Loading...
12/10/2002 - Minutes (3) PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, DECEMBER 10 , 2002 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Tuesday, December 10, 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: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Diana Karrenberg, Community Development Manager; Bill Wright, former Salt Lake City Planning Director; Michael Sears, Council Budget and Policy Analyst; Deedee Corradini, former Salt Lake City Mayor; Russ Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Janice Jardine, Council Planning and Policy Analyst; Lehua Weaver, Council Staff Assistant; Keith Christensen, former Councilmember; Gary Mumford, Council Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor; Bryce Jolley, former Councilmember; Roger Thompson, former Councilmember; Mayor Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson; Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer; Steven Allred, Deputy City Attorney; Edwin Rutan, City Attorney; DJ Baxter, Mayor's Senior Advisor; Joel Paterson, Special Projects Planner; Deeda Seed, former Councilmember; LDS Presiding Bishop David Burton; Stephen Clark, American Civil Liberties Union; Dani Eyer, American Civil Liberties Union; Reverend Tom Goldsmith, Plaintiff; Max Smith, former Chairman of the Planning Commission; and Beverly Jones, Deputy City Recorder. Councilmember Buhler presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1. FACT FINDING HEARING ON THE MAIN STREET PLAZA. I. PROPOSAL FOR A MAIN STREET PLAZA. Councilmember Buhler said in 1999 the City made a decision to close and sell a one block portion of Main Street to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS Church) . He said the sale would provide construction of a Main Street Plaza which would connect Temple Square and the Church Office Building. He said several plaintiffs represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Unitarian Church challenged the action by filing a lawsuit against the City in Federal Court. He said on October 9, 2002 the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Federal District Court and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and against Salt Lake City. Councilmember Buhler said after the Court of Appeals decision, the Council consulted legal counsel to determine what role they had in this matter. He said the Council had not made a decision. He said there were a number of options to be considered. Former Mayor Deedee Corradini submitted an article to the Council which appeared in the Deseret News. She said when the Administration and the Council started discussions they were aware of the history which had gone on since approximately 1961. She said Temple Square was the number one tourist attraction in Utah. She said it was a time when many cities were studying or building pedestrian malls. She said two Council Members suggested that two blocks from North Temple to 100 South be used for a pedestrian mall. She said because of light rail they decided to try one block. She said the obvious block was between North and South Temple. She said they felt it would be good for economic development. She said they had received complaints from the Avenues about traffic problems. She said the project could create a buffer if traffic patterns worked out. She said it would also help the business community and tourist attraction. 02 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, DECEMBER 10 , 2002 Mayor Corradini said it was clear from the beginning the City wanted something like the Church' s Administration Block and additional green space. She said it was the City' s initiative to go to the Church. She said they had to decide if a street or a plaza would be created on top of the underground parking. She said it was clear in discussions that the LDS Church would not buy the block unless they could control behavior. Councilmember Buhler asked if there was ever any re-negotiation on a sale price. Mayor Corradini said the appraised value was agreed on throughout the whole process. Councilmember Buhler asked if at any time the Church came back and said they could live with the easements, but wanted the price reduced. Mayor Corradini said they had not. Councilmember Lambert said he understood restrictions on expressive conduct and other activities were important elements to the Church in making the deal. He said actual language was not forwarded until April 9, 1999. He asked Mayor Corradini what efforts were made to inform the public of that part of the deal. Mayor Corradini said specific language might not have been there, but the overall understanding was talked about throughout the meetings. Councilmember Turner asked why the LDS Church and the City did not address the easement early on. Mayor Corradini said her impression at the time was that passage would be open just as it was on the Administration Block. Councilmember Jergensen said one of the compelling issues was access. He asked if options other than an easement were discussed. Mayor Corradini said her perspective was one of policy and they wanted to keep the plaza open for everyone to use. Councilmember Jergensen said the intent was to have access to the plaza 24 hours a day. Mayor Corradini said that was correct. Councilmember Jergensen said since an easement with restrictions was provided, was there any anticipation that the City would be where it was today. Mayor Corradini said she never thought the issue would come to this. Councilmember Saxton said after the process went to the community councils, it went to the Planning Commission. She said it seemed to be over a month before the final vote was taken. She asked Mayor Corradini what she attributed the timeframe to. Mayor Corradini said the pressure was to get the underground parking under construction in a timely fashion. She said there was a timeframe for a decision on what would be built on top of the underground parking. She said that was the only deadline. Councilmember Love said she saw a real distinction between a public plaza and a pedestrian mall. She asked Mayor Corradini if public officials were led to believe this would be a gathering place in downtown while the LDS Church felt they were getting an extension of their property. Mayor Corradini said the intention was to have a quiet, peaceful, reflective place in the middle of the City which the public had access to. Mayor Anderson said promises about a public easement and restrictions were made to the public. He said it was crucial the public understood that both the easement and restrictions were essential elements of the transaction. He said from the LDS Church' s point of view it was essential that restrictions be in place. He said from the City's point of view there had to be a right of pedestrian passage. Mayor Corradini said that was her understanding. Mayor Anderson said there was a severability clause in the Special Warranty Deed. He said the clause provided that if any terms or restrictions were deemed unconstitutional or unenforceable by a court, then everything else remained binding and enforceable. He asked if she understood that to mean that if the restrictions 02 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, DECEMBER 10 , 2002 were deemed unconstitutional then the City would still retain the easement. Mayor Corradini said she stood by whatever Roger Cutler, former City Attorney, said. Mayor Anderson said Stuart Reid, former Community and Economic Development Director, was quoted as saying "it was everybody' s assumption that if the restrictions were thrown out, then the City would simply convey the easement back to the LDS Church." Mayor Corradini said it was her understanding that at the time it was a possible solution. Mayor Anderson asked when she signed the Special Warranty Deed if she intended that the easement would revert back to the LDS Church if the restrictions were thrown out. Mayor Corradini said she was not involved in specifically saying that had to happen. She said Mr. Cutler felt that was a potential solution. Councilmember Buhler asked when this issue was proposed if it was her intention to benefit the City or the LDS Church. Mayor Corradini said their intention was to benefit the City. She said it would also benefit the LDS Church. Presiding Bishop David Burton said he agreed with Mayor Corradini. He said it was the LDS Church's intent to acquire the rights to that portion of Main Street. He said the LDS Church was asked if they were interested in developing and maintaining the property. He said the LDS Church had said they would consider purchasing the property. He said the intent of the parties was that the property would be purchased and access to the public would be provided. He said it had been suggested the process was flawed. He said the LDS Church denied that. He said he personally visited each Council Member and explained what the LDS Church's interest was. He said the LDS Church attended community council meetings and civic organizations. Councilmember Buhler asked about his reaction when the Planning Commission proposed no restrictions greater than a public park. Bishop Burton said the first time he heard about a requirement for an easement was January 7th, 1999. He said from that point forward it was made clear the LDS Church must retain control or there was no agreement. He said they wanted restrictions to protect the LDS Church from demonstrations and pamphleteering. Councilmember Buhler asked if that was a deal breaker. Bishop Burton said absolutely. Councilmember Buhler asked if the LDS Church had expressed that to the City. Bishop Burton said on April 5th, 1999 the LDS Church said under no conditions would they proceed with the purchase if they were not protected from abusive demonstrations. Councilmember Lambert said in the provided material there was an earlier draft of a contract which did not have a reverter or a severability clause. He asked if the LDS Church understood there could be a risk for restrictions on free speech. Bishop Burton said he could not speak for the attorneys, but those issues were never brought to the LDS Church' s attention. He said they assumed in good faith that the proposition extended by the City to the LDS Church was done as described. Councilmember Lambert said Bishop Burton had suggested in correspondence that the LDS Church was willing to work with the City to find a way to guarantee legally enforceable public access. Bishop Burton said the LDS Church believed by extinguishing the easement a way could be prescribed which would meet the constitutional test for access. Councilmember Christensen asked under what conditions the LDS Church would prohibit someone from walking through the plaza. Bishop Burton said the LDS Church did not have a screening process, but they expected appropriate decorum when people were on the property. Councilmember Turner said time, place and manner restrictions had been suggested. He said he felt the easement would be better on the west side of the plaza rather than on the east side. He asked how Bishop Burton felt about the easement and where it would best be located. Bishop Burton said the LDS Church felt an easement would not work. He said the east side was farther away from the Temple, the Temple patrons and those who used the Temple. 02 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, DECEMBER 10 , 2002 Councilmember Jergensen said Mayor Corradini had indicated that the compelling interest for the City was to create a pedestrian mall, to beautify the City's downtown center and to secure public access. He asked what the LDS Church' s interest was for going forward with the deal. Bishop Burton said they wanted a beautiful plaza between two major pieces of real estate which the LDS Church owned. He said at certain times during the summer, it was difficult to accommodate the number of visitors on the 10 acres comprising Temple Square. He said they were hopeful visitors could spread out and enjoy the plaza. Councilmember Jergensen said it appeared the initial discussion of the restrictions were picketing, demonstrating and protesting. He said those issues were discussed in both the Planning Commission and Community Council meetings. He said after the Planning Commission discussed protesting, picketing and demonstrating as excluded activities, it appeared an additional group of restrictions were established. Councilmember Jergensen asked if those restrictions were discussed early on. Bishop Burton said 14 of the issues were discussed, but the 15th issue was the most critical. He said at that point the LDS Church said if it was the public's understanding that the Church would be creating a park, then there was no deal. He said that was communicated back to the Administration. Councilmember Saxton asked why the City required the easement instead of the LDS Church agreeing to specific kinds of access. She asked if the LDS Church ever produced any document for certain kinds of access the LDS Church would have open forever. Bishop Burton said he did not know if a document was ever tendered, but there was ample dialogue about how the LDS Church would administer the remainder of the property. She asked why the LDS Church's legal counsel and the LDS Church as a body did not come back with an initiative to give the City the kind of easement agreed to. Bishop Burton said he could not respond for the attorneys, but the LDS Church Administration felt they had struck an outlined deal. He said the intent of the parties was that the City would provide access and passage. He said the Church would enjoy the opportunity of governing the property as described in the deed and easement. Councilmember Saxton asked if any discussion was held concerning the possibly of a challenge of first amendment rights while structuring the document. Bishop Burton said there had been no discussion in his presence about first amendment rights. He said there was a statement in the deed which indicated that nothing in the documents should be construed as creating a public forum. Mayor Anderson said public airing was needed regarding the written agreement and restrictions essential to the LDS Church. He said the LDS Church knew the easement was essential to the City. He said if it was determined by a court that any of the restrictions were deemed unconstitutional, then everything else stayed the same including the retention by the City of the easement. Bishop Burton said the severability clause had a multiplicity of interpretations. He said the extinguishment of the easement placed the Church in the position it was before the question was raised. He said public interest could be preserved as well. He said they wanted to talk about those issues. Bishop Burton said the easement was a vehicle to accomplish restrictions which had been talked about. He said there were other ways to preserve the intent of the parties. #II. CITY REVIEW AND APPROVAL. Max Smith, Former Chairman of the Planning Commission, said the Planning Commission' s 02 - 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, DECEMBER 10 , 2002 focus was land use issues. He said the commission was composed of citizen volunteers selected by the Mayor and City Council. He said commissioners were appointed for three year terms and many served multiple terms. He said in dealing with land use cases, the commission operated free of political pressure. He said commissioners had no constituents and did not represent their respective neighborhoods. He said in deliberations, commissioners had to function within guidelines of adopted master plans and establish planning goals within the framework of the City's zoning ordinance. Mr. Smith said in some cases such as the sale of City property where there was a land use change, the commission's actions were not binding. He said on February 4, 1999 the Planning Commission held an "issues" only" public hearing regarding the proposed Main Street Plaza. He said on March 4th, 1999, a well-attended follow-up public hearing was held. He said after that a positive recommendation regarding the sale of the section of Main Street and the design of the plaza was forwarded to the City Council by a vote of 7-1. He said the commission imposed 15 conditions on the approval. He said the 15th condition stated that there would be no restrictions on the use of the space more restrictive than what was currently permitted in a public park but picketing and protesting would not be allowed. Mr. Smith said the official minutes of the Planning Commission meeting did not include the prohibition against protesting and picketing. He said on April 13th, 1999 the Council held a public hearing where the Church stated they supported the conditions. He said by this time the 15th condition had been removed. He said the Commission felt that an easy flow of people without restriction through the plaza was essential. He said long standing planning goals of the City was to create a walkable City where everyone felt welcome. He said the Commission viewed the plaza as an essential part of the pedestrian experience. He said they acknowledged it was a unique place where some limitations on behavior were appropriate. Councilmember Buhler said the motion was that the condition be no more restrictive than a public park except protests would not be allowed. He asked Mr. Smith if it was his understanding that the night the Planning Commission considered this issue the LDS Church agreed to the public park restriction. Mr. Smith said the transcripts were clear. He said it was agreed that some more work needed to be done to define the issues. Councilmember Buhler asked if the public park concept came up at the meeting without notice that it would be discussed. He asked if people had to react without having time to think about what that meant. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Councilmember Turner said many people felt the process was rushed through the planning and approval processes. He asked Mr. Smith if a standard procedure was followed or if the procedure was rushed. Mr. Smith said the process was standard and there was the "issues only" hearing first. He said the Commission indicated there would be no vote taken. He said the hearing was to receive public comment and establish an overview of what the LDS Church intended for the design of the plaza. Councilmember Saxton asked if the Planning Commission was aware that construction was already taking place on the underground parking structure. Mr. Smith said he was not aware of that. Councilmember Saxton asked if it was ever presented to the commissioners that there was a tight timeframe and decisions were being held off. Mr. Smith said he did not recall that being the case. Mr. Smith said he recalled discussion about the parking structure being built without the Main Street portion. He said Main Street was the ingress/egress to the parking structure. Councilmember Saxton asked during the Planning Commission' s hearing if he remembered any limitations as to the number of people that could speak and the timeframe they were allowed. Mr. Smith said he thought there was a time limit of two to three minutes. He said they never cut anyone off and the Commission stayed as long as individuals wanted to speak. 02 - 5 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, DECEMBER 10 , 2002 Councilmember Lambert said it was his impression there would be further definition given to the park concept. Mr. Smith said that was his understanding. Councilmember Lambert said the concept the Planning Commission proposed would restrict expressive speech such as protesting and picketing. Mr. Smith said they felt it was important to exclude picketing and protesting. Mayor Anderson said the transcript showed that the motion with regard to Condition 15 was that there would be no restrictions on the use of the space more restrictive than a public park with the exception of no active picketing or protesting against the LDS Church. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Mayor Anderson said but when the minutes were prepared, they said no restrictions beyond what was allowed in public parks. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Mayor Anderson asked if it was represented to the Council that the LDS Church agreed with the conditions and were working to incorporate them into the agreement. Mr. Smith said he did hear that and it was also part of the transcript. Councilmember Buhler said in the transcript, Mr. Smith had stated that while the commissioners were interested in access, they were also cognizant that it was a different space than just another public street. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Councilmember Jergensen asked if the Commission understood that any picketing targeted at the LDS Church would not be allowed. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Former Councilmember Keith Christensen said he agreed with the background given of the transaction. He said this matter was heard at community council level. He said it was discussed and briefed by the Administration and the LDS Church to Council Members in private and in public. He said it was important that issues went before community councils for input because a proposal could be modified or altered. He said Council Members needed to consider all information before making a decision. He said just because the Planning Commission made a recommendation as they did with Item 15, it did not mean a City Council would approve it. He said they had a right as elected officials to make a decision based on what was best for the City. Councilmember Buhler asked if the Council had known then that a Court would not allow restrictions on the easement, would the Council have gone ahead with the sale without the easement. Mr. Christensen said the LDS Church made it clear an easement was acceptable to them as a restriction but that limitation upon conduct was a must. He said Council Members were also concerned that conduct needed to be dignified and regulated. Councilmember Christensen said the subcommittee came to the conclusion that they felt the end result was for betterment of the community. Mr. Christensen said this issue had been accurately represented by former Council Members. He said if an issue was in the best interest of the community, it should be considered and advanced. Councilmember Love said throughout the process the Council was concerned about preserving public access. Mr. Christensen said it was important to the Council and it was a dealing point as well. Councilmember Lambert said he felt the City was looking for ways to guarantee public access and asked if other alternatives were discussed. He asked if it was always the Council' s intent to have a legally enforceable right. Mr. Christensen said those against the issue were concerned with the comment "trust me". Councilmember Saxton asked if he believed elimination of Item 15 took place within negotiations between the seller and the buyer. Mr. Christensen said it was a deal point and the concept of "as restrictive as a park" would not be acceptable because it was not in the best interest of the LDS Church. He said it was in the best interest of the City. 02 - 6 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, DECEMBER 10 , 2002 He said it was easy to understand why some activities would not be acceptable to the LDS Church. He said it was also in his opinion problematic for the City. He said it was clear what the Planning Commission's recommendations were. Councilmember Jergensen said the purpose of the easement was for no restrictions other than those present in a public park. He said when the Special Warranty Deed was prepared, there was discussion about a reverter. He asked why there was a need for both and easement and a reverter. Mr. Christensen said if the LDS Church ceased to maintain and care for the plaza, then the property would revert back to the City. Councilmember Jergensen asked if during any discussions there was expectation of public forum or free expression. Mr. Christensen said language in the document was clear that the easement would not in any way create a public forum. He said it was the Council's intent to create an easement to protect right of passage. He said the 10th Circuit Court said once an easement was created and held by the City, first amendment rights applied. He said the City could not provide the other party their part of the deal. He said it was clear to him the bargain was the right to control conduct and speech and a right to passage. Mayor Anderson asked if the Council ever considered a "poison pill provision" or a severability position in the Special Warranty Deed to determine what would happen if restrictions were deemed unconstitutional. Mr. Christensen said his reaction when he heard about the 10th Circuit Court ruling was to ask if there was a "poison pill clause." He said he knew they had language concerning public forum and protecting passage. Mayor Anderson asked if that was left up to the Administration. Mr. Christensen said he did not remember discussion on the Council level. Cindy Gust-Jenson read a letter from former Councilmember Joanne Milner who was unable to attend the meeting. Former Councilmember Deeda Seed said contrary to what Bishop Burton said she felt the process was flawed. She said in 1996 former Community and Economic Development Director Stuart Reid suggested a Main Street Plaza. She said Mr. Reid said the $8 million the City received from the sale could be used for affordable housing. She said she voted for several legislative actions to study the issue. She said then she received a call from a newspaper reporter asking what she thought about Main Street being sold to the LDS Church. She said she was alarmed because there was no time for community input and she knew the issue would be controversial. Ms. Seed said it looked like the Council was going to support the sale because Bishop Burton lobbied Council Members. She said she stressed the importance of public access and the need for input from community councils. She said representations were made on many occasions that this space would be like a public park. She said those representations continued up until the night of the final vote. She said she was not sure if a full discussion was held about the City giving the easement to the LDS Church. She said they had discussed pedestrian access, bicycles being allowed, and dogs being walked. She said a lot of that disappeared because the Administration was under pressure to close the deal. She said Mr. Reid misrepresented the facts to the City Council. She said it made a difference to the public because they did not know the undertone of the deal until it was voted on and done. Former Councilmember Roger Thompson said he took exception to what Ms. Seed said. He said the sale went through the proper public process. He said the East Capital and the Greater Avenues Community Councils, the Downtown Alliance, the Downtown Merchants Association, and the Planning Commission were all in favor of the sale. He said after talking to Roger Cutler, former City Attorney, it was clear that Mr. Cutler was 02 - 7 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, DECEMBER 10 , 2002 concerned that the City not create a public forum. He said the intention was that the public had access. He said certain kinds of access were contemplated but not the kind of access allowed in a park. He said he felt public access to the plaza would be 24 hours a day. He said Council felt deletion of Item 15 was good because the plaza should not be a park. He said the Council had revisited the issue a year later. Former Councilmember Bryce Jolley said it was clear the plaza would be an extension of the Administration Block. He said the plaza would be accessible but appropriate conduct would be maintained. He said the Council wanted the plaza to be a place where people could go and feel comfortable. He said the City wanted the LDS Church to maintain the property. He said the Council trusted that everything would be taken care of in the documents. He said the 10th Circuit Court felt that legally what was proposed was not what really came of the intent. Councilmember Christensen asked Ms. Seed if there was a condition on which she would have voted for the sale. Ms. Seed said the Planning Commission had suggested creating a public/private partnership. She said she would have been more enthusiastic about that because there would have been an assured public component. She said she was always concerned about the City selling property to the LDS Church. She said it was clear to her the City would not do this for anyone else. She said that sent a wrong message to the community. She said a joint partnership would have helped assure public access issues. Councilmember Jergensen said minutes from the Planning Commission discussed the idea of a private/public partnership. He said argument was made that there would be more benefit to the LDS Church by the sale of the street than there would be to the City. He asked if that discussion stopped with the Planning Commission. Ms. Seed said it did. Councilmember Jergensen said on August 13, 1996 both Ms. Seed and Mr. Jolley voted to close Main Street from North Temple to South Temple and from South Temple to 100 South. He said the expectation with the closure was that surface rights would be sold to the LDS Church. Ms. Seed said she remembered exploring the possibility of closing the whole stretch to create a pedestrian plaza, but there was no support to do that. She said she did not vote for the sale because of the process and the fact that it felt like the sale was a done deal. She said as a citizen of the City and someone who was not of LDS faith, she felt disenfranchised and offended. Councilmember Jergensen said the Council voted unanimously in 1996 to close the street from North Temple to South Temple and sell it to the LDS Church. Ms. Seed said they agreed to study the issue but they never voted to close the street. She said the LDS Church told people what they wanted to hear in an effort to get the sale through quickly. She said a timeframe needed to be met. She said a construction project was under way and approval was needed in order to proceed with the parking garage. Councilmember Saxton asked Bishop Burton if the LDS Church owned all six blocks. Bishop Burton said they had substantial holdings in the Crossroads and ZCMI blocks, a portion of the block directly north of the Administration Building and the entire block north of Temple Square. Councilmember Saxton asked about parcels on the corner of South Temple and Main Street. Bishop Burton said those properties were owned by the LDS Church. Councilmember Saxton asked if the Council at that time understood that first right of refusal would go to property owners abutting Main Street. She asked if there was any discussion on who had the rite of first refusal to buy the land. Ms. Seed said that discussion never came to the Council. Councilmember Buhler asked Mr. Thompson what his intention was for a reverter 02 - 8 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, DECEMBER 10 , 2002 clause. Mr. Thompson said it was to have something solid in the arrangement of the sale so if the LDS Church did not live up to the promises they made, then the property would revert back to the City. Councilmember Buhler asked if that included public assess as well as view corridor and maintenance. Mr. Thompson said that was correct. Councilmember Lambert said Ms. Seed opposed the issue, but understood the plaza was going to be different from a public park. Ms. Seed said she understood access would be similar to a public park. She said it was contained in all briefing materials and was discussed after the Planning Commission. She said First Amendment issues were not correctly dealt with. She said as the process drew to a close, the plaza was getting more restrictive. Councilmember Lambert asked if the reason Ms. Seed voted against the plaza was because the final transaction was different than what she had originally contemplated. Ms. Seed said that was correct. Councilmember Lambert asked Mr. Jolley if he had a suggestion on how to accomplish public access and restrict expressive activities at the same time. Mr. Jolley said things should have been done differently. He said the Council assumed at the time that use of the property would be similar to use of the Administration block. He said the City needed to honor the intent of the original deal. Mr. Thompson said the Council needed to define what the LDS Church was willing to give and what the public really needed on the plaza. He said at the time the Council was comfortable with the restrictions contained in the recommendations from the Planning Commission except for Item 15 which talked about a park. He said that meant enforcement of the restrictions would be up to the LDS Church. He said there were no first amendment rights, access to the corridor would be preserved and the plaza would be maintained in a proper way. He said that was what he thought they had agreed to. He said the 10th Circuit Court felt any time the public was given access to a prior public street, first amendment rights went along with that access. Councilmember Turner asked Mr. Jolley how he saw this developing in his mind. Mr. Jolley said he saw accomplishing what they had originally talked about in 1996 to create synergy downtown by creating a place for people to comfortable in. He said the LDS Church was in a position to accomplish what the City wanted. He said it seemed like a win-win situation for everyone. Mayor Anderson said over the last few weeks he sensed from written documents and public promises made that the result of what happened was determined by the Corradini Administration and the LDS Church when they signed the Special Warranty Deed. He said he had asked Mr. Cutler if the court agreed with the plaintiffs and found all or part of the restrictions unconstitutional, was it the intent of the parties that the easement would be extinguished. He said Mr. Cutler said no because he felt the severability clause the Court referred to in Section 6 was intended to make clear that if any part of the transaction was void, ruled invalid, illegal or unconstitutional, the rest would remain. He said he had tried to address this issue in terms of ethical principles. He asked if he as a new Mayor and the new City Council should change the deal or abide by written agreements. He asked if anything could justify deviating from what the parties agreed would happen if and when the restrictions were deemed unconstitutional. Mr. Thompson said he did not feel that they as a Council had the opportunity to look at the final Special Warranty Deed. Councilmember Buhler asked if the severability clause was discussed by the Council. Mr. Jolley said not very much if any. Councilmember Saxton asked if the Council ever discussed concerns about lack of coverage or rights of free speech. Ms. Seed said it was a non-issue because there was no support among the other Council Members. She said the restriction list kept growing. She said she was interested in maintaining as much openness as possible on the plaza. 02 - 9 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, DECEMBER 10 , 2002 She said when the issue of picketing and leafleting came up, she had a problem but nobody else did so they did not talk about it. Councilmember Saxton asked Mr. Jolley if he recalled any discussions about First Amendment rights. Mr. Jolley said it might have been touched upon. He said the Council understood what would be proper and allowed on that section of Main Street. He said they were not looking to take away free speech space. He said this was more an issue of giving up property rights of the City to the Church and maintaining some access through the area. Councilmember Saxton asked Mr. Thompson about the issue. Mr. Thompson said it was clear in his discussion with Mr. Cutler that he was concerned about creating a public forum. He said language appeared in the documents. He said he was aware of that before he voted. #III. LEGAL CHALLENGE TO THE SALE. Stephen Clark and Dani Eyre representing the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Reverend Tom Goldsmith from the Unitarian Church held a briefing. Ms. Eyre said there must be a balancing of competing rights and interests. She said the more fundamental and important a right was which was being restricted, the less power the government had to restrict that right and the more compelling the government reason for the restriction must be. She said freedom of religious expression which accompanied everyone on public sidewalks was in question. She said the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals weighed the competing interest and found that rights of the average person were the most important. She said the City must implement regulations and weigh the basic right to free expression against the interest of the adjoining property owner. She said because the LDS Church contributed so meaningfully to the community its desires were given unprecedented deference. She said reasonable and viewpoint neutral regulations were how competing interests and uses were constitutionally governed. She said to accommodate the LDS Church's concerns the Mayor had proposed extremely restrictive regulations. Mr. Goldsmith said the tenuous threads which held the community together had been severed by this issue. He said the people of Salt Lake had lost faith and trust in each other. He said now was the time to move forward in productive ways and bring the City back together. He said the City was fractured along religious lines. He said how the City resolved the situation would be carefully scrutinized because the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals had already ruled that Main Street was a public forum. He said the LDS Church' s argument was clear. He said the LDS Church would not have bought the property unless they felt they could control it. He said the Corradini Administration knew the LDS Church wanted total control over Main Street but the public did not. Mr. Goldsmith said Item 15, as presented by the Planning Commission, would treat Main Street like a public park. He said the condition was removed. He said the interests of all City residents needed to be protected. He said Main Street was the heart of downtown and the entire community had a vested interest in that street. He said that was why the City held the easement. He said both sides of the argument was understandable. He said Mayor Anderson had given much consideration to time, place and manner restrictions. He said the Mayor presented a plan last week which had the support of LDS business leaders, the ACLU and the plaintiffs. Mr. Clark said on May 6, 1999 an article in the Salt Lake Tribune said then Council Chair Keith Christensen said the deed had been transferred, the money had been received and the deed had been recorded. He said the Council needed to be consistent and not change the rules simply because it was now the LDS Church that objected to the terms 02 - 10 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, DECEMBER 10 , 2002 of the deal rather than the ACLU. He said the Council should retain the easement and adopt constitutional time, place and manner regulations. He said it appeared to him that from the beginning public access was to be secured by a public perpetual easement. He said the easement was identified as a critical requirement of the transaction from the City' s perspective. He said a document dated January 13, 1999 had a recommendation from Salt Lake City's Transportation Advisory Board. He said the document made various findings and conclusions and imposed certain recommendations. He said one of the recommendations was a perpetual public easement for 24-hour pedestrian access be retained by the City. He said the suggestion that the easement was not important to the City and was not identified until the last minute did not agree with the record. Mr. Clark said the second element of the transaction was the LDS Church's insistence to exercise absolute control over the public' s right of access to the plaza pursuant to the easement. He said from the initial announcement until the public hearing was over, the plaza was consistently described as a park. He said it was at the Council's hearing on April 13, 1999 that the transaction transformed from the concept of a public park to a private religious enclave. He said the idea that it was clear to the public all along and that the LDS Church insisted on what the 10th Circuit Court found to be unconstitutional restrictions did not agree with the record. He said both the City and the LDS Church anticipated the possibly that restrictions on the easement could be found unconstitutional. He said they agreed that if that happened the restrictions would fall but the easement would stand. Mr. Clark said one provision said that in the event it was determined by a court having jurisdiction over grantor or the property that any of the conditions, limitations and restrictions set forth were unenforceable, the grantor reserved the right to terminate the easements for pedestrian access and passage. He said at some point there was a proposal by the LDS Church which would accomplish what the LDS Church wanted. He said that language did not make it into the final version of the warranty deed. He said it was clear the parties specifically bargained for and agreed to a solution to deal with the situation now being faced. He said unless the Council pursued reasonable time, place and manner restrictions, further litigation would be inevitable. Councilmember Buhler said as he read through the transcript of April 13, 1999, he did not see where anyone had objected to free speech. He asked if that was Mr. Clark' s recollection. Mr. Clark said after December 1, 1998 when former Mayor Corradini and President Hinckley announced the deal, the ACLU' s phones rang constantly with people voicing objections. He said the LDS Church had a right to buy and sell property. He said as far as he could tell based on what he understood the deal to be at the time, there was no reason for the ACLU to become involved. He said they did not learn of the restrictions until April 13, 1999 when the deal was approved. He said after that he and Reverend Goldsmith started looking at some of the issues in more detail. He said they immediately sent a letter to the Council voicing their concerns. Councilmember Buhler said some people raised the issue that the City should not sell a street to a church. He asked if it was a concern that the City would sell a street to a church. He asked if that was a violation of church and state. Reverend Goldsmith said constitutionally it could be done, but it was a concern because of the demographics of the town. Councilmember Buhler said it was a concern if the City sold a street to the LDS Church but it was not a concern when the City sold or vacated streets to the Baptist, Catholic or Lutheran churches. Mr. Goldsmith said there was not another street with the magnitude of Main Street. Mr. Clark said none of the streets contained unconstitutional restrictions on public access and expression like Main Street. Councilmember Christensen said Ms. Eyre termed Mayor Anderson's suggested ordinance as extremely restrictive. He asked if she reviewed the ordinance sufficiently enough 02 - 11 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, DECEMBER 10 , 2002 that she felt it would pass the constitutional aspect. Ms. Eyre said there were different ways to analyze time, place and manner restrictions. She said the two basic ways were "facially" and "as applied". She said on their face she felt the restrictions would withstand challenges. She said "as applied" which meant as they were enforced and people applied for permits and different issues came up there could be challenges. She said that was true of all time, place and manner regulations. Councilmember Turner asked why the Council should pass an ordinance if the ACLU was not clear if the ordinance would hold up on a challenge. Ms. Eyre said it was speculation and they were giving the Council their best guess that the time, place and manner regulations were carefully drafted for the circumstances at hand. She said they felt the regulations drafted by the Mayor were an excellent shot at a difficult problem. Mr. Clark said if there was anything that would not lead to litigation it was the Mayor' s proposal. He said if the Council voted to release the easement to the LDS Church that would likely trigger more litigation. Councilmember Lambert said the Council had been told almost anything they did would meet legal challenges. He said it seemed to him that time, place and manner as applied were nearly always fraught with litigation. He said it seemed to him that regulations would be a source of litigation. Mr. Clark said a lot depended on the circumstances and how they were administered. He said the ACLU had concerns during the Olympics about restrictive time, place and manner regulations. He said regulations seemed to work to address the various imbalance and competing concerns. Councilmember Lambert said he appreciated Reverend Goldsmith speaking about the need to not have divisiveness in the City. He said the issue had grown out of proportion and people on both sides of the issue were operating out of prejudice for the other side. He said the divisiveness this had presented to the community was a larger problem than one block of Main Street. Reverend Goldsmith said it was time for both sides to lay down the verbal wording and start looking at the situation in a productive way. He said he hoped the Council would support the Mayor' s proposal. Councilmember Buhler said Mr. Clark had stated that if the Council vacated the easement, they could expect another lawsuit by the ACLU. Mr. Clark said he could not speak for the ACLU, but he predicted there would be a lawsuit by someone. Councilmember Buhler asked if the easement was sold at fair market value as per the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion, would that bring about a lawsuit. Mr. Clark said it did not depend so much on continued existence of the easement but on continued guarantee of public access. He said that was what triggered First Amendment protections. He said even if the easement was not there, if by whatever means public access was legally secured to the plaza, then First Amendment protections applied. Councilmember Buhler said if the easement was sold and there was some guarantee of public access there would be a legal problem. Mr. Clark said that was correct. Councilmember Buhler said if the easement was vacated, there would be a problem. He said if there were time, place and manner restrictions, the ACLU could live with it, but someone else might sue the City. Mr. Clark said that was correct. He said if the easement was sold and the property was private and access and use of the plaza was at the discretion of the LDS Church, then there was not a constitutional issue from their perspective. The meeting adjourned at 8:41 p.m. bj 02 - 12 • NOV 1 5 2002 SAM € CITY MO °1.:. I:O �.�.� - ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL /(‘- TO: Rocky Fluhart Chief Administrative Officer Date: November 6 2002 � 5 FROM: David Dobbins, Deputy Director 4/G) //' RE: Quarterly Housing Report for Fiscal Year 2002-03 (First Quarter) STAFF CONTACT: LuAnn Clark, 535-6136 DOCUMENT TYPE: Written briefing DISCUSSION: The City Council has requested a quarterly housing report from the Community and Economic Development Department. The following information has been included in the report: • Loans for first time homebuyers, single-family rehabilitation and multi-family rehabilitation are reported separately • List of the funding sources with the dollar amount spent for the fiscal years • Building Permit Activity Report including demolition permits reported by structure and the number of units • Housing Starts by District • Boarded Building Activity and Boarded houses or apartments listed by Council District • Housing Trust Fund ledger • Residential Subdivision and Condominium Approvals and Activity Reports • Housing Economic Update • Salt Lake City Housing and Neighborhood Development Quarterly Report • Community Development Corporation Quarterly Report • Neighborhood Housing Services Quarterly Report 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 541 1 1 TELEPHONE: 901-535-6230 FAX: B01-535.6005 RECYCLED PAPER HOUSING QUARTERLY ACTIVITY REPORT July 1, 2002-September 30, 2002 First Quarter The First Time Homebuyer Program, which utilizes HOME, CDBG, Renter Rehab and Bank Partners funding, has placed 222 families into their first home. At the end of the first quarter, nine homes are in the process of rehabilitation and two new construction projects are in the bid process for first time homebuyers to purchase. Nine families were placed in new homes during this quarter. Currently four homes are ready for sale, and an additional nine homes are still in the rehab stage. Current contracts include purchasing two additional homes for rehab. First Time Home Buyer Loans Fiscal YTD 1st Quarter Loans Closed 9 9 Dollar Amount $1,040,035.00 $1,040,035.00 Average Per Loan $ 115,559.44 $ 115,559.44 The Housing Rehabilitation Program has completed 4 projects with 4 units this fiscal year. In the first quarter, the rehabilitation staff closed 4 projects with 4 units. Two multi- family projects totaling 96 units are scheduled to close during the first month of the second quarter. Single Family Rehabilitation Projects Fiscal YTD 1st Quarter Loans Closed 4 4 Dollar Amount $ 71,400.00 $71,400.00 Change Orders $ 1,600.00 $ 1,600.00 Average Per Loan $ 18,250.40 $ 17,850.00 Currently, 2 units are approved and waiting for the contractor to begin. In addition, 4 Loans with 98 units are in the loan approval process. Multi-Family Rehabilitation Projects Fiscal YTD ls` Quarter Loans Closed 0 0 Dollar Amount $0 $0 Average Per Loan $0 $0 Number of Units 0 0 Average Per Unit $0 $0 I The list below reflects both the amount and percent of total dollars spent from each funding source. FUNDING SOURCES Fiscal YTD % OF 1st Quarter % OF 7/01/02— 6/30/03 FUNDS 7/01/02-9/30/02 FUNDS Community Development $ 52,200.00 4.7% $ 52,200.00 4.7% Block Grant Rental Rehab Funds $ 0.00 0% $ 0.00 0% Personal Contributions $ 47,300.00 4.2% $ 47,300.00 4.2% Private Funding Sources $ 687,459.00 61.8% $ 687,459.00 61.8% Home $ 326,076.00 29.3% $ 326,076.00 29.3% River Park $ 0.00 0% $ 0.00 0% Other $ 0.00 0% $ 0.00 0% TOTAL $ 1,113,035.00 100% $ 1,113,035.00 100% Below is a list of mailing outreach efforts for the first quarter. DATE of MAILING NUMBER AREA August 29, 2002 382 900 West to Redwood Road 1300 South to 1700 South September 12, 2002 524 900 West to Redwood Road 1300 South to 1700 South September 18, 2002 1,115 900 West to Redwood Road 900 South to 1700 South Total Mailed 2,021 STATUS OF CURRENTLY FUNDED PROJECTS: Pugsley West and Pugsley North Subdivision The Pugsley West and North Subdivision located at approximately 500-600 North,400 West,was bid on August 9, 2002 for development of 9 single-family homes. Housing and Neighborhood Development is currently finalizing the land acquisition from the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency and construction will begin shortly afterward. This is a joint venture between the City and Neighborhood Housing Services. Project has been reviewed and approved by Engineering and Planning. The Sherwood Place Subdivision has been bid and construction will begin in early spring or summer after Pugsley is completed. The Riverview Subdivision has been completed and the Phoenix Circle Subdivision status remains unchanged. . BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY REPORT $ I BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY FOR FIRST QUARTER: JULY No. of Units Permits Issued* Single Family Dwellings 9 9 4-Plex 4 1 Manufactured Homes 1 1 Total New Construction 14 11 Additions, Alterations and Repairs 136 144 Total Residential Construction 149 155 Demolition Permits Single Family Dwelling 7 7 Duplex 2 1 AUGUST No. of Units Permit Issued* Single Family Dwellings 23 23 Duplex 2 1 Manufactured Homes 6 6 Total New Construction 31 31 Additions, Alterations and Repairs 241 199 Total Residential Construction 272 229 Demolition Permits Single Family Dwelling 3 3 Duplex 2 1 SEPTEMBER No. of Units Permits Issued* Single Family Dwellings 4 4 Manufactured Home 1 1 Condo Multi-Family 12 1 Total New Construction 17 6 Additions,Alterations and Repairs 407 167 Total Residential Construction 424 173 Demolition Permits Single Family Dwellings 2 2 Duplex 2 1 *Permits Issued Category is the number of permits issued to a contractor or sub contractor for plumbing, electrical, mechanical, etc. permits. The Building Services and Licensing Division has provided all building permit information. r Housing Starts for July 1,2002 to September 30,2002 Council House Direction Street Suffix Bld Type Constr Type Issue Date 1 1750 W FEATHERSTONE CIR 1 FAMILY RESIDENT BUILD 7/30/2002 1 1925 W BLACK ANGUS DR 1 FAMILY RESIDENT BUILD 8/1/2002 1 1977 W BLACK ANGUS DR 1 FAMILY RESIDENT BUILD 8/1/2002 1 1889 N BRANDING CIR 1 FAMILY RESIDENT BUILD 8/2/2002 1 1907 N CORRAL LN 1 FAMILY RESIDENT BUILD 8/2/2002 1 1871 N MORTON DR 1 FAMILY RESIDENT BUILD 8/23/2002 1 1793 W CAVALLO DR 1 FAMILY RESIDENT BUILD 8/23/2002 1 1911 N BRANDING CIR 1 FAMILY RESIDENT BUILD 8/26/2002 1 1880 N CORRAL LN 1 FAMILY RESIDENT BUILD 8/26/2002 1 1971 W BLACK ANGUS DR 1 FAMILY RESIDENT BUILD 8/27/2002 1 1923 N CORRAL LN 1 FAMILY RESIDENT BUILD 8/27/2002 1 1952 W BLACK ANGUS DR 1 FAMILY RESIDENT BUILD 8/27/2002 1 1721 W FEATHERSTONE CIR 1 FAMILY RESIDENT BUILD 8/30/2002 1 1720 W FEATHERSTONE CIR 1 FAMILY RESIDENT BUILD 8/30/2002 1 1904 N BRANDING CIR 1 FAMILY RESIDENT BUILD 9/27/2002 2 1611 W LILJAY CIR 1 FAMILY RESIDENT BUILD 7/2/2002 2 1196 S PROSPECT ST 1 FAMILY RESIDENT BUILD 7/10/2002 2 1128 S PROSPECT ST 1 FAMILY RESIDENT BUILD 8/1/2002 2 1147 S PROSPECT ST 1 FAMILY RESIDENT BUILD 8/2/2002 2 755 W JUSTIN KAY CT 1 FAMILY RESIDENT BUILD 8/21/2002 2 1139 S PROSPECT ST 1 FAMILY RESIDENT BUILD 8/21/2002 2 1158 S PROSPECT ST 1 FAMILY RESIDENT BUILD 8/21/2002 2 1169 S PROSPECT ST 1 FAMILY RESIDENT BUILD 8/21/2002 2 1725 W JOUST CT 1 FAMILY RESIDENT BUILD 8/30/2002 2 1181 S PROSPECT ST 1 FAMILY RESIDENT BUILD 9/10/2002 2 1134 S PROSPECT ST 1 FAMILY RESIDENT BUILD 9/11/2002 2 1150 S PROSPECT ST 1 FAMILY RESIDENT BUILD 9/11/2002 3 1654 E FEDERAL POINTE DR 1 FAMILY RESIDENT BUILD 7/10/2002 3 444 N 400 W DUPLEX BUILD 8/6/2002 3 310 E PENNY PARADE DR 1 FAMILY RESIDENT BUILD 8/8/2002 3 315 W 700 N CONDO MULTI FAM BUILD 9/17/2002 4 657 S 800 E FOURPLEX BUILD 7/3/2002 4 518 S WINDSOR ST 1 FAMILY RESIDENT BUILD 7/11/2002 4 526 S WINDSOR ST 1 FAMILY RESIDENT BUILD 7/11/2002 4 522 S WINDSOR ST 1 FAMILY RESIDENT BUILD 7/11/2002 4 518 S KONETA CT 1 FAMILY RESIDENT BUILD 7/26/2002 5 64 W ANDREW AVE 1 FAMILY RESIDENT BUILD 7/15/2002 6 No new starts 7 2722 S 1300 E 1 FAMILY RESIDENT BUILD 8/16/2002 7 2724 S 1300 E 1 FAMILY RESIDENT BUILD 8/16/2002 All Housing Starts Information has been provided by the Building Services and Licensing Division. s e BOARDED BUILDING ACTIVITY BY DISTRICT LIST BOARDED BUILDING ACTIVITY: Existing Boarded Building as of June 30,2002 76 Vacant/Secure Buildings as of June 30,2002* 5 Demolition Permits 4 Remodeled/Rehabilitated 6 New Buildings Boarded 12 Total Boarded Buildings 78 Buildings Vacant/Secure as of 6/30/02* 6 *Vacant properties where complaints or activities have required the staff to monitor but not board. CLOSED/BOARDED HOUSES/APARTMENTS IN SALT LAKE CITY by CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT 10/8/2002 District#1 Address Bidwell No. Owner Owner's Address Boarded* Comments 578 N. Redwood Rd. 08-34-202-12 Alan T. Parsons 724 South 300 East Oct-99 203 North Redwood Rd 08-34-331-015 Vasilios Priskos 51 East 400 South May-99 Pre-demo 176 North Duder St. 08-34-331-017 Vasilios Priskos 51 East 400 South #210 1-Mar Pre-demo 185 North Harold St Same Parcel Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 1-Aug 1898 North 2200 West 08-21-276-001 Cottonwood Airport Center LC 2855 Cottonwood parkway#5E 1-Jun Vacant/Secure c/o Cottonwood Realty Service Salt Lake City, Ut 84121 1862 North 2200 West 08-21-276-002 Cottonwood Airport Center LC 2855 Cottonwood Parkway#5( 1-Jun Vacant/Secure c/o Cottnwood Realty Service Salt Lake City, UT 84121 _ 1822 North 2200 West 08-21-276-005 Cottonwood Airport Center LC 2855 Cottonwood Parkway#5( 1-Jun Vacant Secure c/o Cottonwood Realty Service Salt Lake City, Utah 84121 477 North Pamela Way 08-34-176-014 HUD Addison,Texas 75001 1-Dec Rehab w/permits 1619 W. Ivy Circle 08-27-452-029 John Tidwell 5175 S.Welsey Rd 3/25/2002 Active Bldg. Permit SLC, Utsh 84117 1210 W. 1000 North 08-26-154-022 Esteban Lopez&S. Martinez 1210 W. 1000 North 2-Aug-Secured 8/02 SLC, Utah 84116 1964 West 400 North 08-34-151-002 Utah Housing Corp. 554 South 300 East SLC, Utah 84111 9/10/2002 Utah Housing Boarded it. I CLOSED/BOARDED HOUSES/APARTMENTS IN SALT LAKE CITY by CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT 10/8/2002 District#2 Address Sidwell No. Owner Owner's Address Boarded' Comments 632 S. Glendale St. 15-02-383-013 Carl W. Barney,Jr. 2837 E. 100 North PRE 1986 Active Bldg. Permits Layton, UT 84047 855 W. 800 South 15-11-252-007 Clifford White 1250 E. 3545 South May-97 No Permit 11/12 SLC, UT 84106-2437 17 South 800 West 15-02-227-004 Sundowners Motorcycle CIL P.O. Box 511062 Jun-99 Closed to Occupancy Salt Lake City, Utah 84151 by FBI, Secured by incedent response 624 South 900 West 15-02-455-017 Ronald &Courtney 861 East 800 South Jan-00 Closed to Occ.by Lindsey Salt Lake City, ut 84102 health dept. 512 South 900 West 15-02-452-041 Kuldip Virk 14253 Brentwood Dr. Jul-00 Closed by Health Dept Salt Lake City,Ut 92392 PTB 06/26/00 15-02-452-042 Dave Bolinder PO Box 391 owns 6' of house Midvale, Ut 84047 1638 West Dalton Ave 15-10-401-004 Jon T Bugger 30 N 200 E 1-Jun Boarded, posted Centerville, Utah 84014 922 W. 400 So. 15-02-402-017 GMAC Mort. Corp. 500 Enterprise Rd. #150 1-Nov Forclosure Horsham PA, 19044 Boarded 1205 S. Redwood Dr. 15-10-477-004 North American Mort. Co 400 Countrywide Way SV35A 3/7/2002 Boarded By Bank C/O Country Wide Home Simi Valley, CA 93065 1044 West 200 South 15-02-178-020 Latter Day Saints Church of Christ Mar-99 PTB Exp. 3/17/2001 P.O. Box 65644 SLC, Utah 84165 956 W. 200 South 15-02-251-023 Premier Roofing 1183 W 900 S Spring 1997 BOA denied SLC, UT 84104-2043 commercial use r 1553 W. Indiana 15-10-253-028 Francisco Aguirre 2807 So. 2540 W.#222 8/29/2002 Boarded by Defa SLC, Utah 84119 1244 So. Emery 16-06-403-016 Lorraine Peoples 2906 82nd Ave 8/29/2002 Boarded by Defa Oakland, CA 94605 1076 So. Concord 15-11-302-030 Fairbanks Capital Corp. 338 S. Warminster Rd 9/10/2002 Boarded by Defa Hatboro, PA 19040 1935 So. Fremont Ave 15-16-452-005 Bandaloops, LLC 51 East 400 South 5/7/2002 Commercial Vasillios Priskos SLC, UT 84111 48 N. 1000 W. 08-35-455-005 DE Management 4526 S Jupiter Dr. CTO by Health Dept. SLC, Ut 84124 work without permits CLOSED/BOARDED HOUSES/APARTMENTS IN SALT LAKE CITY by CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT 10/8/2002 District#3 Address Bidwell No. Owner Owner's Address Boarded* Comments 515 N. Arctic Ct. 08-36-205-027 RDA of SLC%Jones Wa 170 South Main Street Mar-98 PTB exp 05/02 Holbrook& MCDO SLC,UT 84101 322 S 1100 E 16-05-402-026 Paul Schaaf 1140 E Harrison Ave. 1-Sep Stay Granted Salt Lake City, Ut 84105 Going to B.O.A. 362 N Edmonds PI 08-36-154-034 Edward &Tonya Hayes 351 East 6310 South Mar-00 Boarded 3/00 NO ptb Salt Lake City, Utah 84107 574 North 300 West 08-36-205-001 RDA of Salt Lake City 451 South State St. #418 1-Jan Boarded Commercial Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 PTB expires 5/02 271 West 600 North 08-36-205-010 RDA of Salt Lake City 451 South State St. #418 Boarded Single Family_ Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 1-Jan PTB expires 5/02 527 N. 300 W. 08-36-204-028 Redevelopent Agency of 451 South State St. Rm 418 Feb-00 Permit expires 5/02 Salt Lake Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 344 W. 600 North 08-36-127-012 Brite Investments 140 E. Pioneer Ave. _Sping 1996 no permit Sandy, UT 84070-1031 226 N. 600 West 08-36-305-010 Robert E. Sampson 605 K Street 1995 No permit 322-3101 SLC, UT 84103-3261 554-56 N 300 W 08-36-205-005 Redevelopment Agency 451 South State St. Rm 415 Mar-98 permit expires 5/02 SLC,UT 84101 CLOSED/BOARDED HOUSES/APARTMENTS IN SALT LAKE CITY by CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT 10/8/2002 District 4 Address Sidwell No. Owner Owner's Address Boarded" Comments 455 E. Sego Ave. 16-06-326-011 Richard K.Thomas 167 W. 1300 North 1992 PTB Expires (801) 773-4082 Sunset, UT 84015 26-Aug 2002 338 S. Shelmerdine 16-06-202-008 Richard B. Rogers 315 W. Hueneme Rd. Permit Expires Camarillo, CA 93012 1/8/2002 46 S. 700 East 16-05-353-007 Julie A. Imaizumi and 780 E. Northcliffe Dr. Sping 1997 Permit expires John K. Williams-560-8957 SLC, UT 84103-3339 Jul-01 634 South 700 East 16-06-283-008 Martha Daniels 1960 South 400 East Apr-99 No Permit C/O Janice Durham SLC, Utah 84115 558 E. 300 South 16-05-154-003 Winthrop Court LC 860 East 4500 South #303 PRE 1992 Demo application SLC, UT 84102 Hist. Approval 666 East 300 South 16-06-454-019 William Bleazard 329 S. Vincent Court PRE 1998 Active Bldg. Permit 359-6553 SLC UT, 84102-2109 427 E. 600 South 16-06-477-027 LDS Church 363-9031 50 E. North Temple St. PRE 1992 PTB Exp 3/21/03 SLC, UT 84104 573 E. 600 South 16-05-353-001 Patsy V. Kuronya 788 E. Shiloh Way PRE 1990 PTB Exp 2/10/02 288-2033 Murray, UT 84107-7654 652 E. 600 South 16-07-276-028 M.S. Management Assoc 367 Trolley Square PRE 1990 Exp, 10/09/02 521-9877 SLC UT, 84102 501 E 900 South 16-08-101-006 Rentco PO BOX 57218 Spring 1997 PTB Exp 3/01/03 Murray, UT 84157-0218 519 E 600 South 16-06-426-004 Pitts Investment Inc. 2429 E Granite Hills Dr. Aug-98 PTB Exp. 10/02/01 Sandy, UT 84092 517 E Vernier PI 16-06-426-005 MTB Enterprises Inc. 860 East 4500 South#303 Oct-98 Aplying for Demo SLC, UT 84107 App. By Hist. 524 E Vernier PI 16-06-426-006 MTB Enterprises Inc. 860 East 4500 South #303 Oct-98 Applying for Demo Corp. % Craig Nielsen#81C SLC, UT 84107 App by Hist. 527 E Vernier PI 16-06-427-010 MTB Enterprises Inc. 860 East 4500 South #303 Oct-98 Applying for Demo SIC, UT 84107 App. By Hist. 528 E Vernier PI 16-06-427-011 MTB Enterprises Inc. 860 East 4500 South #303 Oct-98 Applying for Demo SLC, UT 84102 App. By Hist. 533 E Vernier PI 16-06-426-002 MTB Enterprises Inc. 860 East 4500 South #303 Oct-98 Applying for Demo SLC, UT 84102 App. By Hist. 323-325 S 500 E 16-06-426-003 MTB Enterprises Inc. 860 East 4500 South #303 Oct-98 Applying for Demo SLC, UT 84102 App. By Hist. 327-329 S 500 E 16-06-427-012 MTB Enterprises Inc. 860 East 4500 South #303 Oct-98 Applying for Demo SLC, UT 84102 App by Hist. 538 E.Vernier PI 16-06-427-018 MTB Enterprises Inc. 860 East 4500 South #303 Oct-98 Applying for Demo SLC, UT 84102 App by Hist. 334 S. 600 E 16-05-478-018 Winthrop Court 860 East 4500 South #303 Oct-98 Applying for Demo SLC, UT 84102 App by Hist. 50 S 700 E Julie A. Imaizumi & 780 E. North Cliff Drive May-89 PTB Exp 7/01 John K. Williams SLC, Utah 84103-333980 326 South 600 East 16-06-427-036 Winthrop Court, LC 860 East 4500 South #303 May-99 Demo App. By Historic SLC, UT 84102 216 South 1100 East 16-05-252-029 Yasuyo& Hirofumi Miyoshi _PO BOX 1013 Feb-00 Fire Damage Park City, Utah 84060 346 East 600 South 16-06-457-001 Clinton Chealey PO Box 1150 Feb-00 Living in trailer in front Grantsville, Utah 84029 yard, closed to Occ. Seeking judgement 559 East 800 South 16-07-231-034 Dora Gutierrez 418 N. 1400 W. Oct-00 Working w/rehab Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 Specialist 632 S 700 E rear 16-05-353-014 TS1 Partnership LTD PO Box 6120 1-Aug Permit Exp 10/9/02 C/O Simon Property Tax Indianapolis In,462066 Dept. 46 S 700 E. rear 16-05-101-004 Audie Leventhal 1519 So. Devenshire Dr. 1-Sep Application for Stay Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 to correct HAAB Def. 822 So 500 E 16-07-253-029 Alzora Paros 822 So. 500 E. 1-Oct Closed to Occ. Salt Lake City. Ut. 84102 Structural Problems 851 So. Edison St. 16-07-176-012 L. Dale Mcallister 2807 South Clearbrook Dr. 1-Nov new No response Salt Lake City, utah 84119 from owner 138 East 800 South 16-07-152-016 Jason Roundy 369 East 900 South #320 Oct-98 Fire in Single Family Salt Lake City, Ut 84111 W/rehab permits Paul & Carol Rubey 444 E. 12300 South #102 Illegal units in rear Draper, Ut 84020 req. demo or reconversion 179 West 500 South 15-01-476-001 Phillips Petrolium Co. PO Box 358 Jul-99 c/o PTR&C Borger,Texas 79008 442 West 300 South 15-01-179-011 Kantun, LLC 235 N. Eastcapitol Blvd Winter 1997 Stay of Boarding SLC, Utah 84103 600 W. 200 South 15-01-501-002 D&RGW Railroad P. O. Box 5482 Sping 1997 Permit expiresl2/99 Denver, CO 80217-5482 467 East 400 South 16-07-408-017 Grey Oak 525 South 300 East 9/10/2002 Secured by owner SLC, Utah 84111 CLOSED/BOARDED HOUSES/APARTMENTS IN SALT LAKE CITY by CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT 10/8/2002 District#5 Address Bidwell No. Owner Owner's Address Boarded' Comments 1856 South Edison St. 16-18-308-011 Douglas C. Bott 1863 S. State St. 1996 permit exp. 11/30/2000 486-1691 SLC, UT 84115-2075 420 E. Redondo Ave. 16-18-460-004 FirmLand Investment, Inc. 425 E. 2100 South 1990 PTB exp 3/01 SLC, UT 84115-2237 1247 S 1100 E. 16-08-477-064 Liberty Heights Properties PO Box 521494 Aug-00 Small Retail/Demo Salt Lake City, Utah permit active 915-17 So Jefferson St 15-12-279-004 Greg Anderson 958 South Washington StrE 6/4/1999 No Permit to board Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 1144 S Foulger St 16-07-351-001 Marina Rendon 3220 Darwin Ave. Jul-99 Vacant/Secure Los Angeles, CA 90031 1145 S Foulger St 16-07-305-015 Marina Rendon 3220 Darwin Ave Jul-99 Vacant/Secure Los Angeles, Ca 90031 353 E. Hampton 16-07-408-017 Nate Sheppick 1079 E. Vine St. 8/20/2002 Permits Issued SLC, Utah 84121 1419 So. Edison 15-11-358-006 Jesse Davis 10478 So. Buddlea Dr 8/12/2002 Vacant/Secure Sandy, Utah 84094 951 So. Washington St 15-12-258-012 Foianini Properties LC 2551 Do. Lake St. 4/18/2002 Looking into Demo. Salt Lake City, Utah 84106 938 South Washinton St.15-12-257-018 Pearl Toki c/o Sione Toki 938 South Washington St. Oct-00 Closed by Health Dept. Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Owner unknown Iocat. 1380 S. W.Temple St 15-13-227-006 SNT Enterprises 1370 South West Temple ti 1-Jun c/o Sattar N Tabriz Salt Lake City, Utah 84115 Application For Demo Conditional use 936 So. 200 W. 15-12-258-018 Gary Nordhoff& 437 N. Center Street 4/22/2002 Pre- Demo Gregory Hughes SLC, Ut 84103 1040 E. Ramona Ave. 16-17-452-009 DEJH LLC 4526 S Jupiter Dr. 9/18/2002 Work beyond scope of . SLC, Ut 84124 permits 1185 So State St. 16-07-356-017 Uptown Motel&Apts. 1509 So. 1185 E. 9/23/2002 Fire damage to one unit Ogden, Ut 84404 secured 1169 So State St. 16-97-356-002 Holy Trinity Greek 279 So. 300 W. 9/23/2002 Fire Damage to rear Orthodox Church SLC, Ut 84101 Portion. Ins inv. Fire CLOSED/BOARDED HOUSES/APARTMENTS IN SALT LAKE CITY by CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT 10/8/2002 District#6 Address Sidwell No. Owner Owner's Address Boarded* Comments CLOSED/BOARDED HOUSES/APARTMENTS IN SALT LAKE CITY by CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT 10/8/2002 District#7 Address Bidwell No. Owner Owner's Address Boarded* Comments r HOUSING TRUST FUND LEDGER AND YEARLY REPORT 03-1st Q HTF HOUSING TRUST FUND LEDGER - September 30, 2002 72-17004- Federal INCOME CONTRACT EXPENSE OBJECT BALANCE DATE DESCRIPTION ENCUMBER CODE Escalante Loan Payment 1,264.81 031708/1830 2,367,204.05 07/05/2002 Loan Payment-Escalante Apts. Critchlow Loan Payment. 50.00 013708 2,367,254.05 07/05/2002 Loan payment-Huntsman Apts.Loan Critchlow Loan Payment 50.00 013708 2,367,304.05 08/06/2002 Loan payment-Huntsman Apts.Loan Escalante Loan Payment 1,264.81 031708/1830 2,368,568.86 08/08/2002 Loan Payment-Escalante Apts. Critchlow Loan Payment 50.00 013708 2,368,618.86 09/05/2002 Loan payment-Huntsman Apts.Loan Escalante Loan Payment 1,264.81 031708/1830 2,369,883.67 09/10/2002 Loan Payment-Escalante Apts. Page 1 PLANNING DIVISION RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION AND CONDOMINIUM APPROVALS AND ACTIVITY REPORT QUARTERLY HOUSING REPORT- SUBDIVISION/CONDO RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION APPROVALS ACTIVITY REPORT, JULY - SEPTEMBER 2002 Number of Lots Date Protect Name Address Final Preliminary Type Preliminary Plats* 7/15/02 Tran Subdivision Amen. 835 South Redwood Rd 2* Res. 7/18/02 Cap.Park Amen. 302 310 East Penny Parade Dr. 1* Res. Reed Topham 7/30/02 Amen.Virginia Hghts. 1277 E. Chandler 1* Res. 8/22/02 Pioneer Sq.Amen. 28-30 2475 W.Bridger Rd. 3* Non. Res. 9/05/02 Amen.Arlington/Federal 1600 Tomahawk Dr. 1* Res. 9/11/02 Safe Haven II Amen. 550 West 700 South 2* Non Res. Minor Subdivisions Notice-Final 7/09/02 Windsor Street Project 516,520 S.Windsor St 3 Res. 9/19/02 Elmlock Sub. NW corner of 600 S. 4 Res. &Cheyenne Street Subdivisions Final Plats 0 Amended Final Plats 9/04/02 Holladay Sub 1193—1233 East Wilmington Ave 1 Non Res. 9/12/02 Bon. Center Plat B2 460 North John Glen Rd 1 Non Res. 9/12/02 The Place Townhomes 2726 Wasatch Dr. 8 Res. 9/14/02 Amen. &extended 1785 West North Temple 1 Non Res. Charles Desky 9/16/02 HBB Bailey Amen. 1678, 1689 E. 1940 S. 2 Res. 9/23/02 Amen. Cap Park 302 310 East Penny Parade 1 Res. 9/23/02 900 W. Church St 934 West Freemont 1 Non Res. 9/23/02 Ind. Cir. Distribution 1999 West 1700 South 1 Non Res. Quarter Total 23 10* *These projects will appear again on a future Quarterly Report, for a final plat approval of some kind. Do not add these numbers to the approved subdivision lot totals. QUARTERLY HOUSING REPORT- SUBDIVISION/CONDO RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM APPROVALS ACTIVITY REPORT July - September 2002 Number of Units Date Project Name Address Final Preliminary Price Range/Unit Apartment Conversion Preliminary* Final Conversion Non-Residential to Residential Preliminary* Final New Construction Residential Preliminary 07-30-02 Uffens Condos. 268 S. State St. 10 $150Kplus 09-11-02 Richmond Condos 1027 E. South Temple 5 $250K to$400K Final Quarter Total 15 *These projects will appear again on a future Quarterly Report, for a final plat approval. Do not add these numbers to the approved condominium unit totals. Source: Salt Lake City Corp., Community Economic Development,Planning Division December 2000 y ECONOMIC UPDATE THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECONOMY: UPDATE October 2002 Total employment for the region was down slightly in the month of September and remained 1.2 percent below its level of one year ago. Colorado's job picture improved moderately; the total for September was off 1.8 percent from one year ago, breaking a string of seven consecutive months with an annual loss rate above 2 percent. Utah's total is also 1.8 percent below its level in September 2001, following a small dip in September 2002. Wyoming's job total took a surprising plunge during this month, led by major declines in construction and government. The September loss in Wyoming pulled employment back to its level of one year ago, erasing the gains of late-summer. South Dakota saw a small dip in employment while total jobs in North Dakota were little changed. Montana posted the largest gain (0.9 percent) over the year. This gain was well ahead of the 0.1 percent increase in Wyoming, the only other Rocky Mountain state with a positive annual change. Unemployment rates were up in most states but rates in Montana,North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming are below 4 percent. Montana's historically soft labor market tightened during the past two years and reached a new low of 3.9 percent in September 2002, the first time the rate has been below 4 percent since the current series began in 1978. The employment level for the U.S. was virtually unchanged in September but the small loss of 43,000 workers reversed a trend of four months of modest gains. Revisions to the August estimate actually revealed an increase of over 100,000 jobs in this month, well above the initial estimate. The nation's unemployment rate dipped to 5.6 percent in spite of the small cutback in payroll jobs. Waning consumer confidence in recent months has fueled the debate on whether we face an anemic recovery or are headed for the dreaded "double-dip" into another recession. In contrast, the advance estimate of the nation's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the third quarter brought some good news. GDP was up 3.1 percent, well ahead of the meager 1.3 percent gain in the second quarter. U.S. housing starts surged to a 16-year high in September, buoyed by large gain in single family activity as low interest rates continue to support demand from prospective homeowners. The multifamily sector retreated from its large gain in August but stayed above the 300,000-unit level. In contrast, the region's building activity was down through August. A small cutback in single family activity was joined by a major drop in multifamily starts. This latter decline primarily resulted from a belated major correction in the multifamily sector in Colorado's Front Range areas. The apartment vacancy rate in the Denver area was up to 9.4 percent in the third quarter and is headed into double digits. Similarly, vacancy rates in Colorado Springs (8.9 percent) and Salt Lake City(8.0 percent) are up substantially from one year ago. The inventory of homes for sale in the Denver metro area began a dramatic climb in early-2001, which has continued though this fall. September listings are over 20 percent ahead of a year ago and more than double the total at the beginning of 2001. Sales are down only moderately and the average price is still climbing,but most sellers must drop the asking price to close a sale and builders are offering incentives as they cut their level of speculative construction. The single-family foreclosure rate for the region is up again in the second quarter of 2002, spurred by increases in all states, especially Colorado and Utah. The region's overall rate of 0.97 percent is up from the 0.58 recorded during the second quarter of 2001, but remains below the U.S. rate of 1.23 percent. Utah's 2.03 percent rate was by far the highest in the region. The U.S. Consumer Price Index (CPI) was up by 0.2 percent in September, slightly above the limited monthly increases of the summer. Energy costs have begun to increase but remain below their levels of one year ago. The overall increase from one year ago of 1.5 percent remains at a historically low level. The average 30-year fixed mortgage interest rate dipped below 6 percent briefly but finished the month of October with an average of 6.11 percent,just over 50 basis points below the rate of one year ago. ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECONOMIC INDICATOF 06-Nov-02 Change Data Most Recent Previous Last Year Indicator as of Mth./Qtr. Mth./Qtr. Year Ago Mth/Qtr Ago Nonagricultural Wage&Salary Employment(SA): Colorado Sept. '02 2,185.6 2,185.5 2,226.1 0.0% -1.8% Montana Sept.'02 395.0 394.6 391.4 0.1% 0.9% North Dakota Sept.'02 330.2 329.8 331.2 0.1% -0.3% South Dakota Sept.'02 378.4 380.1 379.1 -0.4% -0.2% Utah Sept.'02 1,062.4 1,063.7 1,081.6 -0.1% -1.8% Wyoming Sept. '02 247.0 253.4 246.8 -2.5% 0.1% United States Sept. '02 130,854.0 130,897.0 131,819.0 0.0% -0.7% Unemployment Rate (SA): Colorado Sept.'02 5.2 5.1 4.1 0.1 1.1 Montana Sept.'02 3.9 4.0 4.6 -0.1 -0.7 North Dakota Sept.'02 3.5 3.2 2.6 0.3 0.9 South Dakota Sept.'02 2.6 2.6 3.5 0.0 -0.9 Utah Sept.'02 5.3 5.0 4.6 0.3 0.7 Wyoming Sept. '02 3.9 3.6 4.1 0.3 -0.2 United States Sept. '02 5.6 5.7 5.0 -0.1 0.6 GDP Growth Rate-US 3rd gtr'02 3.1 1.3 -0.3 na na Colorado Springs MSA Building Permits Single Family YTD-August'02 3,629 na 3,977 na -8.8% Multifamily YTD-August'02 1,000 na 1,131 na -11.6% Denver-Boulder-Greeley CMSA Building Permits Single Family YTD-August'02 13,740 na 15,121 na -9.1% Multifamily YTD-August'02 4,919 na 9,141 na -46.2% Salt Lake-Ogden MSA Building Permits Single Family YTD-August'02 5,051 na 4,979 na 1.4% Multifamily YTD-August'02 1,359 na 1,628 na -16.5% U.S. Housing Starts (Annual rate) September'02 1,843,000 1,627,000 1,582,000 13.3% 16.5% Apartment Vacancy Rates: Colorado Springs MSA 2nd gtr'02 8.9 8.9 4.2 0.0 4.7 Denver-Boulder Area 3rd gtr'02 9.4 9.3 6.8 0.1 2.6 Salt Lake City MSA 2nd gtr'02 8.0 6.7 2.8 1.3 5.2 United States 3rd gtr'02 9.1 8.5 8.4 0.6 0.7 Existing Home Sales: Denver PMSA Active Listings September'02 23,370 22,911 19,180 2.0% 21.8% Number of Sales YTD-Sept.'02 36,428 na 37,070 na -1.7% Average Price YTD-Sept.'02 $243,733 na $233,305 na 4.5% Single Family Foreclosure Rate: Rocky Mountain 2nd gtr'02 0.97 0.86 0.58 0.11 0.39 United States 2nd gtr'02 1.23 1.10 0.91 0.13 0.32 Consumer Price Index-All Items: Denver-Boulder CMSA Jan.-June'02 184.6 na 180.7 na 2.2% United States September'02 181.0 180.7 178.3 0.2% 1.5% Mortgage Interest Rate: October'02 6.11 6.09 6.62 0.02 -0.51 r SALT LAKE CITY HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY REPORT FEDERAL QUARTERLY ACTIVITY REPORT Please submit the following information within 30 PAYS following the end of each Quarter to: Capital Planning and Programming Division,451 S.State St.,Room 406,Salt Lake City,UT 34 1 1 1. ORGANIZATION: Salt Lake City Housing and Neighborhood Development, Housing Division PROJECT/PROGRAM NAME: TIME PERIOD COVERED: 07 01 02 TO 09 30 02 Month Day Year Month Day Year Total Number Non-homeless households/ 30% 50% G0% 80% White Hack Indian/ Asian/ Female Persons with Persons Extremely Very Low Low Moderate not not Alaskan Pacific Head of Special Home Assisted ti/P Low Income Income Income Income Hispanic Hispanic Native Hispanic Islander Household Needs Owner Renter Homeless CDBG 3 1 4 3 4 $52,200 Home 9 3 6 6 1 2 2 $326,076 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION QUARTERLY REPORT FEDERAL QUARTERLY ACCOMPLISHMENTS/STATUS REPORT OISL(Own In Sall Lake)-DOWNPAYMENT ASSISTANCE ACTIVITIES-1'Quarter 12002/20031 DISTRIBUTION OF GRANT FUNDS ' FUNDING AMOUNT V OF GRANTS N OF GRANTS FUNDED 0 OF GRANTS AVAILABLE N OF GRANTS FUNDED PERCENTAGE OF N OF GRANTS AVAILABLE SOURCE ALLOCATED TO BE FUNDED AS OF 711102 AS OF 711101 TO DATE DURING GRANT SPENT AS OF DOOM 1 02(03 HOME 02/03 E 50,000.00 20 20 20 10 50% 10' _ 2D 20 20 11D IS 'Pease note.daa3 Jhe 10-graals lisiedacawilableas-el 8/24102hede eAbeen-asrnlslifted andtreHhisdate-there are nd-rarttsavailabte for new'appltwrlts. RECAPTURED FUNDS 12002/2003 N of HOME Grants Recaptured and N of CDBG Grants Recaptured& 0 of Giants Funded 0RO,Recaptured I FUNDING QUARTER Funds Returned to City available for funding COBG Nnds. 1"Quartet 2 I 2 — 2^°Quarter 3'°Quarter _ 4°1 Quarter TOTAL 4 1 2 TYPE OF HOMES PURCHASED WITH GRANT FUNDS 2002/2023 Single-Family Condo Tvmhomes TOTAL FUNDING QUARTER Detached I"Quarter 10 10 2°°Quarter 31p Quarter 4"Quarter TOTAL 10 0 0 10 AREA LOCATION OF HOMES PURCHASED WITH GRANT FUNDS 2000/2001 Central So. N.E. East Glendale Raseparlr Jackson People's Northwest Poplar Onegraa Emerson Sugartlouse Fairmont TOTAL FUNDING City Central Central Downtown Freeway Grove QUARTER I"Quarter 2 2 1 . 1 1 2 2 1 0 12 2A°Quarter I 3'°Quarter 40 Quarter - . TOTAL ( f 2 2 I 1 I I 2 I 2 I 1 0 16 During the 1sr quarter Of 2002/2003 the CDC received 39(YTD-39 requests for applications from homebuyers interested in using the OISL grant to purchase homes in the Salt Lake City area. NHO—CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES - 1"a Quarter(2002120031 Pre-development -168 East Harvard Avenue—evaluated for purchase and rehab—accepted offer -226 East 500 South—land to build Condo project-25-30 units—Purchase being negotiated -826 South Jefferson—inspected for possible purchase,rehab,resale -537 South Denver - -1042 South West Temple-' ' •1622 West 800 South--2725 South 700 East-large vacant lot evaluated for development small sub-division 10-14 units Planning phase •1962-64 West 400 North—Joint project with Utah Housing Corporation—CDC will build 5 homes -741 East 2700 South—Crtnntuction on hpme to begin November 30°i Under Construction -Cannon Place Subdivision(1512 South 900 West)—Construction to begin on Lot 83 -64 West Andrews Avenue(1500 South)-U of U Arch.Students designing 8 building new home-65%Complete Ready for sale •2889 South 11'East(Zenith Avenue) 1115 East Zenith Avenue -912 West Cannon Oaks Place(Lot 09) Projects sold -1500 South Richards(50 West) During the 1u quarter of 2002/2003 the CDC processed 15(YTD-15)application requests by interested homebuyers in living within the Salt Lake City limits. See attached Activity Log Summary sheets for the 1st Quarter of 2002/2001 Planning phase -1962-64 West 400 North—joint project with Utah Housing Corporation—CDC will bold 5 homes •t 103 8 1115 E.Zenith Avenue—evaluating for rehab 8 lot split process begun to create individual lots Subdivision phase •9-unil subdivision at 1512 S,900 West.Partially funded with CDBG&HOME funds. Site and utility work almost complete.Construction on first will begin soon. Under Construction - FEDERAL QUARTERLY ACTIVITY REPORT - CDBG/HOME - 1ST QUARTER Reese Skkrnt the blowing ORGANIZATION: SALT LAKE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PROJECT/PROGRAM NAME: Adrninistration/Own in Salt Lake/Construction Activities TIME PERIOD COVERED: 7 1 02 TO 9 30 2002 Month Day Year Month Day Year Nos- Tml Nurbr 30% SO% Indian f AnIaN 1uno e HerwhddDAvw Extremely 50%Very BOX Law Moderata WMte not Black not Alaskan Pacific Female dead Parsons with Norm Dorm Aminid Itrp Low bison.* Low tricorns Income income F4spaok Hispanic Net(» IYaparde blander of Nouastta(d Specie Newts Owner Renter Hwr.I.ap i I HOME 10 H 1 4 5 1 6 1 3 1 3 1 N/A 1 10 I RECAP 2 H 1 I }I 1 1 N/A 2 TOTAL 12 1 1 4 6 Ill 7 1 0 4 0 3 N/A 12 0 0 YTD 12 1 1 4 6 7 1 0 . 4 0 3 /A 12 0 0 FEDERAL QJARTERLY BUDGET REPORT-CRY CDBG ADMIN-1ST QUARTER 2002/2003 Please sWrnd the taloeing Inrornaaon regarding you proteaed and.tual erpendiure within 30 days raIoxng Or,end at earn quarter. PROJECTED ACTUAL July $5,833.33 July $5,833.33 August $5,833.33 August $5,833.33 September $5,833.34 September $5 833 34 1st Qtr.Total $17.500.00 I st Qtr.Total $17.500.00 October October November November December December 2nd Qtr.Total 2nd Qtr.Total January January February February March March 3rd Qtr.Total 3rd Qtr.Total April April May May June June 41h Qtr.Total 4th Ob.Total r NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES QUARTLERY REPORT ATTACHMENT "C" • FEDERAL QUARTERLY ACTIVITY REPORT CDBG Program and HOME Program Base submit the following information within 30 DAYS following the end of each Quarter to:Housing&Neighborhood Development Division,451 S.State St.,Room 406,Salt Lake City,UT 84111. RGANIZATION: SALT LAKE NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES HOME FUNDS • ROJECT/PROGRAM NAME: • ME PERIOD COVERED: JULY 1, 2002 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2002 Month Day Year Month Day Year Total Number Hispanic/ Native Am.Indian/ Black/ Am.Indian/ Households/ 30% 50% 60% 80% Black/ &Hispanic Hawaiian/ Alaskan Native African Am. Alaskan Native& Female Persons Extremely Very Low Low Moderate African Am.Indian/ with any Other Pacific & Asian& & Black Headed Assisted H/P Low Income Income Income Income White American Alaskan Native Other Race Islander Asian White White White African American Household O 0 U D 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 YTD#'s —Households or Persons panic"is an ethnicity category and cuts across all races. se who are White,Black,Asian,Pacific Islander,American Indian,or a multi-race may also be counted as being Hispanic. ATTACHMENT "C" FEDERAL QUARTERLY ACTIVITY REPORT CDBG Program and HOME Program ase submit the following information within 30 DAYS following the end'of each Quarter to:Housing&Neighborhood Development Division,451 S.State St.,Room 406,Salt Lake City, UT 84111. 2GANIZATION: SALT LAKE NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING • OJECT/PROGRAM NAME: CDBG Revolving Loan Fund (Non operations) AE PERIOD COVERED: July 1, 2002 TO September 30, 2002 Month Day Year Month Day Year Total Number Hispanic/ Native Am.Indian/ Black/ Am. Indian/ Households/ 30% 50% 60% 80% Black/ &Hispanic Hawaiian/ Alaskan Native African Am. Alaskan Native& Female Persons Extremely Very Low Low Moderate African Am.Indian/ with any Other Pacific & Asian& & Black Headed Assisted H/P Low Income Income Income Income White American Alaskan Native Other Race Islander Asian White White White African American Household I 1 O 0 CG G G C) G 0 0 0 G G G C o tcrE: ru,,, ,, l a3ed ,Jar` an c: Cy,u 5 t+ Icy , N ti5 c_UCrC i i- c— 5 horc te b . -e no0,1-e.d , YTD#'s —Households or Persons panic"is an ethnicity category and cuts across all races. se who are White,Black,Asian,Pacific Islander,American Indian,or a multi-race may also be counted as being Hispanic.