.D.,Condo OAK FOREST P.U.D.,Condo OAK FOREST P.U.D.,Condo OAK FOREST P.U.D.,Condo OAK FOREST P.U.D.,Condo OAK TREE Apts.,Trailer OAK TREE Apts.,Trailer ORCHARD 200 W.-300 W. Private ROW commercial P.U.D.,Condo P.U.D.,Congo PACIFIC 500 W.-600 W. Private ROW commercial A YAY _ - max: 4m PENNY PARADE P.U.D.,Condo PLEASANT 400 S.-500 S. Private ROW commercial D2 PLUM 100 S.-200 S. Private ROW commercial POPLAR 200 S.-300 S. Private ROW commercial PORTOLA W.Temple-200 We,Private ROW commercial PROSPECT E.of Dalton Private ROW mix PROSPECT E.of Dalton Private ROW mix QUAIL ESTATES P.U.D.,Condo QUAIL ESTATES P.U.D.,Condo QUAIL ESTATES P.U.D.,Condo QUAIL ESTATES P.U.D.,Condo QUAIL ESTATES P.U.D.,Condo QUAIL ESTATES P.U.D.,Condo QUAIL ESTATES P.U.D.,Condo QUAIL ESTATES P.U.D.,Condo QUAIL ESTATES P.U.D.,Condo REDBRICK P.U.D.,Condo .- OMI,f . Wiz": ' 10—,� '§��'"� >',';' 400:Mit REDONDO 800 E.-900 E. Private Access none REDONDO 800 E.-900 E. Private Access none REDONDO Main-State Private ROW residential BP/CC REEVES 300 S.-400 S. Private Access none/res RICHARDS 700 S.-800 S. Private ROW commercial RIVERVIEW Midland-Catherine Private Access commercial RIVERVIEW Midland-Catherine Private Access commercial SALLIE P.U.D.,Condo SANDHURST P.U.D.,Condo SANDHURST P.U.D.,Condo SANDHURST P.U.D.,Condo SANDHURST P.U.D.,Condo SANDHURST P.U.D.,Condo SANDHURST P.U.D.,Condo SANDHURST P.U.D.,Condo SANDHURST P.U.D.,Condo SANDHURST P.U.D.,Condo SANDHURST P.U.D.,Condo SANDHURST P.U.D.,Condo 8 . ' Private Streets within Salt Lake City SANDHUR8 PKD..Cond 0ANDHURGT P.U.D..Comdo GANDHURST P.UD,Comdo GANDHURST P.U.D,Cnndo axNDHUR8T P.U.D,Condo SANDHURGT P.U.D,Condo SANDHUR8T P.U.D,Condo SANDHURST P.U.D,ConUo GANDHUR8T P.U.D,Condo SAMDHURST P.U,D,ConUo ^, 8ANDHUR8T P.U.D,Cnn0o 8ANDHUR8T P.U.D,ConUo 8ANDHURST P.U.D,Condo 8ANDHUR0T P.U.o,Condo SECRET GARDEN Ao*,Tmi|m IF *� 50�3 SEWARD 600YK'1'15 Private Access none ' SHELMERD|NE 3008.'4008. Private ROW omnmomiu/ SLADE 400E 500E Private ROW omnmocia| SNOW QUEEN Apts,Tmi|er SNOW QUEEN Apm,Trai|o, " SPRING 4ym.,Trailer SPRING Aym,Tm|/er SPRING Aym,Trai&n SPRING A»ts,Tmi|er 8TR|N8FELL0m 000S. 700S. Private ROW omnmmnia| - -- ___ __—'._~--_,—~__.~~�~�~-�� SUMMER Apto,Tmiler SUMMER Apts,Tmihn SUN ARBOR Aots,Tmi/m TRApAL8A P.U.D..Cundo TRApALG^V&«Y P.U.D,Coodo TUTTLE 400N.'500N. Private ROW mmatres TwHCKENHAM P.U.D,Cundo TN|CKENHAM P.U.D,Condo TWICKENHAM P.U.D,Coodo TW(SKENHAM P.U.D,Condo TW|CKENHAM P.UD,Condo TW|CKENHAM P.U.D.'Coodo UPTON Main State Private ROW commercial VERNIER 500E.600E. Private ROW none — VON BARON P8.[\.Condo — — V0YLES 1100E.'1200E. Private Access none - WASATCH 200 W.'300 W. Private ROW commercial - Y&�NE 80� � ' *� Private Access nom�� — vq WINTER A»ts.JmUm WINTER Apts,Trailer WOODBINE 700S'800 S. -Private ROW none ' WOODBINE 2000,'300S. Private ROW none YEAGER E.of Jimmy Doolittle Private Access omnmomia| 9 • l! Map of SALT LAKE CITY y r n.n , . PRIVATE STREETS 9lir ri_r SALT LAKE CITY . 4" � 'I INTERNATIONAL Jir .>° l_ CI pitg ' IllwE'1 � Oa? „ra 11Irt11\II' s I ■� 11■{'M lipMI=; 1 . a.a�eo m oa - n Q „n inulul 11■ � fm "� R .Mee,,e.anraa i I-- CI■1 �■ .. . i �w�I� 2■ 1Ern 111 Wr tom■ .- 4, 1 I-80 Ali --- lJI_ = �_�1 ■l_7r1 ;. _- k�UN ERS ``r mn■I■11�g■IC!.■■■lo■Cl. 11� OPu1(►SV j ••. maw E■ r�� ' 1 NI -Eck_ \ nemenounmemmim ...MAIL An ..a . :..:■. ■_��■111■1.1n111=■�■1_ei�____.\��. ffgunoirmsso ..2=na...warjErer -b 4. aauecroaa w 1 NE ■■� fY�■� �- a� s— ?iiIL!!!=IPI!II3P F Im i 17311 I le )/1 1 1 II ill mumem_w....,unim.4.7 mEm-m-reir �. �� .., N A / 1 e� MAP LEGEND N„ v`I ` 1 111111 0 Salt Lake CityPrivate Access&Right of Ways i I I i i_. That Have Residential Frontage gSUMMARY OF PRIVATE STREETS _� Private Access=4457 FT(]0 Total Streets) J' �L_ CDBG Income Eligible Areas Private ROW=21,435 FT(50 Total Streets) s� f Salt Lake City Planning Division Overall Total Length=25,892 FT(60 Total Streets) Geographic Information System September 2001 t Attachment 3 Utility Costs PRIVATE STREETS Cost Estimate to Upgrade Utilities Street Name Value Location Utility Work WATER SEWER DRAINAGE Replacement Cost Replacement Cost Replacement Cost Linear Feet $ 60.00 $ 100.00 $ 30.00 1000 E 1000 E 2635 S 2699 S 300 $ 18,000.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 9,000.00 1800 W 1800 W 850 N 960 N 550 $ 33,000.00 $ 55,000.00 $ 16,500.00 1800 W 1800 W 1050 N 1100 N 450 $ 27,000.00 $ 45,000.00 $ 13,500.00 2670 N 2670 N 2070 W 2415 W 1230 $ 73,800.00 $ 6 423,000.00 $ 36,900.00 ACORN CT 425 E 740 S 800 S 350 $ 21,000.00 $ 35,000.00 $ 10,500.00 ALAMEDA AVE 35 S 400 E 460 E 340 $ 20,400.00 $ 34,000.00 $ 10,200.00 ALIDA PL 165 W 580 N 600 N 320 $ 19,200.00 $ 32,000.00 $ 9,600.00 ALIDA PL 580:N 100 W 165 W 230 $ 13,800.00 $ 23,000.00 $ 6,900.00 BALTIC 400 N 500,N 390 $ 23,400.00 $ 39,000.00 $ 11,700.00 BANKS CT 850 E 200 S 225 S 250 $ 15,000.00 $ 25,000.00, $ 7,500.00 BARBARA PL 455 S 1010 E 1039 E 450 $ 27,000.00 $ 45,000.00 $ 13,500.00 BEAUMONT CT 525 W 435 N 500 N 400 $ 24,000.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 12,000.00 BISHOP PL 430 N 235 W 300 W 400 $ 24,000.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 12,000.00 BLAIR ST 340 E 400 S 440 S 400 $ 24,000.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 12,000.00 BRIXEN CT 920 E 600 S 700 S 800 $ 48,000.00 $ 80,000.00 $ 24,000.00 BUENO AVE 135 S 700 E 800 E 800 $ 48,000.00 $ 80,000.00 $ 24,000.00 CANYON SIDE RD 135 E 220 N 245 N 250 $ 15,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 7,500.00 CHAPMAN PL 225 S 400 E 432 E 400 $ 24,000.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 12,000.00 COLFAX AVE 635 S 200 E 240 E 400 $ 24,000.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 12,000.00 COLONIAL PL 620 S 1240 E 1300 E 400 $ 24,000.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 12,000.00 CRESTLINE CIR 1250 E 330 N 385 N 250 $ 15,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 7,500.00 EAST PL 430 S 900 E 945 E 400 $ 24,000.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 12,000.00 ELIZABETH ST 1135E 400 S 440 S 400 $ 24,000.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 12,000.00 ELY PL 640`S 640 E 700 E 400 $ 24,000.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 12,000.00 EMERSON 300 E 400 E 400 $ 24,000.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 12,000.00 ERIE ST 537 W 440 N 500 N 400 $ 24,000.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 12,000.00 FENWAY AVE 635 S 1200 E 1240 E 360 $ 21,600.00 $ 36,000.00 $ 10,800.00 FLETCHER CT 950 E 400 S 450 S 400 $ 24,000.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 12,000.00 FULLER AVE 445 S 1035 E 1100 E 600 $ 36,000.00 $ 60,000.00 $ 18,000.00 GIRARD PL 145 W 535 N 540 N 170 $ 10,200.00 $ 17,000.00 $ 5,100.00 GIRARD PL 535 N 135 W 145 W 100 $ 6,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 3,000.00 GOLD PL 1150 S 900 W 935 W 320 $ 19,200.00 $ 32,000.00 $ 9,600.00 GUNNELL PL 365 N 600 W 635 W 310 $ 310.00 $ 31,000.00 $ 9,300.00 HAWKES CT 635 E 132 S 200 S 400 $ 24,000.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 12,000.00 HAWTHORNE AVE 540 S 500 E 540 E 400 $ 24,000.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 12,000.00 HOYT PL 240 N 820 W 900 W 480 $ 28,800.00 $ 48,000.00 $ 14,400.00 ISABELLA CT 1040 E 500 S 540 S 400 $ 24,000.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 12,000.00 IVAN CT 735 E 255 S 300 S 300 $ 18,000.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 9,000.00 KILBOURNE CT 525 E 755 S 800 S 260 $ 15,600.00 $ 26,000.00 $ 7,800.00 KONETA CT 1030 E 500 S 540 S 800 $ 48,000.00 $ 80,000.00 $ 24,000.00 LAKER CT 822 E 300 S 350 S 400 $ 24,000.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 12,000.00 LAXON CT 915 W 140 N 200 N 400 $ 24,000.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 12,000.00 LINDEN AVE 345 S 1000 E 1040 E 400 $ 24,000.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 12,000.00 Prepared by Chuck Call 9/20/2001 Page 1 PRIVATE STREETS Cost E timate to Upgrad Utilities LOWELL AVE 735 S 900 E 1031 E 800 $ 48,000.00 $ 80,000.00 $ 24,000.00 LYMAN CT 960 E 1210 S 1300 S 350 $ 21,000.00 $ 35,000.00 $ 10,500.00 MARKEA AVE 250 S 1045 E 1100E 400 $ 24,000.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 12,000.00 MCDONALD PL 530 S 745 E 800 E 330 $ 19,800.00 $ 33,000.00 $ 9,900.00 MENDON CT 750 E 835 S 900 S 400 $ 24,000.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 12,000.00 MONTROSE AVE 745 S 200 W 243 W 400 $ 24,000.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 12,000.00 MUSSER CT 755 E 639 S 700 S 350 $ 21,000.00 $ ; 35,000.00 $ 10,500.00 NORRIS PL 230 S 1045 E 1100 E 400 $ 24,000.00 $ 4 40,000.00 $ 12,000.00 PARLEYS CANYON BLVD 240 $ 14,400.00 $ 24,000.00 $ 7,200.00 PROSPECT ST 1630 W 1040 S 1095 S 350 $ 21,000.00 $ 35,000.00 $ 10,500.00 REDONDO AVE 2000 S 750 E 799 E 400 $ 24,000.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 12,000.00 SEGO AVE 645 S 600 E 640 E 400 $ 24,000.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 12,000.00 SHORTLINE AVE 330 N 520 W 600 W 250 $ 15,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 7,500.00 SPENCER CT 145 E 200 N 245 N 400 $ 24,000.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 12,000.00 STRONG CT 845 E 340 S 400 S 400 $ 24,000.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 12,000.00 THISTLE AVE 245 S 1100 E 1130 E 400 $ 24,000.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 12,000.00 VICTORIA PL 475N 450 E 460 E 210 $ 12,600.00 $ 21,000.00 $ 6,300.00 VINCENT CT 640 E 300 S 350 S 400 $ 24,000.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 12,000.00 WASHINGTON ST 240 W 600 S 700 S 800 $ 48,000.00 $ 80,000.00 $ 24,000.00 WINDSOR ST 860 E 200 S 300 S 320 $ 19,200.00 $ 32,000.00 $ 9,600.00 WINDSOR ST 860 E 500 S 600 S 800 $ 48,000.00 $ 80,000.00 $ 24,000.00 TOTAL $ 1,581,310.00 $ 2,666,000.00 $ 799,800.00 Linear feet is an estimate of the length of utility work needed for each street. It may or may not reflect the acutal length of the street. The cost is a rough estimate based on the estimated length of utility work for each street. Prepared by Chuck Call 9/20/2001 Page 2 Attachment 4 Private Streets Improved and Dedicated through the CDBG Program Private Str t Dedicated to Salt Lake City Through the CDBG Program Name jAddress'From ITo jDir IYear Laconia Ct 250 E 702 740 S 1981 Roberta St 240 E 740 797 S 1981 Conway Ct 355 E 640 698 S 1981 Iverson St 325 E 640 698 S 1981 Park St 540E 702 742 S 1983 Park St 540 E 747 797 S 1983 Lowell Ave 745 S 502 550 E 1983 Hoover PI 840 S 402 431 E 1983 Debs PI 830 S 435 498 E 1983 Van Ness PI 850 S 402 444E 1983 Graham Ct 445 E 623 647 S 1983 Cottage 630 S 402 443 E 1983 Sego Ave 650 S 402 498 E 1983 Gudgell Ct 450E 702 740 S 1983 Denver St 450E 740 798 S 1983 Gallacher St 655 S 502 538 E 1983 Park St 540 E 602 698 S 1983 Beldon PI 545 S 302 359E 1984 Stanton Ave 535 S 302 355E 1984 Ouray Ave 440 N 302 338 W 1985 Pugsley St 340 W 440 498 N 1985 Grace Ct 425E 912 982 S 1986 Grace Ct 912 S 402 422 E 1986 James Ct 465 E 936 982 S 1986 Bothwell St 1065 W 302 354 S 1987 Denver St 440E 502 598 S 1987 Lake St 740 E 802 837 S 1991 Lake St 740 E 838 897 S 1991 Argyle Ct 640 W 302 340 N 1992 Edmonds PI 640 W 341 .397 N 1992 Wishire PI 630 S 840 897 E 1992 Sego Ave 650 S 802 898 E 1992 Linden Ave 345 S 702 798 E 1995 Pennsylvania PI 230 S 920 947 E 1996 Iowa St 950 E 202 298 S 1996 Menlo Ave 235 S 802 897 E 1998 Markea Ave 250 S 802 854 E 1998 Harmony Ct 720 E 602 640 S 2001 Egli Ct 715 E 640 698 S 2001 noa"- Map of • ✓ V u L I ` 4sr SALT LAKE CITY a �' SALT LAKE CITY INTERNATIONAL t AIRPORT i "'� il �° ' EMI L7 y , liL 11111Iro ��%� s ,aR VS/Th A ANN 9 I I BSI I 1 PRIVATE STREETS t_ ii M l'' ' &'4 Safe IR r -111—b1111�1■i n - ■ kiV.4 -■=1� IngIMI■m11 I►��\'• ■;:�■LII- e IBM ■_■_■�I■■ ■_�� I �l MEIN!© IIIMIIIIIIIII Iliad r•, C ■�■—■a■q■■�3inir� swrerE',�p ■ ■�■fi■■■■■■Y■� ��\ -.new I �__ ��■ ._w i IR■il�llll�■®�UNI ERSik+r sx--uhvirmi 3 imirE■C1E■111 OF UTA 6 a �� imam y - i immo • ■ ■ C 100 = 1■�1I11111 ; .� '� 5 I o - a .o'sa' ■ 1�u , "�1' IIEIl1■Ilsil ; �� TRAr.gyE. 1 i popium■1 I. 1■■C1�Ic11■ 1m111111 s =! 11■e11■011S1.11111M%NW ......, or: DIRE ,Rs'OW z. n 1 milli \• I/_I,. t I EL;;m =a■II�` =' I 1 111011 I= I 1 1 M 111100MNIWIP AMIIVIiik 1,ATIN ---.... simi NIETIIIIImor ,WS_ ‘',, ."' '...1=0 iewelly 1,3as s .i Lei■ 1,..R - ■� • _ i ■I_■�W. _� v '1M \ laws g — ■ I ■Iir ` aalm bEWilliralEINIFII , 7 �_ j��•�� 2100S - ■IIIINIIIIMMIAMEIM ■■■ • 11 MAP LEGEND _ I!---� r8o �N Enka �1 Private Streets Dedicated to the City Through the CDBG Process 1 Lai l ll 1 \ / gr0 V" 111 M ' '��I Salt Lake City Planning Divisior ., Geographic Information System September 2001 Weaver, Lehua From: Sears, Michael Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 1:39 PM To: Weaver, Lehua Subject: FW: Private Streets, Fenway Avenue ® 1 ECCC Fenway support letter.doc... Will you make sure that this gets distributed to the Council Members and that you keep a copy. She tried to send to the Council Comments email but received an error message. Original Message From: Deb Nahvi jmailto:Deb.nahvi(a�first-franklin.coml Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 12:33 PM To: `Michael.Sears@ci.slc.ut.us' Subject: Private Streets, Fenway Avenue Mr Sears, I represent the home owners of Fenway Avenue, a private street in Salt Lake City. As you know, the street is in dire need of repairs. We have applied for CDBG funding for the past two years to finance the cost of improvements. Our request for CDBG funding was not approved by CDAC this year. We are aware that the City Council will soon be considering new policy with regard to private streets. Many of the Council members are aware of our issues and concerns, however, we would like to take this opportunity to highlight issues we would like the Council to consider. Fenway Avenue has received public services (ie public water, sewer, street light, parking enforcement, snow and garbage removal), since it's inception in 1928. The home owners learned only three years ago that the street was not a public street. When street residents contacted the City to inquire about much needed repairs, they were told that the street is private. Recent property appraisals show the street to be a public street. There is not a home owner's association or private road maintenance agreement in effect, due to the fact that the owners did not know of the street's private status. These factors led us to persue funding for the street improvements through the use of CDBG funding. We hope that the Council will make the distiction between private streets currently receiving public services and those that do not in forming policy. Fenway Avenue is located in a low-and- moderate income area per the Census Map. Many of the residents are on fixed and limited income. The residents simply cannot afford sudden increases in their monthly housing expense to cover the cost of snow and garbage removal, maintenace, and repairs. I have attached a copy of the East Central Community Council's letter of support for the most recent CDBG application, which addresses several important issues we would like the Council to be aware of. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Deb Nahvi <<ECCC Fenway support letter.doc>> Salt Lake City Corporation Housing & Neighborhood Development Capital Planning & Programming 451 South State Salt Lake City, UT 84111 July 10, 2001 To Whom it May Concern, The East Central Community Council Executive Board supports the Fenway Court residents' application for a CDBG grant to be used to fix Fenway Court road, sidewalks, curbs, and gutters preparatory to their abandoning these to Salt Lake City. Members of the Executive Board recognized several advantages accruing to the East Central Community neighborhood and to Salt Lake City from the grant: 1) The street is a dead end, the sidewalk is not. 2) Fenway Court functions as a mid-block public pedestrian throughway between 12th and 13th East. Pedestrian navigation of the interior of the city's 10-acre blocks is key to promoting walkability, a priority both for Salt Lake City and the East Central Community neighborhoods. People are less likely to use crumbling sidewalks when perceiving them as difficult to maneuver and unsafe. 3). The properties on Fenway Court are more affordable than other comparable housing in the neighborhood. This situation promotes neighborhood diversity, another Salt Lake City and East Central Community goal. The current residents' ability to absorb the complete cost of repair is limited, and their ability to sell their properties at the more affordable price is compromised with the added cost of the infrastructure repair. The condition of road, curb and gutter, and sidewalks can affect the character of an area as much as the condition of individual houses and yards. Lack of periodic maintenance can begin a process that will eventually cause market forces to view the area as less desirable, therefore of less valuable and more difficult to sell. The ramifications of the Fenway Court grant application extend beyond the court itself. Because of the significant impact on the community, we urge you to approve the application. Sincerely, Chair, Julia Robertson, 583-5663 Vice Chair, Penny Archibald-Stone, 583-2439 Secretary, Kathy Scott, 322-5288 Past Chair, Mark Bunce, 531-8584 Treasurer, Fran Schwab, 581-9643 Business, Steven Rosenberg, Vest Pocket Coalition, 467-2434 Land Use Advisory Group, Cindy Cromer, 355-4115 Neighborhood Representatives: Bennion, John Anderson, 364-6086 Bryant, Maha Barrani, 364-2114 Douglas, Cathey Dunn, 582-6804 East Liberty, Margaret Brady, 521-8377 Emerson, Christine Driscoll, 483-1504 Garden Park, Terri Winkler, 581-9192 University, Dennis Guy-Sell, 582-0383 Committees: Community Growth and Maintenance Committee, Debora Wrathall, 363-3317 Herman Franks Park Committee— Boris Kurz, 485-4585 Moving People Committee, Creed Haymond, 583-8510 Senior Citizen Issues Committee, Jennifer Robinson, 538-2084 CC: Rocky Anderson, Mayor, Salt Lake City Nancy Saxton, Salt Lake City Council Member, District 4 Roger Thompson, Salt Lake City Council Member, District 5 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: April 2, 2002 SUBJECT: Impact Fee Ordinance Revision ! w STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears, Budget & Policy Analyst CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rocky Fluhart, Jay Magure, Margaret Hunt, David Dobbins, Steve Fawcett, Gordon Hoskins, Randy Hillier, and Anne Gerber Document Type Budget-Related Facts Policy-Related Facts . Miscellaneous Facts Ordinance If amended as proposed, The proposed revisions to Proposed revisions the Housing Trust Fund the Impact Fee Ordinance would allow the will fund impact fee would require the entity Housing Trust Fund to exemptions that are now that supports the exempted pay for exemptions being funded from the activity to pay for the that previously have General Fund.The exemption(i.e. housing been paid for with proposal reduces the exemptions would be paid General Fund mon y. number of exemptions to for with Housing Trust impact fee, and, Fund money).The therefore, reduces the amendment proposes to amount of funding from eliminate impact fee • the General Fund to exemptions. cover impact fees. The Administration is proposing that the City Council approve an ordinance that amends the City's Impact Fee Ordinance. The proposed ordinance changes will reduce the amount of funding that will come from the General Fund to cover impact fee exemptions. The Administration is recommending that the following revisions be made to the Impact Fee Ordinance: • Change the funding source for exempted impact fees for low-income housing from the General Fund to the Housing Trust Fund. • Eliminate exemptions that currently are allowed for developments that show a net positive fiscal impact. • Eliminate exemptions that currently are allowed for development activity that is funded or subsidized by the City or the RDA. • Amend the Impact Fee Schedule. The Council has several options relating to this ordinance revision request. The Council can adopt the ordinance as recommended, adopt more revisions or less revisions then recommended or not make any revisions to the Impact Fee Ordinance at this time. I'age 1 OPTIONS AND MOTIONS: 1. ["I move that the Council"] Ad pt th Impact F Ordinance and r lating ordinances as proposed. 2. ["I move that the Council"] Adopt the Impact Fee Ordinance and relating ordinances as proposed with the following additions: 3. ["I move that the Council"] Adopt the Impact Fee Ordinance and relating ordinances as proposed with the following exceptions: 4. ["I move that the Council"] Not adopt the Impact Fee Ordinance and relating ordinances as proposed. MATTERS AT ISSUE/POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION: • The proposed revisions do not have the support of the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board. - The Council may wish to confirm the HTFAB position on this item and clarify that there is sufficient funds in the Housing Trust Fund to pay for low-income housing exemptions from the Housing Trust Fund. • The proposed revisions clarify which areas of the City pay roadway impact fees. — The Council may wish to clarify that the different impact fee areas of the City are correctly structured and that a review of the areas is not necessary until a future revision of the Impact Fee structure. ANALYSIS: BACKGROUND: Basic Information about Impact Fees in Utah: • An impact fee is a one-time charge for specific, tangible, capital improvements with a useful life of more than ten years. • Impact fees may be assessed in Utah for the purpose of raising revenue to offset certain public facilities required to serve new growth. They cannot be assessed to address issues of deferred capital infrastructure. • Impact fee revenues can be used to fund water distribution and water supply, treatment and distribution facilities; wastewater collection and treatment facilities; storm water, drainage and flood control facilities; municipal power facilities; roadway facilities; parks, recreation, open space, and trails; public safety facilities (police and fire stations but not jails); and certain habitat conservation measures. • In order to collect impact fees, a local jurisdiction must prepare a capital facilities plan and impact fee ordinance which addresses the basis for fee assessment and a fee calculation plan; what will be funded with impact fees based on capital plans; service areas; existing levels of service; tracking of revenue; and credits, exemptions and alternate fee calculations and refunds. In reviewing the Impact Fee Ordinance and searching for other funding sources to cover exempted development activity, Council staff has found that the recommended revisions comply with the section of State Code that deals with Impact Fees. One area that the Council may wish to pursue, in addition to the recommended changes, is the use of City staff time and resources to offset General Fund cash required when impact Page 2 fees are exempted. Similar to the use of employee staff time and resources as a local match to State and Federal Grants, staff time could be used as part of the impact fee exemption. It appears that this option is available under the current State Impact Fee Code, but before any process could be implemented a review by the City Attorney may be necessary. The following attached information has been submitted previously by Council Staff. The information has been compiled to illustrate some of the background material that was available to past Council Members as they debated the Inwaet,.Fee Ordinance and Impact Fee Schedule. The information contained in the memos remains accurate and applicable to the recommended changes that are being proposed by the Administration. If Council Members wish to review additional Impact Fee background information, there are several reports available on the City Council web page at: http://www.slcgov.com/council/ and copies of the Final Impact Fee Analysis Report which was prepared by the impact fee consultant are available in the Council Office for review. Page 3 SALT'LAKE:OFFT CORPORATION DAVID DOBBINS ---- - - '- --� - `�� -`ate _' ^'-- _=�— - RO55 C. "ROCKY" ANDERSDN DEPUTY DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer Date: February 13, 2002 FROM: David Dobbins a %' RE: A request to amend the City's Impact Fee Ordinance. STAFF CONTACT: David Dobbins DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: The proposed ordinance changes will reduce the amount of funding that will come from the General Fund to cover impact fee exemptions. DISCUSSION: The City Council adopted the Impact Fee Ordinance in 2000, which requires all development activity in the city that creates an impact on parks, roadways and fire and police services to pay an impact fee. The Administration has found several elements of the ordinance that it recommends be amended. Recommended Changes: 1. Change the funding source for exempted housing from the General Fund to the Housing Trust Fund. The current ordinance identifies the General Fund as the funding source for exemptions granted to low-income housing development (18.98.060.5). It is proposed that the Housing Trust Fund(HTF) be designated as the funding source for these exemptions. The HTF Ordinance will need to be amended to allow the payment of impact fees from the funds as this is not currently allowed. (The proposed ordinance amendment to the HTF is attached.) The Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board reviewed this proposal and does not support it. The board wants the General Fund to continue to cover the low- income housing exemptions. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-6230 FAX: 801-535-6005 ®Rccrceo r„Pea 2. Eliminate exemption for developments that show a net positive fiscal impact. The current ordinance allows a developer who has paid an impact fee to come back to the city between 3 and 6 years after paying a development's impact fee and request an exemption if they can show that the development activity produced a net positive fiscal impact in the city in an amount that exceeds the amount of the impact fee paid. If such an exemption were granted, the city would find itself in the situation of having to use General Fund monies to pay for planned facilities projects, but without being able to properly budget for such expenses. 3. Eliminate exemptions for development activity that is funded or subsidized by the City or the RDA Eliminate the provision that allows an exemption from impact fees for development activities that are funded or subsidized, in whole or in part, with city funds or RDA funds. The current language allows projects that have been subsidized with city funds to essentially receive further subsidization. (Examples of this situation include the Brooks Arcade project and the Utah Opera project. Both received RDA funding and therefore did not have to pay an impact fee. The City's General Fund had to cover the exemption.) 4. Amend the Impact Fee Schedule Amend the Impact Fee Schedule to clarify which areas of the city pay roadway impact fees (see attached fee schedule). SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2002 (Impact Fees Amendments) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 18.198 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO IMPACT FEES. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Section 18.98.060, Salt Lake City Code, be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 18.98.060 Exemptions: A. The following shall be exempted from the payment of all impact fees: 1. Replacement of a structure with a new structure of the same size and use at the same site or lot when a building permit for such replacement is obtained within twelve (12) months after the demolition or destruction of the prior structure or mobile home and the replacement is completed within twenty four (24) months after the granting of the building permit. 2. Alterations, expansion, enlargement, remodeling, rehabilitation, or conversion of an existing unit where no additional units are created and the use is not materially changed. 3. Construction of accessory structures that will not create significant impacts on the planned facilities. 4. Miscellaneous accessory improvements to use, including, but not limited to, fences, walls, swimming pools, and signs. 5. Demolition or moving of a structure. 6. Placing on a lot in the City a temporary construction trailer or office, but only for the life of the building permit issued for the construction served by the trailer or office. 7. Any development activity not involving the construction or placement of a structure or building, including, but not limited to, the mere subdivision of land, installation of utilities, or the use of land for limited recreational, agricultural, filling or dredging purposes, which, as demonstrated by the developer in writing to the Director, will not result in a net increase in demand on facilities covered by impact fees. B. Nonresidential construction shall be exempted from the payment of the park impact fees. C. Properties not located in the Westside Industrial Area or the Northwest Quadrant shall be exempted from the payment of roadway impact fees. D. If, prior to the effective date hereof and in anticipation of the imposition of impact fees, the City and a developer entered into a written agreement providing for the payment of fees, the dedication of land, or the construction of planned facilities by the developer in connection with a development activity, with specific reference to improvements identified in the Capital Facilities Plan, such development activity shall be exempted from the payment of impact fees. The units in such development may be charged a reduced fee pursuant to an independent impact fee calculation under Section 18.98.160 of this Chapter. The developer shall provide to the Director documentation demonstrating compliance with the terms of the voluntary agreement. E. The following housing is exempt from the payment of impact fees, to the following extent: 1. A one hundred percent (100%) exemption shall be granted for rental housing for which the annualized rent per dwelling unit does not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the annual income of a family whose annual income equals sixty percent (60%) of the median income for Salt Lake 2 City, as detetiuined by HUD; 2. A one hundred percent (100%) exemption shall be granted for nonrental housing for which the annualized mortgage payment does not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the annual income of a family whose annual income equals eighty percent (80%) of the median income for Salt Lake City, as determined by HUD; 3. A seventy five percent (75%) exemption shall be granted for nonrental housing for which the annualized mortgage payment does not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the annual income of a family whose annual income equals ninety percent (90%) of the median income for Salt Lake City, as determined by HUD; and 4. A fifty percent (50%) exemption shall be granted for nonrental housing for which the annualized mortgage payment does not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the annual income of a family whose annual income equals one hundred percent (100%) of the median income for Salt Lake City, as determined by HUD. The City shall use monies in its Housing Trust Fund to pay for the exempted development activity. F. The Director shall detenmine whether a particular development activity falls within an exemption identified in this Section, in any other section, or under other applicable law. Determinations of the Director shall be in writing and shall be subject to the appeals procedures set forth in this Chapter. SECTION 2. That Appendix A (Impact Fee Schedule) to Chapter 18.98, Salt Lake City Code, be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 3 APPENDIX A Impact Fee Schedule Impact Fee Schedule By Unit Development Northwest West Side Infill Quadrant Industrial Description Development Development Area Public Safety-Fire Fees Residential (per dwelling unit) $ 235.00 $ 235.00 $ 235.00 Commercial/industrial (per square foot) 0.14 0.14 0.14 Public Safety-Police Fees Residential (per dwelling unit)' 210.00 210.00 210.00 Commercial/industrial (per square foot)' 0.13 0.13 0.13 Roadway Fees Residential (per single-family dwelling unit) 0.00 1,710.00 0.00 Residential (per multi-family dwelling unit) 0.00 1,195.00 0.00 Retail (per square foot) 0.00 6.49 0.69 Office (per square foot) 0.00 2.56 0.69 Industrial (per square foot) 0.00 0.00 0.69 Park Fees Residential (per dwelling unit) 445.00 950.00 445.00 Commercial/industrial (per square foot) 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Fees Residential (per single-family dwelling unit) 890.00 3,105.00 890.00 Residential (per multi-family dwelling unit) 890.00 2,590.00 890.00 Retail (per square foot) 0.27 6.76 0.96 Office (per square foot) 0.27 2.83 0.96 Industrial (per square foot) 0.27 0.27 0.96 Note: 'Residential units are specified by single-family and multi-family; commercial development is specified by retail, office and industrial. 4 SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. That this Ordinance shall take effect on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2002. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorneys Office CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Date 1 `f ---75y %vs__ Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR 5 ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2002 Published: G:\Ordina0l\Amendment to 18.98 re impact fees clean.doc 6 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2002 (Impact Fees Amendments) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 18.198 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO IMPACT FEES. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Section 18.98.060, Salt Lake City Code,be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 18.98.060 Exemptions: A. The following shall be exempted from the payment of all impact fees: 1. Replacement of a structure with a new structure of the same size and use at the same site or lot when a building peiiuit for such replacement is obtained within twelve (12) months after the demolition or destruction of the prior structure or mobile home and the replacement is completed within twenty four (24) months after the granting of the building peiinit. 2. Alterations, expansion, enlargement, remodeling, rehabilitation, or conversion of an existing unit where no additional units are created and the use is not materially changed. 3. Construction of accessory structures that will not create significant impacts on the planned facilities. 4. Miscellaneous accessory improvements to use, including, but not limited to, fences, walls, swimming pools, and signs. 5. Demolition or moving of a structure. 6. Placing on a lot in the City a temporary construction trailer or office, but only for the life of the building pennit issued for the construction served by the trailer or office. 7. Any development activity not involving the construction or placement of a structure or building, including, but not limited to, the mere subdivision of land, installation of utilities, or the use of land for limited recreational, agricultural, filling or dredging purposes, which, as demonstrated by the developer in writing to the Director, will not result in a net increase in demand on facilities covered by impact fees. B. Nonresidential construction shall be exempted from the payment of the park impact fees. C. Properties not located in the Westside Industrial Area or the Northwest Quadrant shall be exempted from the payment of roadway impact fees. D. If, prior to the effective date hereof and in anticipation of the imposition of impact fees, the City and a developer entered into a written agreement providing for the payment of fees, the dedication of land, or the construction of planned facilities by the developer in connection with a development activity, with specific reference to improvements identified in the Capital Facilities Plan, such development activity shall be exempted from the payment of impact fees. The units in such development may be charged a reduced fee pursuant to an independent impact fee calculation under Section 18.98.160 of this Chapter. The developer shall provide to the Director documentation demonstrating compliance with the terms of the voluntary agreement. E. The following housing is exempt from the payment of impact fees, to the following extent: 1. A one hundred percent (100%) exemption shall be granted for rental housing for which the annualized rent per dwelling unit does not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the annual income of a family whose annual income equals sixty percent (60%) of the median income for Salt Lake 2 City, as determined by HUD; 2. A one hundred percent (100%) exemption shall be granted for nonrental housing for which the annualized mortgage payment does not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the annual income of a family whose annual income equals eighty percent (80%) of the median income for Salt Lake City, as determined by HUD; 3. A seventy five percent (75%) exemption shall be granted for nonrental housing for which the annualized mortgage payment does not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the annual income of a family whose annual income equals ninety percent (90%) of the median income for Salt Lake City, as determined by HUD; and 4. A fifty percent (50%) exemption shall be granted for nonrental housing for which the annualized mortgage payment does not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the annual income of a family whose annual income equals one hundred percent (100%) of the median income for Salt Lake City, as determined by HUD. The City shall use monies in its General Housing Trust Fund to pay for the exempted development activity. F. The Director shall determine whether a particular development activity falls within an exemption identified in this Section, in any other section, or under other applicable law. Determinations of the Director shall be in writing and shall be subject to the appeals procedures set forth in this Chapter. G. At any time between three (3) and six (6) years after the payment of any impact fee, the fee payer or his or her assignee (but not b t") q est an exemption from such 3 development activity for which the fee payer paid the impact fee produce, - nr4 unt , exceeding the amount of the impact fee paid. At the time of submitting such request, the fee payer or his or her assignee, as the case may be, •t an exemption under—this subsection should not be granted, the D r, + hag ,t' y the re p�<,L -er is�r S er ssignee, as the case may be, that the requ „+ 'o• a„ _mpti is are '- x rr, l ri c n>, nalysis and base suc -_ { 'c the Di< ctor �ete ines that an ex Linn i nde- t�,is_subsecti(<r, c J� __1 _ pro hould be—granted, the Director shall, in writing, recommend to the Council that the exemption be granted, which recommendation shall contain an explanation of the reasons for such recommendation. The Council may, if it dew-mines to grant the exemption, direct the Director to to t .#- n< nr �,is or �,n_�• assignran_ter the e s.. the amountpaid as the impact �m -- - -. • -�-��rr�.,. u� «�.. ��.,c may be, fee, plus any interest earned on the impact ' ° b rest rate earned by t , , . shall use monies in its General Fund to pay for any lt-__-_� ' E ei + r't exempted development activity. -, petition of the developer, if any portion of a development activity is funded or subsidized in t, allocable t 4 anyi4atiued-faei4itie6-neeessitated-45,-the-exempte€1-de3,,elopment-aeti34ty, SECTION 2. That Appendix A (Impact Fee Schedule) to Chapter 18.98, Salt Lake City Code, be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 5 APPENDIX A Impact Fee Schedule Impact Fee Schedule By Unit Development Northwest West Side Infill Quadrant Industrial Description Development Development Area Public Safety-Fire Fees Residential (per dwelling unit) $ 235.00 $ 235.00 $ 235.00 Commercial/industrial (per square foot) 0.14 0.14 0.14 Public Safety-Police Fees Residential (per dwelling unit)1 210.00 210.00 210.00 Commercial/industrial (per square foot)1 0.13 0.13 0.13 Roadway Fees Residential (per single-family dwelling unit) 0.00 1,710.00 0.00 Residential (per multi-family dwelling unit) 0.00 1,195.00 0.00 Retail(per square foot) 0.6900 6.49 0.69 Office (per square foot) 0.6900 2.56 0.69 Industrial (per square foot) 0.6900 0.00 0.69 Park Fees Residential (per dwelling unit) 445.00 950.00 445.00 Commercial/industrial (per square foot) 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Fees Residential (per single-family dwelling unit) 890.00 3,105.00 890.00 Residential (per multi-family dwelling unit) 890.00 2,590.00 890.00 Retail (per square foot) 0.9627 6.76 0.96 Office (per square foot) 0.9627 2.83 0.96 Industrial (per square foot) 0.9627 0.27 0.96 Note: Residential units are specified by single-family and multi-family; commercial development is specified by retail, office and industrial. 6 SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. That this Ordinance shall take effect on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2002. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on . Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR 7 ATTEST: CHTFF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2002 Published: G:\Ordina0l\Amendment to 18.98 re impact fees.doc 8 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2001 (Amending Housing Trust Fund Duties) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2.80.120, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY HOUSING TRUST FUND ADVISORY BOARD. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Section 2.80.120, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to powers and duties of the Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 2.80.120 Powers And Duties: The board shall have the following powers and duties: A. Determine and establish such rules and regulations for the conduct of the board as the members shall deem advisable; provided, however, that such rules and regulations shall not be in conflict with this chapter or its successor, or other city, state or federal law. B. Recommend the adoption and alteration of all rules, regulations and ordinances which it shall, from time to time, deem in the public interest and for the purposes of carrying out the objects of this chapter; provided, however, that such rules and regulations shall not be in conflict with this chapter or its successor, or other city, state or federal law. C. Consult with experts in areas such as finance, real estate, and affordable housing development to obtain advice on specific projects. D. Advise and make recommendations to the city administration and the city council on affordable housing and special needs housing issues which may include, but not be limited to: 1. The means to implement the policies and goals of this chapter and the city's community housing plan and policies; 2. Criteria by which loans and grants should be made, using the city's consolidated plan as a guide to determine housing gaps; 3. The order in which projects and programs should be funded; 4. The distribution of any monies or assets contained in the fund according to the procedures, conditions, and restrictions placed upon the use of those monies or assets by any government entity; 5. The distribution of all other monies from the fund according to the following guidelines: a. Sufficient fund monies shall be distributed as loans to assure a reasonable stream of income to the fund from loan repayments. These may range from short-term construction loans to long-term acquisition loans; b. Loans shall be recommended in accordance with the borrower's ability to pay, but no more than fifty percent(50%) of the per unit costs shall be recommended; c. Fund monies and assets not distributed as loans shall be distributed as grants; d. All fund monies and assets shall be distributed to benefit households earning oi:e hundred percent (100%) or less of the area median income; e. Not less than one-half(1/2) of all fund monies and assets shall be distributed to benefit households earning fifty percent (50%) or less of the area median income; 2 f. The board may recommend that the mayor, with the consent of the council, grant or lend fund monies or assets to housing sponsors. Housing sponsors must assure long-term housing for the target population and provide evidence of continued affordability of the assisted housing throughout the remaining life of the housing unit (a minimum of 55 years), as long as a good faith effort is made to maintain and rehabilitate it as necessary; g. Fund monies and assets may be recommended by the board to be used to obtain matching funds from government entities or other sources, consistent with the intent of this chapter. E. The board may recommend fund monies or assets be provided to any of the following activities: 1. Acquisition, leasing, rehabilitation, or new construction of housing units for ownership or rental, including transitional housing; 2. Emergency home repairs; 3. Retrofitting to provide access for persons with disabilities; 4. Down payment and closing cost assistance; 5. Construction and gap financing; 6. Land acquisition for purposes consistent with the purposes of this chapter; 7. Technical assistance; 8. Other activities and expenses incurred that directly assist in providing the housing for eligible households in the city, consistent with the intent of this chapter. F. Fund monies shall not be used for administrative expenses. 3 G. The board shall develop an application process to be recommended to the mayor and council for approval. Said process may be reviewed from time to time by the council. H. The board and HAND shall review and monitor the activities of recipients of grants and loans issued under this chapter on an annual basis, or more often as may be deemed necessary, to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions imposed on the recipient by the mayor and the council under this chapter and under any and all instruments and documents entered into between the city and the recipient pursuant to this chapter. 1. Entities receiving grants or loans shall provide to the board and HAND an annual accounting of how the monies or assets received from the fund have been used. 2. An annual report shall be prepared by the board and HAND which shall contain information concerning the implementation of this chapter. The report shall include, but is not limited to, information regarding the location and numbers of units developed or preserved,the numbers and incomes of households served, and detailing the income to and assets in the fund, and the expenditures and uses of fund monies and assets. 3. The annual report shall include the board's and HAND's assessment of housing needs in the city, barriers to affordable and special needs housing development and reservation, and barriers to the implementation of this chapter. 4. The annual report shall be submitted to the mayor and the council for review by March 31 of each calendar year. 5. Appropriations by the council to the fund shall be considered as part of the annual budget process. 4 I. Serve as a coordination body and resource for organizations interested in affordable and special needs housing issues affecting the city including, but not limited to, the housing authority of Salt Lake City, the Salt Lake City redevelopment agency, the housing and neighborhood development division, and other city departments as appropriate, as well as nonprofit and for-profit housing developers. J. The foregoing notwithstanding, the transfer of funds from the Housing Trust Fund to cover the cost of impact fee exemptions provided to developers of qualifying low-income housing, as provided in Salt Lake City Code 18.98.060.E, shall not be subject to the board's review and recommendation. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of , 2001. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on . 5 Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER AR-ROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorneys Office Date 1 2 /2,0/ 1.634- (SEAL) Bill No. of 2001. Published: G\OrdinaOl'Amending Section 2 80 120 regarding powers of the Housing Advisory Board 8-28-01 clean.doc 6 IMPACT FEES SUMMARY OF ADOPTION The Salt Lake City Council held a public hearing on December 14, 1999, to accept comments on a proposed ordinance establishing impact fees on new development. TIie Council voted 5-2 in favor of adopting an ordinance establishing impact fees as proposed in the attached fee schedule. The ordinance will become effective on June 1, 2000, and fees will begin to be assessed at that time. Impact fees are charges designed to compensate a community for the cost of extending infrastructure as required to support new development. Impact fees are assessed to new developments as a condition of development approval, and are calculated to cover a proportionate share of the capital costs needed to serve the proposed development. Several Council Members expressed a desire to have a comparison developed of the adopted fees for commercial, retail and industrial uses to impact fees for those development types in other jurisdictions along the Wasatch Front. This comparison will be conducted by the first quarter of 2000 and presented to the Council for their review. The adopted ordinance is available for review at the City Recorder's Office during regular business hours and on the City Council's website at www.ci.slc.ut.us/government/city_council. A brief summary of the provisions of the ordinance follows. However, the ordinance should be referenced for specific information. For the purpose of assessing fees, "infill development" refers to development in all areas of the City with the exception of the Northwest Quadrant. Developments in the infill area of the City will be assessed fire and police impact fees. Residential developments in the infill area will also be assessed parks impact fees. A separate service area was established for the Westside Industrial Area. This area is bounded on the east by Redwood Road, on the west by the City limits, on the north by Interstate 80, and on the south by 2100 South Street. Retail, office and industrial developments in this area will be assessed roadway impact fees in addition to infill development fire and police impact fees. A separate service area was established for the Northwest Quadrant. This area is bounded on the south by Interstate 80, on the west by the City limits, on the north by the City limits. The eastern boundary is generally 6070 West, (a line, running north and south, which is 1000 feet west of and parallel to the centerline of Sections 23, 26 and 35 of Township 1 North, Range 2 West, Salt Lake Base and Meridian Survey). Developments in this area will be assessed impact fees for fire, police and roadways. Residential developments will also be assessed parks impact fees. The adopted fee structure for the Northwest Quadrant may be reviewed by the Council when this area begins to be developed. .::.; pact .ees'b y.:Unit"of Development.:.:.:«. ::.::....:<.;:.. :.::..:.:::..::.:::<.........: � . Adopted.>by the Salt:La1 :: Council December 14 19 :f`ective June f :200C1:: Infill Northwest Quadrant Description Development —Development Public Safety—Fire Fees Residential (per dwelling unit) $235 $235 Commercial/Industrial (per sq. ft.) $0.14 $0.14 Public Safety—Police Fees Residential(per dwelling unit) $210 - $210 Commercial/Industrial (per sq. ft.) $0.13 $0.13 Roadway Fees (applicable in the Westside Industrial Area and Northwest Quadrant only) Residential (per single family dwelling unit) $0.00 $1,710 Residential (per multi-family dwelling unit) $0.00 $1,195 Retail (per sq. ft.) $0.69 $6.49 Office (per sq. ft.) $0.69 $2.56 Industrial (per sq. ft.) $0.69 $0.00 Parks Fees Residential (per dwelling unit) $445 $950 Commercial/Industrial (per sq. ft.) $0.00 $0.00 Total Fees Residential (per single family dwelling unit) $890 $3,105 Residential (per multi-family dwelling unit) $890 $2,590 Retail (per sq. ft.) $0.96 $6.76 Office (per sq. ft.) $0.96 $2.83 Industrial (per sq. ft.) $0.96 $0.27 Note: Residential units are specified by single family and multi-family. Commercial development is specified by retail, office and industrial. The following development activities will be exempt from the payment of impact fees: • Those developments that, prior to June 1, 2000 have not received a building permit from the City but have satisfied the following criteria: (1) (a) acquired title to or control of the property to be developed, or(b) obtained a commitment for financing of the development activity; and (2) submitted development plans for the development activity to the City for review. R • • Replacement of a structure with a new structure of the same size and use at the same site or lot when a building permit for such replacement is obtained within twelve (12) months after the demolition or destruction of the prior structure or mobile home and the replacement is completed within twenty-four(24) months after the granting of the building permit. • Alterations, expansion, enlargement, remodeling, rehabilitation, or conversion of an existing unit where no additional units are created and the use is not materially changed. • Construction of accessory structures that will not create significant impacts on the planned facilities. • Miscellaneous accessory improvements to use, including but not limited to fences, walls, swimming pools, and signs. • Demolition or moving of a structure. • Placing on a lot in the City a temporary construction trailer or office, but only for the life of the building permit issued for the construction served by the trailer or office. • Any development activity not involving the construction or placement of a structure or building, including but not limited to the mere subdivision of land, installation of utilities, or the use of land for limited recreational, agricultural, filling or dredging purposes, which will not result in a net increase in demand on facilities covered by impact fees. • Any development in which, prior to the effective date of the enacting ordinance and in anticipation of the imposition of impact fees, the City and a developer entered into a written agreement providing for the payment of fees, the dedication of land, or the construction of planned facilities by the developer in connection with a development activity, with specific reference to improvements identified in the capital facilities plan. • The development of affordable housing to the following extent: (a) A one hundred (100) percent exemption will be granted for rental housing for which the annualized rent per dwelling unit does not exceed thirty(30) percent of the annual income of a family whose annual income equals sixty(60) percent of the median income for Salt Lake City, as determined by HUD; (b) A one hundred (100) percent exemption will be granted for non-rental housing for which the annualized mortgage payment does not exceed thirty(30) percent of the annual income of a family whose annual income equals eighty(80) percent of the median income for Salt Lake City, as determined by HUD; (c) A seventy-five (75) percent exemption will be granted for non- rental housing for which the annualized mortgage payment does not exceed thirty(30) percent of the annual income of a family whose annual income equals ninety (90) percent of the median income for Salt Lake City, as determined by HUD; and (d) A fifty(50) percent exemption will be granted for non-rental housing for which the annualized mortgage payment does not exceed thirty(30) percent of the annual income of a family whose annual income equals one hundred (100) percent of the median income for Salt Lake City, as determined by HUD. • A development activity that is expected to produce a net positive fiscal impact for the City, in an amount exceeding the amount of the assessed impact fee, may petition for an exemption from the assessed impact fee. The appropriate impact fees would be paid upon application for the exemption, and rebated to the fee payer upon future demonstration of such net positive fiscal impact to the City. • A development activity that is funded or subsidized in whole or in part with City funds or funds of the City's Redevelopment Agency may petition for a reduction of the assessed impact fee by the amount of such funding or subsidy. Salt Lake City Council Office Memo To: Council Members From: Anne Wescott Gerber,Budget&Policy Analyst CC: Council Members-elect,Cindy Gust-Jenson,Roger Black,Roger Cutler,Boyd Ferguson,Rick Giardina,Tom Pippin Date: November 24,1999 Re: Final Impact Fee Analysis and Draft Ordinance for Review File: Impact Fees Attached for your review are the Final Impact Fee Analysis Report from Rick Giardina and the draft ordinance establishing impact fees as prepared by the City Attorney's Office. A briefing is scheduled for December 7, 1999 to allow the Council an opportunity to discuss the two documents and make revisions before the December 14, 1999 public hearing. Rick Giardina's associate, Tom Pippin, and Boyd Ferguson from the City Attorney's Office will be present at the December 7 briefing to answer Council questions. These documents are being distributed ahead of the December 7 packet delivery in order to give the Council extra time for review, and to provide the documents to the Council on the same day that they are being made available to the public for review. If Council Members have questions or concerns before the December 7 briefing, please feel free to contact me. Advance notice will allow Council staff and the City Attorney's Office to properly research alternatives in time for further Council consideration. The final report indicates that the maximum allowable fccs that the Council may consider establishing are actually lower than those presented in the draft impact fee analysis report. Police and Fire fees were reduced by more than half from the draft report as a result of a revision in the number of commercial and industrial square feet that the City anticipates will be developed over the next 20 years (the cost of the improvements gets spread out among more square feet, resulting in lower fire and police fees for all development types). Fccs for the construction of streets in the Westside Industrial Area were also reduced by more than half as a result of additional anticipated development and a decision by the Council and consultants to assess these fees to industrial, retail and office developments in the Westside Industrial Area. Parks fees for residential development have not changed since the draft report. Council Members have raised the following concerns that the Council may wish to consider and discuss at their briefing on December 7, 1999: • Page 1 1. Fees for West Valley City were not included in the draft report's fee comparison, and are of interest to several Council Members because of West Valley City's contiguous location, particularly for industrial and commercial development. West Valley's residential fees have been added to the final report's fee comparison, which is located on the last two pages of the report. A statewide comparison of industrial and commercial fees is not currently available and Rick Giardina was unable to conduct such a survey in the timeframe already established by the Council. Many other cities break their fees down by specific land use, which is difficult to compare to the fees being considered by the Council. However, Council staff has obtained information that indicates that West Valley City's impact fees for industrial development are currently$115.00 per 1,000 square feet, or$0.115 per square foot. The maximum allowable fees as presented by Rick Giardina for industrial development within the Westside Industrial Area (which might be the most competitive with West Valley City) are $0.69 per square foot, which is approximately six times what West Valley City currently charges. The Council may wish to note that the $0.69 per square foot proposed for Salt Lake City represents the cost of constructing the streets and public safety facilities that will serve that area. The analysis conducted by West Valley City supported higher fees, but the West Valley City Council made a policy decision to assess fees at a percentage significantly less than what their analysis showed as the maximum allowable fee. The Salt Lake City Council could consider making a similar policy decision. The Council may wish to consider at what level (up to the maximum allowable fee) impact fees should be assessed. Possible considerations with respect to this decision might include: • The extent to which growth should"pay for itself' or the capital it requires, • The extent to which existing residents should subsidize the capital improvements necessitated by growth, • The extent to which impact fees might decrease the attractiveness of Salt Lake City as a desirable or financially feasible city in which to build, and • The extent to which, should Salt Lake City be considered less attractive to developers, the loss of development would result in a net loss of revenue (new property or sales tax revenue in excess of the cost to provide City services and infrastructure). The Council may wish to note that Rick Giardina and Tom Pippin have indicated that if the Council chooses to assess only a percentage of the maximum allowable impact fee, the percentage assessed should be uniform throughout development types in order to retain the integrity of the fee methodology. 1. The final report proposes maximum allowable impact fees of$890 per residential unit, whether single-family or multi-family(the draft report indicated residential fees of$1,395). Some Council • Page 2 Members have questioned how the fee methodology addresses the potential differential in use of capital infrastructure between single and multi-family developments. Rick Giardina has indicated that a differential was taken into account with respect to street fees applicable to residential developments in the Northwest Quadrant, which resulted in Northwest Quadrant multi-family residential fees that were lower than Northwest Quadrant single-family residential fees. Since residential developments outside of the Northwest Quadrant would not pay street fccs, this differential does not exist within the proposed fee structure. for residential developments outside the Northwest Quadrant. Rick Giardina has indicated that, other than trip generation data relative to street fees, no definitive evidence exists within the industry on the extent to which single and multi-family developments differ in terms of their impact or reliance on services or capital infrastructure (an exception is utilities, because utility impact fees correspond to the size of the meter or connection). Second, since the size of the unit does not necessarily determine the number of occupants and therefore the exact impact, differentiating the impact between different sized apartments becomes somewhat of a subjective act, which the state legislation tried to prevent As such, Rick has indicated that he could not develop a fee analysis that would support a differential fee structure. However, as indicated above, the Council may wish to assess only a percentage of the maximum allowable impact fee, although the percentage assessed should be uniform throughout development types in order to retain the integrity of the fee methodology. The City's Attorney's Office has prepared the attached draft ordinance for the Council's consideration in accordance with the policy direction provided by the Council on November 9. In several areas, particularly in terms of the exemptions that the Council is considering granting, there are several different options to the draft language that the Council may wish to consider. These options are outlined by ordinance section as follows: 1. 18.98.050-Calculation of impact fees based on fee schedule. As indicated above, the Council may assess impact fees at any level up to the maximum allowable level as supported by the Final Impact Fee Analysis. If the Council chooses to assess fees at some percentage of the maximum, however, Rick Giardina and Tom Pippin have advised that the percentage assessed should be uniform throughout development types in order to retain the integrity of the fee methodology. In other words, if the Council agreed that the fee methodology was sound, but made a policy decision that only a portion of the maximum allowable fee should be recovered for capital expenditures, the Council could determine what percent of the maximum costs should be recovered. This percentage could then be established across the board, and regarded as Council policy. This would differentiate the Councils decision from one in which a Council might disagree with the methodology used, and try to compensate by lowering the fees,which might result in challenges to the fee analysis and assessment of fees as a whole. 2. 18.98.060-Exemptions • Page 3 The Council indicated that they wanted to consider within the ordinance provisions that would allow exemptions to impact fees in three circumstances: • Automatic exemptions for affordable housing developments, • Petitioned exemptions with a rebate provision for developments that could demonstrate a net positive fiscal impact to the City,and • • Petitioned exemptions for other developments that were receiving City subsidies, whereby the assessment of an impact fee would negate the subsidy or create fiscal inconsistencies in the Council's policies. These proposed exemptions are addressed within the draft ordinance as follows: Affordable Housing- The Council indicated that it wished to exempt affordable housing developments from impact fees, but stated that it wanted to clearly define affordable housing. The draft ordinance defines affordable housing as"housing which is affordable to persons whose rent or mortgage payment does not exceed 30 percent of an annual income of a family whose income equals 80 percent of median income for Salt Lake City as determined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development" The "80%" definition would cover housing developments (rental and ownership) that are considered to be affordable to low income persons living within Salt Lake City. This would include rental and ownership housing projects currently being developed by the City Housing Division, the Housing Authority, Neighborhood Housing Services, the Community Development Corporation,and the Bridges Project. The Council may wish to note that 542 units that fit this definition are currently "in the pipeline". If these developments were not able to pull their permit or meet the "pipeline exemption" qualifications set forth in "Section 2. Effective Date" (last page of the discussion draft)which are 1) a commitment for financing and 2)the submittal of development plans to the City, the City would need to subsidize these fees from the General Fund at a total of approximately $482,380 (542 x $890). However, the Council may wish to note that may be a one-time subsidy, as this large amount of affordable housing development corresponds to the upcoming Olympics, and is not likely to continue in the future. According to the Administration, typically only about 30 units that meet this definition are built each year,which would only require approximately$26,700 in General Fund subsidy. The Council may wish to revise the affordable housing definition downward, which would allow fewer exemptions, to housing for very-low income persons whose annual income is 50% or less than median income. Alternatively, the Council could adjust the definition downward to 60% of median, which would allow projects receiving Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) to qualify for an exemption. If the Council chose to "tighten" the affordable housing definition by reducing the percent of median income to some percentage less than 80%, projects • Page 4 that did not meet the criteria for an automatic exemption could petition for an exemption under the"fiscal inconsistency"provision below. Net Positive Fiscal Impact The Council indicated that it may wish to consider exempting developments from impact fees that could demonstrate a net positive fiscal impact to the City (new property or sales tax revenue in excess of the cost to provide City services and infrastructure)t CO ncil Members indicated that it would be difficult to be sure upon application if the actual net fiscal impact of any particular development would be positive in excess of the applicable impact fees. As such, the draft ordinance reflects a rebate exemption concept used by other jurisdictions outside Utah. The developers could apply when their building permit is obtained for the ability to petition the City for an impact fee rebate three to six years after the development is permitted. They would be eligible to receive a rebate of their impact fees if they can demonstrate to the City that the development in question has actually contributed new net tax revenue to the City in excess of the impact fees assessed. In this way, the City would be able to subsidise the fee from realized tax revenues,and the General Fund would not be unduly burdened by the exemption. Alternatively, rather than approaching this exemption as a rebate, the Council could consider allowing the Administration to waive fees upon the application for a building permit based on the belief, or upon preliminary analysis that a particular development would contribute a net positive fiscal impact to the City. This option would require that the General Fund subsidi7P the fee with the expectation that future revenues would"cover" the subsidy. Both alternatives assume, as the draft ordinance indicates, that the responsibility for preparing the analysis and demonstrating the net positive fiscal impact is on the applicant,not the City. If the Council believes that the provision of such an analysis is not administratively feasible for an individual developer,the Council could consider indicating in the ordinance that the City would prepare such an analysis within a certain time frame for a specified fee. The fee would need to recover the cost of the City's time to prepare the analysis. The Council may wish to note that the definition of net positive fiscal impact indicates that the development must demonstrate new revenues in excess of the cost to the City to provide both services (operating budget) and capital improvements (CIP budget). The Council may wish to revise this definition to require only a net positive of new revenues as compared to the cost of related capital. Fiscal Inconsistencies The Council indicated its intent to avoid inconsistencies in its fiscal policies with relation to the assessment of impact fees. For example, the Council expressed its concern that the City might subsidize a project through the RDA that it felt was beneficial to the City, and then negate the subsidy through the assessment of impact fees. The Council's consultants pointed out that this inconsistency could apply to any time that the City subsidizes a project, including housing developments, HOME grants, CDBG grants, etc. Therefore, the draft ordinance provides opportunities for developments that have been granted City assistance in excess of the • Page 5 applicable impact fee to petition the Administration (CED Director) for consideration for a waiver of the fees. 3. Miscellaneous Provisions The Council may also wish to note the following items that relate to the draft or4inanse: • The Council originally determined that, in order for a project to be eligible for a "pipeline exemption" (an exemption from fees on the effective date in the case of developments that are already in the pipeline, and where the assessment of fees was not included in the project's proforma, so that the assessment of impact fees would throw the proforma out of balance), it had to meet three criteria: ownership of property, commitment for financing, and submittal of development plans to the City. Upon review, the City Attorney determined that ownership would be unlikely for many non-profit developers who were planning to finance the purchase of the land at the same time as they financed construction, so that criteria is not included in the ordinance. The Council may wish to consider the extent to which a commitment of financing should be demonstrated. As required in the draft ordinance,it is conceivable that a developer might wish to demonstrate that cash financing has been committed. The Council may wish to consider whether cash financing commitments should be demonstrated through letters of credit, or whether, for the purpose of this one-time exemption, the City is willing to accept a simple statement of such commitment. • The ordinance contemplates all petitions for waivers and exemptions being made to the Community and Economic Development Director, or his or her designee, rather than to the Council. The City Attorney felt that such petitions were most appropriately an administrative function. If desired, the Council could discuss with the City Attorney, how the Council might obtain legislative oversight of this process. • Page 6 FEDERAL GRANT PROGRAMS MAYOR ANDERSON'S RECOMMENDED BUDGETS 2002-2003 -- cpaci * * * * * * • ,I :... .:. . ,_, ._,.. .., - � 4I r ' a i UN tit :" . MO iii ;: g _ : 9{tom . `�"r ��(\-._ i— "4' , ; -'' fit' 1 .d mow'' CDBG: Uniting Communities Across America 3/4/02 SALT LAKE CITY CDBG PROGRAM 1 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 28TH YEAR(2002-2003) # Applicant Name Project Description Previous Grants Request I Funding Recommendations Project Name Year Amount Amount CDAC Mayor Council HOUSING . 1 ASSIST Inc Operational support and funds to provide 27th 350,000 350,000 350,000 325,000 Emergency Home Repair and emergency home repair to eligible low income 26th 350,000 Accessibility&Community Design residents.Repairs include plumbing,heating& 25th 305,000 electrical,leaking roofs.Provide design 24th 305,000 assistance for mobility issues. 23rd 305,000 22nd 305,000 Others 2,497,500 Total 4,417,500 3a Community Development Operational support for nonprofit housing 27th 90,000 90,000 90,000 70,000 Corporation program to implement programs which address 26th 60,000 Administration current housing needs. 25th 70,000 24th 70,000 23rd 70,000 22nd 70,000 Others 569,147 Total 999,147 3b Community Development Purchase or rehabilitate properties to provide 27th 100,000 100,000 100,000 0 Corporation low income housing. Others 0 _ Property Acquisition Total 100,000 3c Community Development Acquire&rehabilitate older homes at favorable 27th 150,000 150,000 0 100,000 Corporation prices either through HUD foreclosures or Others 0 Older Home Rehabilitation private sales,and then rehabilitate the homes for Total 150,000 1 eligible families. 4 Multi-Ethnic Development Operating funds for program that identifies, 27th 10,000 40,000 10,000 20,000 Corporation develops and operates housing properties for 26th 5,000 Low and Moderate Income Housing very low to moderate income populations. Others 0 Rehabilitation Total 15,000 5 LifeCare Operational support of agency that provides 27th 30,000 50,000 50,000 30,000 Critical Home Repair Project minor home repairs for seniors and disabled 26th 30,000 citizens.Repairs include minor plumbing, 25th 15,000 electrical,replacing furnace filters,etc. 24th 15,000 23rd 15,000 22nd 15,000 Others 66,500 Total 186,500 3/4/02 SALT LAKE CITY CDSG PROGRAM 2 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 28TH YEAR(2002-2003) # Applicant Name Project Description Previous Grants Request Funding Recommendations Project Name Year Amount Amount CDAC Mayor Council 6 SL Neighborhood Housing Operational support and funds to provide low- 27th 175,000 175,000 175,000 75,000 Services interest loans to people who may not qualify for a 26th 75,000 Revolving Loan Fund traditional bank mortgage. Funds also used for 25th 75,000 blended mortgages, home improvement loans 24th 75,000 and a rehabilitation project. 23rd 75,000 22nd 75,000 Others 505,000 Total 1,055,000 7 SLC Housing and Neighborhood Funds to be used to assist nonprofit housing 27th 65,000 100,000 100,000 90,000 Development entities as match money for new transitional and 26th 100,000 Housing Match Fund permanent housing grants. 25th 100,000 24th 100,000 23rd 100,000 22nd 100,000 Others 365,000 Total 930,000 - 8 SLC Housing and Neighborhood Operational support and funds to provide 27th 600,000 600,000 600,000 550,000 Development residential home rehabilitation assistance to 26th 600,000 Low and Moderate Income Housing bring properties up to code, provide financial 25th 600,030 Rehabilitation assistance and to construct new homes in target 24th 650,000 areas or for income eligible residents. 23rd 650,000 22nd 650,000 Others 7,087,965 Total 10,837,995 9 Housing Total 1,655,000 1,475,0001 1,260,000 0 Percent of Total 17.5% 29.4%1 25.1% 3/4/02 SALT LAKE CITY CDBG PROGRAM 3 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 28TH YEAR (2002-2003) # Applicant Name Project Description Previous Grants Request Funding Recommendations Project Name Year Amount Amount CDAC Mayor Council STREET DESIGN 1 Fenway Avenue Neighborhood Design improvements to private street to 15,000 0 0 Fenway Avenue located at 635 include curb,gutter, drainage improvements South between 1200 and 1238 East and street resurfacing. Carried over from last year's applications. 2 SLC Engineering Design street improvements to include 40,000 0 40,000 1300 South between Montgomery St. sidewalk, curb, gutter, drainage and Glendale Ave. improvements,traffic calming, parkstrip landscaping and street reconstruction. 3 SLC Redevelopment Agency Design street improvements to include curb, 30,000 0 0 Ardmore Place between 200 and gutter and street resurfacing. 300 West 4 Strong Co:.:rt Neighborhood Design improvements to private street to 12,000 0 0 Strong Court located at 850 East 400 include curb, gutter, drainage improvements South and street resurfacing. Carried over from last year's applications. 5 Utahna Neighborhood Design improvements to street to include 30,000 30,000 0 Utahna Drive, Utahna Circle, Emery curb, gutter, drainage improvements and Street south of California Ave. street resurfacing. 5 Street Design Total 127,000 30,000 40,000 0 Percent of Total 1.3% 0.6% 0.8% - 3/4/02 SALT LAKE CITY CQBGPROGRAM 4 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2OTH YEAR(2UD2-2003) � Applicant Name Project Description Previous Grants Request Funding Recommendations -- Project Name Year Amount Amount CDAC Mayoroyn, oounci|� ` �T��Tt:<3��T�D�T|o� ' `�!'�`��`� *�',�^+�|'' �^��'��`�`+� ��«��''��'��'�~` �m��' �� ,��! � � ` �� `� '�� i 8LCEngineohng Construct access ramps at street corners in 27th 200.000 200'000 200.000 80.000 Physical access ramps eligible areas for individuals who use 26t1,-, 80.000 wheelchairs,walkers, canes, and strollers. 25th 50.000 24th 50.000 23rd 50.000 22nd 40.000 Others 128.720 Total 578.720 2 SLCEngin*ering Construct street improvements toinclude 27th 30.000 535.000 535`000 535.000 Glendale Street Reconstruction street reconstruction,curb, gutter and 20th 440.000 Phase 2'Montgomery Street sidewalk, parkotrip landscaping,traffic 25th 85.000 between California Ave. and calming and storm drainage improvements. 24th 30.000 Glendale St. (27th Year was for deoignj (251h &20th Year were for nonotrudionj (24th Year was for deoign.) Total 585.000 3 SLCEnginearing Reconstruct OOO West to include street 24th 20.000 308.000 308.000 308.000 60U West between 500 and 8OO pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalk, porka1rip Others U North (NHS project) landscaping and necessary drainage. (24th Year was for deoign.) Total 20.000 ' 3 Street Construction Total 1.043.000 1.043.000 823.000 0 Percent ofTotal 11.0% 20.8% 18.4% 3/4/02 SALT LAKE CITY CDBG PROGRAM 5 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 28TH YEAR (2002-2003) # Applicant Name Project Description I Previous Grants Request Funding Recommendations Project Name Year Amount Amount CDAC Mayor Council SIDEWALKS , 1 SLC Engineering Replace deteriorated sidewalk and curb and 27th 282,500 400,000 250,000 200,000 Sidewalk Replacement Program gutter in CDBG eligible areas. 26th 280,000 25th 200,000 24th 200,000 23rd 200,606 22nd 400,000 Others 2,234,000 Total 3,797,106 Sidewalks Total 400,000 250,000 200,000 0 Percent of Total 4.2% 5.0% 4.0% I 3/4/02 SALT LAKE CITY CDSG PROGRAM 6 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 28TH YEAR(2002-2003) Applicant Name Project Description Previous Grants Request Funding Recommendations Project Name Year Amount Amount CDAC Mayor Council PARKS 2 Keith Jensen Grade and contour site for improvements and 27th 45,000 485,000 0 0 Cannon Park improvements-East drainage,install sprinkler system,curb,gutter side of Jordan River between and sidewalk,paths and lighting, California and 1700 South landscaping,playground equipment and pavilions. Grading&fill-$25,000 Irrigation system-$150,000 Landscaping-$100,000 Lighting-$40,000 Concrete curb,gutter,walkways-$40,000 Playground-$50,000 Picnic pavilion-$80,000 3 Riverpark Community Garden Improvements to parkway including canoe 27th 10,000 10,000 0 10,000 Neighborhood ramp,grading and landscaping. Riverpark Community Garden- Plants-$3,000 Jordan River Parkway between 500 Materials for ramp&fill-$4,000 and 600 South Equipment rental-$3,000 4 SLC Engineering Master plan the park to include the swimming 400,000 0 330,000 Fairmont Park plan and pool and proposed skate park,relocation of construction tennis and volleyball courts and increase parking.Construct skate park. Master plan-$30,000 Engineering and Design-$40,000 Skate park construction-$330,000 5 SLC Engineering Resurface 4 of 8 tennis courts and replace 58,000 0 0 Glendale Park tennis court lights on 2 courts. improvements Construction-$53,000 Engineering&design-$5,000 6 SLC Engineering Improve existing pavilion. 73,000 0 0 Jordan Park pavilion Construction-$64,000 Engineering&design-$6,000 Construction contingency-$3,000 8 SLC Engineering Remodel existing residential structure for Arts 75,000 0 0 Jordan Park residence house in the Park program. remodel Construction-$68,000 Engineering&design-$7,000 3/4/02 SALT LAKE CITY CDBG PROGRAM 7 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 28TH YEAR (2002-2003) # Applicant Name Project Description Previous Grants Request Funding Recommendations Project Name Year Amount Amount CDAC Mayor Council 9 SLC Engineering Replace restroom, rebuild parking lot, regrade 500,000 0 0 Jordan River Park improvements play fields, add new soccer field and irrigation system. Restroom-$125,000 Soccer field-$100,000 Irrigation system-$130,000 Parking lot-$100,000 Engineering&design-$45,000 10 SLC Engineering Upgrade existing pavilion, remove fireplace and 70,000 0 0 reroof. Pop'.ar Grove Park pavilion Construction-$64,000 Engineering&design-$6,000 11 SLC Engineering Provide new sidewalk on the east side of 150,000 150,000 150,000 Riverside Drive Streetscape-700 Riverside Drive connecting to existing bridge North to 1050 North on the east side over Jordan River. Provide grading and of Riverside Drive between the erosion control, landscape and irrigation Jordan River and existing curb& system. gutter. Construction-$145,000 Engineering &design -$5,000 12 SLC Engineering Provide new parking lot on north side of park 43,000 0 0 Riverside Park parking lot adjacent to improved tennis courts, landscape and revise irrigation system. Construction-$40,000 Engineering&design-$3,000 13 SLC Engineering Remove and replace playground facility and 140,000 0 140,000 Riverside Park playground surrounding surfaces. Construction-$127,000 Engineering&design-$13,000 14 SLC Engineering Replace hedges with sod and replace chain 22,000 0 0 Roberta LaConia parking lot link fence with block wall. improvements Construction-$20,000 Engineering&design-$2,000 15 SLC Engineering Remove and replace playground facility and 91,000 91,000 91,000 Sherwood Park playground surrounding surfaces. Construction-$83,000 Engineering&design-$8,000 16 SLC Engineering Remove and replace playground facility and 240,000 240,000 22,000 Tauffer Park playground surrounding surfaces. Construction-$218,000 Engineering &design-$22,000 3/4/02 SALT LAKE CITY CDBG PROGRAM 8 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 28TH YEAR (2002-2003) t Applicant Name Project Description Previous Grants Request Funding Recommendations Project Name Year Amount Amount CDAC Mayor Council 7 SLC Engineering Replace existing restroom. 120,000 0 0 Warm Springs Park restroom Construction-$110,000 Engineering&design-$10,000 - 5 Parks Total 2,477,000 481,000 743,000 0 Percent of Total 26.2% 9.6% 14.8% , 3/4/02 SALT LAKE CITY CDBG PROGRAM g FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 28TH YEAR(2002-2003) # Applicant Name Project Description Previous Grants Request Funding Recommendations Project Name Year Amount Amount CDAC Mayor Council PUBLIC SERVICES . - . . 1 Adventure Center Tuition for children to attend day care for 54,000 0 0 Elevate to Educate infants, preschool and school-age children, also after-school programs. 2 African American Task Force Administrative support for program that 24th 10,000 56,000 0 0 Byrd House-Beat the Street teaches youth life, social, educational skills. 23rd 10,000 22nd 10,000 Others 20,000 Total 50,000 3 Asian Association of Utah Administrative and staff support for program 27th 15,000 20,000 10,000 0 Refugee Counseling Service that provides individual and family Others 0 counseling in native languages for mental health, substance abuse and domestic violence. Total 15,000 4 Boys&Girls Club Salaries&benefits for van driver and 30,896 0 0 Transportation Sensation at Poplar purchase of 15 passenger van for program Grove which transports youth members to Boys& Girls Club. Van driver wages&benefits-$3,896 15 passenger van-$27,000 5 Boys&Girls Club Salaries and benefits for program that 27th 25,000 32,416 15,000 20,000 Youth With a Voice teaches life and social skills, provides 26th 0 recreational opportunities and leadership 25th 30,000 skills for at-risk youth, at 3 facilities at 460 S 24th 43,000 Concord, 968 E Sugarmont Dr., and 567 W. 23rd 43,000 300 North. 22nd 43,000 Others 159,000 Total 343,000 6 Boys&Girls Club Salaries and benefits for after-school program 27th 34,000 34,000 34,000 34,000 Capitol West Club that provides core Club activities to area youth 26th 34,000 who are low income at-risk children. 25th 34,000 24th 34,000 23rd 34,000 22nd 34,000 Others 542,000 Total 746,000 7 Catholic Community Services Salaries, benefits&maintenance for program 27th 45,000 66,871 45,000 45,000 Weigand Resource Center that provides day shelter for homeless. 26th 50,000 Includes showers, lockers, personal hygiene items, mail/message/phone service, health referrals. Total 95,000 3/4/02 SALT LAKE CITY CDBG PROGRAM 10 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 28TH YEAR (2002-2003) Li Applicant Name Project Description Previous Grants Request Funding Recommendations Project Name Year Amount Amount CDAC Mayor Council 3 Children's Museum of Utah Salaries, operating expenses&supplies for 26th 7,500 7,500 0 0 Parent Enrichment Series program that teaches parents how to be proactive in their children's cognitive, emotional, social and physical development. (26th Year was for admission program) Total 7,500 3 Community Health Centers Salaries, benefits, operating expenses&prof. 27th 85,000 150,000 90,600 85,000 Primary medical and dental care services for program that provides medical 26th 90,000 and dental care to uninsured and low-income 25th 10,000 persons. Total 185,000 0 Crossroads Urban Center Partial salary for director of program that 27th 12,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 Emergency Food Pantry provides food, counseling and emergency 26th 12,000 funds to low-income and homeless persons. 25th 10,000 24th 10,000 23rd 60,000 22nd 60,000 Others 87,000 Total 251,000 1 Family Support Center Partial salaries for houseparents for program 27th 5,000 10,000 5,000 5,000 Family Support,Crisis Nursery which provides crisis nursery services to 26th 0 children who are at risk for abuse. 25th 5,000 24th 5,000 23rd 5,000 22nd 5,000 Others 10,000 Total 35,000 2 First Step House Salary for data clerk, computer equip., 27th dna 35,230 15,000 5,000 Administrative assistance supplies, consultant programmer for program 26th 3,500 which provides substance abuse treatment 25th 16,500 services, both residential and outpatient. 22nd 25,000 Others 92,000 Total 137,000 3 Guadalupe Center Partial salary of director, operating expenses, 27th 42,000 44,000 42,000 40,000 Educational Programs and partial funding for laptop computers and 26th 40,075 Early Learning Center Preschool van for program that provides pre-school 25th 38,000 Project services to low-income children. 24th 38,075 23rd 20,000 22nd 20,000 Others 40,000 Total 238,150 1 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 28TH YEAR(2002-2003) Applicant Name Project Description Previous Grants Request Funding Recommendations Project Name Year Amount Amount CDAC Mayor Council ) LifeCare Salaries , bldg. materials&office expenses 27th dna 50,000 10,000 0 Security Light and Lock P'-_,ject for program that provides home safety 26th 0 information, inspections and modifications for 25th 30,000 100 to 150 homes. 24th 30,000 (Prior year funds went to SLC Police Dept.) 23rd 30,000 22nd 30,000 Others 306,000 Total 426,000 3 Literacy Volunteers of Salary for program assistant&operating 27th 5,000 49,108 5,000 10,000 America expenses for program that addresses adult 26th 5,000 Adult literacy and ESL literacy and basic ESL programs. Others 49,000 Total 59,000 3 Neighborhood House Funding for two vans to transport low income 27th 90,000 50,000 0 15,000 Neighborhood House children to child day care and adults to day 22nd 10,000 center. (Previous funding was for building improvements.) Total 100,000 7 Ouelessebougou-Utah Alliance Partial salary, operating expenses and 13,000 0 0 Education trunks for 2nd Grade supplies& partial travel for program to provide education in social studies and cultural awareness to 2nd grade students in eligible elementary schools. 3 Our House (Formerly Homeless Partial salaries&operating expenses for 27th 70,000 165,045 15,000 20,000 Children's Foundation) program which provides child care, education, 26th 10,900 Childcare& Family Education Center case management for children and adults 25th 9,520 from shelters and low-income areas. 24th 22,294 23rd 12,000 22nd 12,000 Total 136,714 3 People Helping People Operating expenses and workbooks for 27th 15,000 37,988 15,000 15,000 People Helping People program that provides employment mentoring 26th 21,405 to low-income single parents. Total 36,405 Prevent Child Abuse Utah Supplies and equipment for child abuse 27th 8,000 22,530 8,000 8,000 Child Abuse Prevention prevention curriculum taught in 26th 16,400 eligible elementary schools. (Previous funding was for Good Touch/Bad Touch program) Total 24,400 1 3/4/uL SALT LAKE CITY CDBG PROGRAM 12 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 28TH YEAR(2002-2003) # Applicant Name Project Description Previous Grants Request Funding Recommendations Project Name Year Amount Amount CDAC Mayor Council 21 Rape Recovery Center Partial salaries&operating expenses for 27th 32,000 40,150 40,000 30,000 Sexual Assault Crisis Intervention program that provides crisis counseling and 26th 18,060 Services services for victims of sexual assault. 25th 15,000 24th 15,000 23rd 15,000 .22nd 10,000 Others 40,000 Total 145,060 22 SL Community Action Partial salaries for program which 27th 35,000 37,000 35,000 35,000 Program assists SL families to obtain safe and 26th 37,000 Housing Outreach Rental Program affordable rental housing. (25th 37,000 24th 37,000 23rd 37,000 22nd 37,000 Others 337,500 Total 557,500 23 SL Community Action Partial salaries for program which 27th 27,500 27,500 27,500 25,000 Program provides emergency food supply to low- 26th 27,500 Northwest Emergency Food Pantry income residents. 25th 27,500 24th 27,500 23rd 27,500 22nd 27,500 Others 256,200 Total 421,200 24 SL Community Action Salaries for housing specialist for program 27th 12,500 12,500 12,500 10,000 Program which provides home maintenance and 26th 12,500 Tenant Maintenance Project money management training to low-income 25th 12,500 households. 24th 12,500 23rd 12,500 22nd 12,500 Others 50,000 Total 125,000 25 SL Donated Dental Equipment used for program that provides 27th 21,000 39,500 21,000 30,000 Dental Services dental care to homeless and uninsured low 26th 15,350 income persons. 25th 17,247 24th 16,000 Total 69,597 26 SLC HAND Provide grants to eligible community councils 21st 10,000 18,000 0 9,000 Neighborhood Self-Help Grant for preparing and distributing letters and agendas. ,Total 10,000 JNI_1 �...1/_ %ail 1 vu1.3U rKUUI<HIYI 16 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 28TH YEAR (2002-2003) # Applicant Name Project Description Previous Grants Request Funding Recommendations Project Name Year Amount Amount CDAC Mayor Council 27 SLC Police Department Partial salaries for specialists for program that 27th 75,000 79,780 75,000 75,000 Crime Prevention teaches citizens crime prevention concepts 26th 74,920 and coordinates programs and police 25th 66,253 services. 24th 66,253 23rd 66,253 22nd 66,253 Others 805,353 Total 1,220,285 28 SLC.' Police Department Supplies and equipment for program that 27th 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Mobile Neighborhood Watch trains and coordinates mobile neighborhood 26th 10,000 watch groups. 25th 10,000 24th 10,000 23rd 10,000 22nd 10,000 Others 38,000 Total 98,000 29 The Road Home (formerly Salaries&benefits for front-line staff for 27th 126,000 126,000 126,000 120,000 Traveler's Aid) program which helps residents gain skills 26th 126,000 Supportive services to become self sufficient while staying at 25th 126,000 shelter. 24th 126,000 23rd 126,000 22nd 126,000 Others 918,000 Total 1,674,000 30 Utah Nonprofit Housing Partial salaries for agency that manages 27th 40,000 40,000 40,000 30,000 Corporation affordable and transitional housing units. 26th 40,000 Manage and develop affordable 25th 40,000 housing properties. 24th 40,000 23rd 40,000 22nd 40,000 Others 80,000 Total 320,000 31 Utah Peace Institute Partial salaries&operating expenses for 25,000 0 10,000 Young Refugees of Utah for World program which assists refugee youth in Peace transition to USA,teaches&promotes leadership and community outreach. 3/4/02 SALT LAKE CITY CDBG PROGRAM 14 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 28TH YEAR(2002-2003) # Applicant Name Project Description Previous Grants Request Funding Recommendations Project Name Year Amount Amount CDAC Mayor Council 32 Wasatch Community Gardens Partial salary for director for youth program 27th 12,000 15,000 7,500 10,000 Youth and Community Gardening that teaches responsibility,respect through 26th 12,000 Programs hands-on gardening experiences and for the 25th 12,000 adult program that provides opportunities for 24th 12,000 low-income residents to grow fresh 23rd 12,000 vegetables and herbs. 22nd 12,000 Others 66,000 Total 138,000 33 YMCA Partial salaries&operating expenses for the 27th 10,000 18,000 10,000 15,000 After-school and Summer program that provides after-school and 26th 33,000 Enrichment Program summer programs for youth living in Total 43,000 homeless shelters. 34 Community Development Partial salaries&operating expenses for 40,000 0 0 Corporation program that collects and stores building Affordability Project materials for home construction. 34 Public Services Total 1,471,014 728,100 725,000 0 Percent of Total 15.5% 14.5% 14.4% 15%Cap on Public Services 728,100 728,100 728,100 728,100 Difference -742,914 0 3,100 728,100 JHL .,..,uv t hCUhrvwiu I J FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 28TH YEAR(2002-2003) Applicant Name Project Description Previous Grants Request Funding Recommendations Project Name Year Amount Amount CDAC Mayor Council PUBLIC:SERVICE BUILDING MPROVEMENTS <, ;' „� 1 "and Justice for all" Funding for telecommunications hardware, 27th 210,000 90,700 0 90,000 Technology enhancements to cable and network for legal advocates that Community Legal Center provide outreach, education and assistance to low and moderate income individuals. Hardware-$29,500 Cable&network-$56,700 Computer switches-$4,500 Total 210,000 2 Artspace/Bridges FUr; ing for furnishings for dance studio 25th 250,000 50,000 0 10,000 :,.stitute for Art and Imagination facilities. Dance floor, mirrors,finishings-$25,000 Cupboards,work surfaces, divider-$25,000 25th Year was for infrastructure improvements Total 250,000 3 Asian Association of Utah Funding for repair and structural anchoring of 23rd 38,000 25,000 0 20,000 Parking lot and roof repair roof on building at 1588 S. Major, and develop parking lot on vacant lot at 1600 S Major. Manager salary-$1,000 Construction-$15,000 Rehabilitation-$9,000 Total 38,000 4 Children's Museum of Utah Funding to establish a technology enrichment 22nd 25,000 300,000 0 0 Teen Enrichment Center center to develop project-based video, photographic, audio,website, radio programs. Building contract-$100,000 Associated costs-$50,000 Technology for center-$150,000 Others 317,250 (Prior funds were for Wastach Plunge bldg.) Total 342,250 5 East Central Community Funding to redesign and install new 59,425 0 50,000 Council landscaping in front of the senior center, 10th East Senior Center including sprinkler system, sidewalks, and landscaping improvements low-maintenance plantings. Construction-$43,525 Engineering &design-$3,500 Demolition-$5,900 Administration-$2,500 Contingency-$4,000 SALT LAKE CITY CDBG PROGRAM 16 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 28TH YEAR(2002-2003) # Applicant Name Project Description Previous Grants Request Funding Recommendations Project Name Year Amount Amount CDAC Mayor Council 6 First Step House Funding for driveway and parking lot 26th 3,500 9,500 0 9,000 First Step House transitional renovation for their transitional housing 25th 16,500 housing project. 22nd 25,000 Grading,filling&capping-$7,500 Engineering,design,contingency-$2,000 (Prior years funds were for mattresses, Others 92,000 carpet,stairways&other improvements.) Total 137,000 7 Nettie Gregory Community Center Funding for interior and exterior renovations. 27th 40,000 46,000 0 4,000 Community Center improvements floor tile,drywall and paint,weather-strip 26th 20,000 install gas water heater,exterior pole lamps, 25th 25,000 replace parking lot. Others 9,000 Floor tile in upstairs office-$2,500 Total 94,000 Repair and paint office wall-$500 Weather-strip rear exit doors-$100 New water heater-$500 3 exterior pole lamps-$7,000 Outdoor drinking fountain-$600 Asphalt parking lot-$25,000 Fees-$3,800 _ Engineering&design-$3,800 8 Rape Recovery Center Funding for new windows&stucco on their 26th 28,344 35,800 35,800 15,000 Building improvements& building. renovation Resurface exterior with stucco-$15,000 26 windows-$20,800 9 Salvation Army Remove old flooring and replace in bathroom 27th 40,000 8,683 8,600 0 Renovating bathrooms and shower facilities. 25th 20,885 Remove&replace flooring-$8,683 23rd 10,000 Others 39,755 Total 110,640 11 SLC HAND Funding for grant to nonprofit organizations 27th 7,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Special Contingency Fund when they experience unforeseen emergency repairs to their facilities. Total 7,000 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 28TH YEAR(2002-2003) # Applicant Name Project Description Previous Grants Request Funding Recommendations Project Name Year Amount Amount CDAC Mayor Council 12 Utah Alcoholism Foundation Funding to renovate kitchen, replace floor 104,200 0 10,000 Women &Children's center- coverings, construct access ramp and kitchen remodel reconfigure bath for ADA.209 Douglas St. (1250 E and 200 S) Kitchen-$48,100 Carpet-$2,800 ADA ramp-$6,200 ADA bathroom-$18,000 (untitled)-$10,000 Engineering&design-$6,000 Demolition-$4,800 Fees, permits, contingency-$8,300 13 Utah Alcoholism Foundation Funding for new carpet,window coverings 13,960 8,000 8,000 House of Hope-carpet, blinds, and driveway repair. 1006 E 100 South SLC driveway Carpet-$2,650 Blinds and drapes-$4,674 Driveway repairs-$3,000 Engineering &design-$1,136 Demolition-$2,000 Permits,fees, contingency-$500 14 Utah Food Bank Funding for racks to store and organize food 31,500 31,500 30,000 Pallet racks warehouse for the Utah Food Bank. 15 Volunteers of America Funding for reconstruction of front and east 27th 103,000 16,892 16,000 15,000 Adult Detoxification Center parking lots, install 3 awnings, purchase and 26th 64,000 install 2 signs and provide landscaping 24th 29,700 around building. 23rd 29,100 Construction-$13,846 Others 24,348 Engineering &design-$3,046 Total 250,148 14 Building Improvement Total 801,660 109,900 271,000 0 Percent of Total 8.5% 2.2% 5.4% 3/4/U2 SALT LAKE CITY CDBGPROGRAM 18 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 28TH YEAR(2DO2-2003) # Applicant Name Project Description Previous Grants Request Funding Recommendations Project Name Year Amount Amount COAC K8 Council Mayor PLAN NI ��''��',� '��'��/x��.'$�^~�(?� �^ .'' '�`.�� . .'. ounc 1 SUCP|annin g �onduo1o �udyof�oSugarhoumaamufVr 430O0 0 ' 25000 ' 8ugarhouno Community study for nnminohonho the National Rogi�orofHioVoho ' ' National Register Districts. � 2 SLCP|onninQ 'Conduct e study to review transportation 450UO 45OOO 300OO j 5ugarhouoo Business Di�h�� needs, parking, ntm��modi8naUono. ' ' ' Small Area Plan nhnetonope plan and design options, etc.for the Sugerhouon Business District. 3 SLCP|onninQ Conduct o study ho review the feasibility of 85000 O 0 VVaoa�hPlunge oommunih/ renovating the VVau�rh Plunge building for ' recreation center feasibility study use au community recreation center. 4 SLCP|anninQ Conduct o study to review the infrastructure 25O00 25OOO 0 Rose Park nommon�a|node impnovomn�ubo the oommonjm| node �t90O ' ' infrastructure improvements AUO West and 1U00 North such ao bus stops, West approximately between 1UOO sidewalks, crosswalks, street lighting, North and 8OONorth oignago. street trees and landscaping, etc. 5 Wasatch Front Resource Develop a master plan for the Parley's Creek 3O0OO 3O00U U Conoervabun&Development nonidorwith the otjeohveoufoenonnenUng ' ' Council . communities, providing access hn Master planning and concept destinations and multiple recreation development for Parley's Creek experiences. Hidden Hollow ho Fairmont Park Corridor Trail then along railroad corridor ho City limits at50O East. 5 Planning Total 228.000 1OO.0OO 55000 O PoonentofToto| ' 2.4% 2.0% 1.1% __ 19 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 28TH YEAR(2002-2003) i, # Applicant Name Project Description Previous Grants Request Funding Recommendations Project Name Year Amount Amount CDAC Mayor Council ECONOMIC-DEVELOPMENT:, 1 SLC Community&Economic Funding for loans to small business owners 400,000 0 0 Development for expansion and growth. CDBG Revolving Loan Fund 2 Westside Alliance Funding for salaries&administrative support 40,000 0 0 North Temple Corridor Economic for Alliance staff and to develop&distribute Revitalization Plan a Westside Business Directory. Economic Development Total 440,000 0 0 0 Percent of Total 4.2% 0.0% 0.0% 3/4/02 SALT LAKE CITY CDBG PROGRAM 20 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 28TH YEAR (2002-2003) # Applicant Name Project Description Previous Grants Request Funding Recommendations Project Name Year Amount Amount CDAC Mayor Council GENERAL ADMINISTRATION 1 Utah Issues Administrative support for a new program that 20,000 0 0 Continuum of Care Coordinator would coordinate homeless plans and services throughout the County, and write annual grant. General Administration Total 20,000 0 0 0 - CITY ADMINISTRATION. 1 `.5 ',z - , ,.,. 1 City Attorneys Office Funding for functions necessary to 27th 55,432 55,432 55,432 55,432 administer CDBG grant. 26th 55,432 25th 55,432 24th 53,300 23rd 53,300 ' 22nd 53,300 Others 383,360 Total 709,556 2 Community Affairs Funding for functions necessary to 27th 41,998 41,998 41,998 41,998 administer CDBG grant. 26th 41,998 25th 41,998 24th 40,695 23rd 40,695 22nd 40,695 Others 371,090 Total 619,169 3 Environmental Assessments Funding for functions necessary to 27th 55,640 55,640 55,640 55,640 administer CDBG grant. 26th 55,640 25th 55,640 24th 53,500 23rd 53,500 22nd 53,500 Others 258,800 Total 586,220 4 Finance Funding for functions necessary to 27th 43,680 43,680 43,680 43,680 administer CDBG grant. 26th 43,680 25th 43,680 24th 42,000 23rd 42,000 22nd 42,000 Others 266,440 Total 523,480 JAL i �....a- Lot i a ......�.. I KI.OU1.,+I.1 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 28TH YEAR (2002-2003) # Applicant Name Project Description Previous Grants Request Funding Recommendations Project Name Year Amount Amount CDAC Mayor Council 5 Housing & Neighborhood Funding for functions necessary to 27th 408,345 422,694 422,694 422,694 Development administer CDBG grant. 26th 408,345 25th 408,345 24th 324,500 23rd 324,500 22nd 324,500 Others 2,183,500 Total 4,382,035 6 Office of Neighborhood Services Funding for functions necessary to 27th 49,711 49,711 49,711 49,711 administer CDBG grant. 26th 28,398 25th 50,476 24th 49,627 23rd 49,627 22nd 49,627 Others 346,200 Total 623,666 7 Property Management Funding for functions necessary to 27th 48,287 48,287 48,287 48,287 administer CDBG grant. 26th 48,287 25th 48,287 24th 46,430 23rd 46,430 , 22nd 46,430 Others 130,410 Total 414,561 City Administration Total 717,442 717,442 717,442 0 Total Administration 737,442 717,442 717,442 0 Percent of Total 7.8% 14.3% 14.3% Planning&Administration Total 965,442 817,442 772,442 0 20% Cap 970,800 970,800 970,800 970,800 Difference 5,358 153,358 198,358 970,800 ,iu,uz SALT LAKE CITY CDBG PROGRAM 22 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 28TH YEAR(2002-2003) # Applicant Name Project Description Previous Grants Request Funding Recommendations Project Name Year Amount Amount CDAC Mayor Council PERCENT FOR ART',` 1 SLC Percent for Art Funding to provide enhancements to city 27th 6,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 properties through decorative pavements, 26th 3.000 railings,sculptures,fountains,and other 25th 3,000 works of art.1%of project costs is allocated to art projects. Percent for Art Total 3,000 3,000 3,000 0 Percent of Total 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% CONTINGENCY 1 Contingency Funding set aside to cover unanticipated cost 27th 85,907 80,000 80,358 80,358 overruns on funded projects. 26th 87,608 25th 59,712 Contingency Total 80,000 80,358 80,358 0 Percent of Total 0.8% 1.6% 1.6% TOTAL REQUESTED 9,463,116 5,017,800 5,017,800 0 ANTICIPATED GRANT AMOUNT 4,854,000 4,854,000 4,854,000 4,854,000 AVAILABLE FOR REALLOCATION 163,800 163,800 163,800 163,800 TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE 5,017,800 5,017,800 5,017,800 5,017,800 DIFFERENCE -4,609,116 0 0 4,854,000 SALT LAKE CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT DESCRIPTIONS OF PROPOSED PROJECTS 28th YEAR (2002/2003) Table of Contents Section Project Category Page No. Requested $ 1. Housing 2 $1,655,000 2. Street Design 4 127,000 3. Street Construction 4 1,043,000 4. Sidewalks 5 400,000 5. Parks 5 2,477,000 6. Public Services 7 1,471,014 7. Public Services Building Improvements 14 801,660 8. Planning 16 228,000 9. Economic Development 17 440,000 10. General Administration 18 20,000 11. City Administration 18 717,442 12. Percent for Art 18 3,000 13. Contingency Fund 18 80,000 TOTAL REQUESTED $9,463,116 GRANT AMOUNT ANTICIPATED 4,854,000 PROJECTED AMOUNT AVAILABLE FOR REALLOCATION 163,800 TOTAL AVAILABLE FOR PROJECTS 5,017,800 1.ASSIST, Inc. - Emergency Home Repair 350,000 218 E. 500 So. Funding for administrative support for a portion of salary, taxes and benefits for four staff positions for a program that provides grants for housing repairs of up to$1500 per year to homeowners and $250 to renters, who are very low or fixed income households, elderly or disabled individuals. Repairs include plumbing, heating and electrical, replacement or repair of leaking roofs, and installation of accessibility ramps and grab bars. Last year, Assist completed 350 Emergency Home Repair jobs at approximately $770 per job and made 75 accessibility modifications to households and nonprofit organizations in Salt Lake City. Assist also provides architectural design, community planning and development assistance to other nonprofits and community organizations. Funds requested will complete approximately 350 Emergency Home Repair projects and provide 75 households with accessibility alterations and design services. Community design assistance will be provided to approximately 25 nonprofit or community groups. Application filed by nonprofit organization. 3a. Salt Lake Community Development Corp. (CDC) -Administration 90,000 501 East 1700 South Funding for administrative support for a portion of salary, taxes and benefits for eight staff positions, office supplies, conference expenses, consultant fees, postage, utilities and printing costs for a program that provides affordable home ownership opportunities to low- and moderate-income families throughout Salt Lake City. This organization's primary focus is providing affordable homeownership opportunities to low- and moderate-income families through new construction, rehabilitation, down payment assistance, financial assistance, counseling and education, and information and referral. The funds requested are necessary for the proper management of these activities. Application filed by nonprofit organization. 3b. Salt Lake CDC - Property Acquisition 100,000 501 East 1700 South These funds will purchase land that can be developed as affordable homeownership for low-income families. This activity would help address the homeownership needs expressed in the city's Community Housing Plan. The CDC has built 22 new homes for low-income families in the City since 1993. Since vacant land is scarce in the city, when opportunities become available, it is critical that the CDC act quickly to purchase the property. If the properties are large enough to accommodate more than one home, funds may also be used for infrastructure and site development. After the purchase of the land, the CDC will work with community residents, public officials, lending institutions, and City staff, to determine the most efficient and cost-effective homes to be sold to low-income families. Homes will be erected ranging in size from 1000 to 2000 square feet. They will also range from two bedrooms/one bath to four bedrooms/two baths. Cost of homes will range between $90,000 and $125,000. Application filed by nonprofit organization. 3c. Salt Lake CDC - Older Home Rehab Project 150,000 501 East 1700 South Funding will be utilized to purchase older homes at favorable prices through HUD foreclosures or private sales. These homes will be then he rehabilitated and sold to income eligible families. This program not only preserves the city's housing stock for low-income families, it helps revitalize neighborhoods. The CDC has successfully rehabbed 27 homes in Salt Lake City. Application filed by nonprofit organization. 4. Multi-Ethnic Development Corp. - Operating Funds 40,000 136 S. Main St., Suite 715 This request is for administrative costs to include a portion of salary, taxes and benefits for two staff positions, for a program that provides affordable housing services to low-income persons. Operational support for the coming year will allow MEDC to continue to serve as a provider of affordable housing in the Salt Lake City area. The mission of MEDC is to serve the community by developing, owning and managing clean, safe and affordable housing for very Tow-to moderate-income populations of the 2 Wasatch Front, and to advocate for the rights and dignity of all people in need of affordable housing. MEDC strives to provide housing opportunities for the city's ethnically diverse populations. MEDC purchases and rehabilitates neglected or disreputable multi-and single-family properties in residential neighborhoods to provide rental housing for persons at or below 44% of the area median income. Application filed by nonprofit organization. • 5. LifeCare (SHHIP) —Critical Home Repair Project 50,000 Community Services Council Program 1025 South 700 West This request is for administrative costs to include a portion of salary, taxes and benefits for eight staff positions, for a program that provides minor home repairs (minor plumbing, electrical, furnace filters, etc.) for seniors and disabled citizens. Funding is also requested for supplies, postage, printing costs, employee training, building equipment and materials, vehicle expenses and equipment maintenance. This program is expected to serve 479 residents through 582 jobs in 335 homes located in Salt Lake City. LifeCare Services focuses specifically on those home repairs and maintenance components that do not require building permits or need to be done by professional contractors. These services preserve the city's housing stock through early detection and intervention of problems as well as the livability of the homes. LifeCare Services provides assistance with minor critical home carpentry, electrical repairs, plumbing repairs, minor accessibility modifications, appliance repair and interior/exterior painting for the low-income, elderly and disabled population. Application filed by nonprofit organization. 6. Neighborhood Housing Services (NHS) 175,000 622 West 500 North Funding for administrative support for a portion of salary, taxes and benefits for seven staff positions, for a program that provides low interest home improvement loans to those who might not typically qualify for traditional bank mortgage loans. These loans are provided for the purpose of home and commercial rehab, concentrating on code or safety related problems first. In addition, these funds assist with land acquisition of problem properties for development of affordable housing, in-fill housing and blended mortgages. NHS now offers first mortgage opportunities and when a low-interest CDBG second mortgage is extended in conjunction with an NHS first mortgage, the overall monthly payment becomes more affordable and allows more people the opportunity for home ownership. NHS has successfully provided nearly 400 loans totaling over$7 million in housing stock improvements. The target area encompasses the Guadalupe, Jackson, Onequa and Capitol Hill neighborhoods in the northwest section of the city and the Glendale neighborhood in the southwest section of the city. Application filed by nonprofit organization. 7. Salt Lake City - Housing Match Fund 100,000 451 So. State Street, Rm. 406 Funding to be used by Salt Lake City Housing and Neighborhood Development as match money for new transitional and permanent housing grants being issued by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Past projects include funding for Jacob Apartment building acquisition for individuals with HIV/AIDS; a new facility for the Volunteers of America detoxification transitional housing; special purpose group home facility for the disabled; and a housing facility for chronically mentally ill individuals in conjunction with Valley Mental Health. Application filed by Salt Lake City Housing and Neighborhood Development. 8. Salt Lake City - Low and Moderate Income Housing Rehabilitation $600,000 451 So. State, Rm. 404 Funding for administrative support for salaries, taxes and benefits for ten staff positions, office supplies, mileage, training, travel, telephones, and computer support for a program that provides residential rehabilitation including technical assistance (property inspections, preparation of cost estimates, recommendation of contractors and supervision of construction), financial services (minimum payment/low interest loans, property appraisals, loan limit analyses, credit and title searches, and loan application preparation), monitoring services, construction for the elimination of slums and blight and prevention of blighting influences, and the deterioration of property, neighborhood and community 3 facilities for persons of low/moderate-income, within CD eligible areas of the city. These funds will also be used to oversee the rehabilitation of 110 housing units, 30 first time home buyer projects, project management for several CDBG funded public service building improvement projects and management of a $22,000,000 mortgage portfolio. Application filed by Salt Lake City Housing and Neighborhood Development. TOTAL HOUSING REQUESTS $1,655,000 2. STREET DESIGN REQUESTED AMOUNTS 1. Fenway Avenue Street Design 15,000 1200 to 1238 East Fenway Avenue (635 South) Funding to design street improvements to Fenway Avenue to include street reconstruction, installation of curb, gutter and sidewalk and storm drainage. Fenway Avenue is currently a privately owned street but will be dedicated to the city before construction begins. There are 16 properties affected by this request and all property owners have signed the street dedication petition for this project. This project has been presented to the East Central Community Council where it received unanimous support. Application filed by Fenway Avenue resident. 2. Glendale Area Street Reconstruction, Phase II 40,000 1300 South (Montgomery Street to Glendale Avenue) Funding to design street improvements to include 2000 linear feet of street reconstruction, installation of curb, gutter, sidewalk, traffic calming features and improvements to storm drainage.1300 South is a public street owned by the city. There are 51 properties adjacent to this project. 1300 South is listed on the 20- year CIP needs list of local streets needing reconstruction. Application filed by Salt Lake City Engineering Division. 3.Ardmore Place Design 30,000 Ardmore Place between 200 and 300 West Funding to design street improvements to include curb, gutter, sidewalk and drainage along this publicly owned street. Application filed by the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency. 4. Strong Court Street Design 12,000 342 to 362 Strong Court (850 East) Funding to design street improvements to Strong Court to include street reconstruction, installation of curb, gutter and sidewalk and storm drainage. Strong Court is currently a privately owned street but will be dedicated to the city before construction begins. There are 12 properties affected by this request and all property owners have signed the street dedication petition for this project. Application filed by Strong Court resident. 5. Utahna Drive Design 30,000 Utahna Drive, Utahna Circle, Emery Street south of California Ave. Funding to design street improvements to include curb, gutter, sidewalk and drainage along this publicly owned street. Application filed by the neighborhood residents. TOTAL STREET DESIGN REQUESTS $127,000 3. STREET CONSTRUCTION REQUESTED AMOUNTS 1. Physical Access Ramps 200,000 Citywide in CD eligible areas Construction costs for approximately 125 access ramps at various locations in CD eligible areas, to provide access to grocery stores, parks, bus stops, senior centers, community centers, libraries and 4 public services for individuals who use wheelchairs, walkers, canes and strollers. Without these services, many individuals would remain homebound and unable to utilize available services. There are approximately 4,000 locations within CD eligible areas in need of accessibility ramps in order for Salt Lake City to meet the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. The Mayor's Task Force on Accessibility will assist in the determination of priority ramp locations. Salt Lake City Engineering Division filed application. 2. Glendale Area Street Reconstruction, Phase 2 535,000 Montgomery Street between California Ave. and Glendale Street Funding to construct street improvements to include street reconstruction, installation of curb, gutter, sidewalk, park strip landscaping, traffic calming features and improvements to storm drainage. Montgomery Street is a public street owned by the city. There are 51 properties adjacent to this project. Montgomery Street is listed on the 20-year CIP needs list of local streets needing reconstruction. Project received design funds from 27th Year CDBG. Application filed by Salt Lake City Engineering Division. 3. Reconstruct 600 West - NHS project 308,000 600 West between 500 North and 600 North Reconstruct 600 West to include removal and replacement of street pavement and installation of curb and gutter, park strip landscaping and necessary storm drainage improvements. This project is needed to upgrade neighborhood and streetscape appearance; improve access to abutting properties and residential structures; provide streetscape amenities to allow for area housing redevelopment; and to improve street drainage and eliminate street ponding. This project was designed with $20,000 in CDBG funds during 24th Year. Application filed by Salt Lake City Engineering Division. TOTAL STREET CONSTRUCTION REQUESTS $1,043,000 4. SIDEWALKS REQUESTED AMOUNTS 1. CDBG Sidewalk Replacement 400,000 Citywide in CD eligible areas Funding for replacement of cracked and displaced sidewalk, curb and gutter. This project will improve low-and moderate-income neighborhoods by providing improved pedestrian safety, access and upgrading neighborhood appearance. A 1998 inventory of deteriorated sidewalk in CDBG areas identified approximately $4 million worth of remaining needs. Community councils will assist in the determination of priority sidewalk replacements. Application filed by Salt Lake City Engineering Division. TOTAL SIDEWALK REQUESTS $400,000 5. PARKS REQUESTED AMOUNTS 2. Cannon Park Development 485,000 Jordan River Parkway and California Avenue to 1700 South Funding to develop the east side of the Jordan River Parkway between 1700 South and California Avenue. Specific work to be funded includes: grading the site; installation of irrigation system; installation of curb and gutter along Riverside Drive; concrete pathways for pedestrians; installation of lighting; parking lot development; landscaping; playground equipment; and picnic pavilions. Application filed by resident of the area. 3. Riverpark Community Garden 10,000 500-600 South at the Jordan River Funding to complete improvements to a portion of the Jordan River to include landscaping, creating canoe ramp and pier. This project will benefit wildlife, enhance neighborhood aesthetics, provide better 5 river access, raise property values for the entire area and provide a much-needed positive quality to the community. Application filed by resident of the area. 4. Fairmont Park Plan and Construction 400,000 700 East 2361 South Funding to master plan the park to include the existing swimming pool, relocation of tennis and volleyball courts, development of a skate park in the former swimming pool and increase parking. Funding to include construction of a new skate park facility. Application filed by City Engineering Division. 5. Glendale Park Tennis Court Improvements 58,000 1200 West 1700 South Funding to re-surface 4 of 8 tennis courts and replace lights on two courts. Application filed by City Engineering Division. 6. Jordan Park Pavilion 73,000 900 West 1000 South Funding to improve the existing pavilion to make it a long-lasting facility. Application filed by the City Engineering Division. 8. Jordan Park Residence House Remodel 75,000 1060 South 900 West Funding to remodel existing residential structure to allow it to become used for the Arts in the Parks youth Program. This would include removal of existing floor coverings and to paint existing wood floors; to upgrade the heating and air conditioning system; and to do minor adjustments to interior walls, door, cabinets and to paint the same. Application filed by City Engineering Division. 9. Jordan River Park Improvements 500,000 1700 South 1150 West(Jordan River) Funding to replace restroom, rebuild parking lot, re-grade play fields, add new soccer field and irrigation system. Funding to install automatic irrigation system to replace old and deteriorated system in need of continual maintenance and repair. Funding is also requested to upgrade soccer/play fields at this 14 acre site, that are in need of reconditioning, and to create one new soccer/play field. The additional soccer/play field will provide an additional place for a youth sport in great demand. This project would allow this park to continue to serve the public and keep maintenance costs down. Design of this project was funded with $25,000 CDBG funds during 25th Year. To remodel/reconstruct existing restrooms to meet ADA Safety and Accessibility requirements in a heavily used park. The project would include individual stalls to accommodate persons with disabilities and make the restrooms safer and easier to maintain. The existing facility is old and constantly in need of maintenance and repairs. Application filed by City Engineering Division. 10. Poplar Grove Park Pavilion 70,000 1190 West 800 South Funding to upgrade the existing pavilion, remove fireplace and re-roof. Application filed by City Engineering Division. 11. Riverside Drive Streetscape 150,000 700 North to 1050 North on east side of Riverside Dr. between street and Jordan River Funding to provide a new sidewalk on the east side of Riverside Drive and connect to existing bridge over Jordan River. Funding also includes grading, erosion control, landscaping improvements and irrigation system. Application filed by City Engineering Division. 12. Riverside Park Parking Lot 43,000 711 North 1400 West Funding to provide new parking lot on north side of park adjacent to improved tennis courts; landscape and revise the irrigation system. Application filed by the City Engineering Division. 6 13. Riverside Park Playground Replacement&ADA Modifications 140,000 711 North 1400 West Funding to upgrade and provide additional equipment to an existing playground that is old and does not meet the ADA Accessibility and National Safety Standards. Funds will be used for design and construction, concrete sidewalks and other surfacing, and containment for the playground within Riverside Park. Application filed by City Engineering Division. 14. Roberta LaConia — Parking Lot Improvements 22,000 740 South 240 East Funding to improve visibility into this publicly owned parking lot by replacing hedges with sod and irrigation system and replacing rear chain-link fence with solid block wall. Application filed by City Engineering Division. 15. Sherwood Park Playground 91,000 1500 West 400 South Funding to remove existing playground equipment and replace with facility that meets ADA standards. Application filed by City Engineering Division. 16.Tauffer Park Playground 240,000 300 East 700 South Funding to remove existing playground equipment and surrounding improvements and replace with equipment, improvements and surfaces to make it meet ADA standards. Application filed by City Engineering Division. 17.Warm Springs Park Restroom 120,000 840 North 300 West Funding to replace the existing restroom facility to make it meet ADA standards. Application filed by City Engineering Division. TOTAL PARKS REQUESTS $2,477,000 6. PUBLIC SERVICES REQUESTED AMOUNTS 1.Elevate to Educate 54,000 Adventure Center 3868 South 200 East This request is for funding to pay for tuition for 10 children to attend day care for infants, pre-school and school-age children, and also for after school programs. Funding is also requested for salaries, materials and training costs for 5 teachers. Tuition is offered to children whose parents are attending higher education classes. Application filed by for-profit organization. 2. Beat the Street— Byrd House 56,000 African American Task Force 6826 S 2000 East, Holladay This request is for funding for administrative support, including salaries for 3 staff and van drivers, supplies and operating expenses for a program that provides out-patient substance abuse programs through mentoring, tutoring, life and social skills training, vocational training, drug free counseling and family and personal skills. Application filed by nonprofit organization. 3. Refugee Counseling Service 20,000 Asian Association of Utah Program 1588 South Major Street This request is for administrative costs to include a portion of salary, taxes and benefits for one staff position and interpreter expenses for a program that provides mental health counseling, drug and alcohol 7 prevention and treatment services, English classes, and parenting classes for refugees. This program provides a service that allows refugees to integrate into the community while maintaining their cultural identity. Refugees suffer not only from language barriers and cultural differences but many also suffer from the loss of family and personal support groups. This program also provides refugee employment referrals and community outreach to refugees. The Asian Association is the only licensed counseling facility with refugee language capabilities. Application filed by nonprofit organization. 4. Transportation Sensation at Poplar Grove 30,896 Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater Salt Lake Program 460 S Concord St. Funding for salaries and benefits for van driver and purchase of 15 passenger van for program which transports youth to Boys & Girls Club activities at Poplar Grove location from Franklin, Edison, Parkview, Mountainview elementary schools. Application filed by nonprofit organization. 5. Youth With A Voice 32,416 Boys and Girls Club of Greater Salt Lake Program 968 Sugarmont Avenue This request is for administrative costs to include a portion of salary, taxes and benefits for four staff positions, to operate boys and girls club programs at three locations to enhance self-esteem, provide recreational opportunities and leadership skills for youth who are at risk for academic failure, delinquency, and/or gang involvement. This program targets at-risk 11-17 year olds and anticipates serving 160 youth recruited from club membership, local schools, juvenile court and other community-based programs. Application filed by nonprofit organization. 6. Capitol West Boys and Girls Club 34,000 Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater Salt Lake Program 567 West 300 North This request is for administrative costs to include a portion of salary, taxes and benefits for three staff positions, for a program that provides recreational programs and counseling for high-risk, poverty-level children. This club provides a safe haven for 900 youth in the Jackson, Guadalupe and West Capitol Hill areas. Trained, caring, professional staff and volunteers provide a diverse array of programming, including the Job Placement and Mentoring Program (career development, job skills), Power Hour(daily homework activities), Ultimate Journey (a life skills curriculum), Smart Moves (a national tobacco, alcohol and drug prevention curriculum), and Clubservice/Americorps (community service projects, arts and crafts projects, health and life skill programs, special events and field trips, and non-competitive team sports). The facility is open daily after school and on Saturdays from 11:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. Application filed by nonprofit organization. 7.Weigand Resource Center 66,871 Catholic Community Services of Utah Program 235 South Rio Grande This request is for administrative costs to include a portion of salary, taxes and benefits for four staff positions, building maintenance and repairs and utilities for a program that provides day management and case management services to the homeless. The center provides the homeless a place to shower, get a haircut, store baggage, do laundry, pick up mail, search for employment, use the telephone, obtain fresh drinking water and use restroom facilities. Referrals are available to appropriate services needed by the homeless to help them eliminate the barriers that led to their homeless situation. The center serves the needs of nearly 150 homeless people per day, of whom, 1,858 were unduplicated clients during the past year. This is the only facility of its kind in the city. Application filed by nonprofit organization. 8. Parent Enrichment Series 7,500 Children's Museum of Utah 840 North 300 West This request is for funding of administrative support for a program that teaches parents how to be proactive in their children's cognitive, emotional, social and physical development. Parent training in both 8