The URL can be used to link to this page

12/06/2011 - Work Session - Minutes PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2011 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Tuesday, December 6, 2011, at 2 : 00 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance: Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Jill Remington Love, Stan Penfold, Luke Garrott, and Soren Simonsen. Absent: Councilmember JT Martin. Also in Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Jennifer Bruno, Council Deputy Director; Karen Halladay, Council Policy Analyst; Jan Aramaki, Council Constituent Liaison/Research and Policy Analyst; Lehua Weaver, Council Research and Policy Analyst; Nick Tarbet, Council Policy Analyst and Constituent Liaison; David Everitt, Mayor' s Chief of Staff; Ed Rutan, City Attorney; Rusty Vetter, Senior City Attorney; LuAnn Clark, Housing and Neighborhood Development Director; Rick Graham, Public Services Director; Greg Davis, Public Service Finance; Gordon Hoskins, Finance Director; Gina Chamness, Budget Director; Dan Mule, City Treasurer; D. J. Baxter, RDA Director; Russell Weeks, Council Senior Policy Analyst; Wilf Sommerkorn, Planning Director; John Anderson, Principal Planner; Nick Norris, Planning Manager; Janice Jardine, Council Senior Policy Analyst; Kerry Doane and Jerry Benson, Utah Transit Authority Planning; Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon; Erin Litvack and Phil Jordan, Salt Lake County; Leslie Kelen, Center for Documentary Expression & Art; Jodi Langford, Employee Benefit Administrator; Dan Anderson, Utah State Retirement; Ben McAdams, Mayor' s Senior Advisor; Helen Langan, Mayor' s Senior Advisor and Chris Meeker, City Recorder. Councilmember Love presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 2 : 06 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1. 2 : 06 : 14 PM CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 52-4-204, FOR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES: (a) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE §54-2-205 (1) (B) ; (b) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS THE PURCHASE, EXCHANGE, OR LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY (INCLUDING ANY FORM OF WATER SHARES) WHEN PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD DISCLOSE THE APPRAISAL OR ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION OR PREVENT THE CITY FROM COMPLETING THE 11 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2011 TRANSACTION ON THE BEST POSSIBLE TERMS PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE §52-4-205 (1) (C) ; (c) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING OR REASONABLY IMMINENT LITIGATION PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 52-4-205 (1) (c) ; (d) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS THE SALE OF REAL PROPERTY (INCLUDING ANY FORM OF WATER RIGHT OR WATER SHARES) IF (1) PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD DISCLOSE THE APPRAISAL OR ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION OR PREVENT THE CITY FROM COMPLETING THE TRANSACTION UNDER THE BEST POSSIBLE TERMS, (2) THE CITY PREVIOUSLY GAVE NOTICE THAT THE PROPERTY WOULD BE OFFERED FOR SALE, AND (3) THE TERMS OF THE SALE ARE PUBLICLY DISCLOSED BEFORE THE CITY APPROVES THE SALE; (e) FOR ATTORNEY-CLIENT MATTERS THAT ARE PRIVILEGED PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 78b-1-137; AND (f) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS SECURITY PERSONNEL, DEVICES OR SYSTEMS PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE §52-4-205 (1) (F) . Councilmember Christensen moved and Councilmember Turner seconded to enter into a closed session for legal advice as stated on the agenda, a roll call vote was taken,which motion carried, all members present voted aye. (M 11-2) #2 . 2 : 45 : 24 PM REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING A REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. See File M 11-5 for announcements . #3 . 2 : 56 : 33 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A LOAN FROM SALT LAKE CITY' S HOUSING TRUST FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF $265, 000 TO CITY FRONT PARTNERS, LLC FOR RENOVATION AT THE CITYFRONT APARTMENTS LOCATED 600 WEST NORTH TEMPLE (APPLICANT - CITY FRONT PARTNERS, LLC) View Attachment LuAnn Clark and Nick Tarbet briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Council Members Turner and Christensen were in favor of the renovation from business to residential . Councilmember Love said people with disabilities need more visitability apartments . She asked that the CityFront renovation be more ADA accessible. Council Members asked for more information regarding ADA accessibility numbers at the CityFront apartments before voting. Councilmember Penfold asked that criteria be developed for ADA accessibility and visitability when authorizing a loan from the Housing Trust Fund. 11 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2011 #4 . 3 : 10 : 33 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A GRANT FROM SALT LAKE CITY'S HOME MATCH FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF $100, 000 TO VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA, UTAH TO RENOVATE A GROUP HOME LOCATED AT 556 SOUTH 500 EAST (APPLICANT - VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA, UTAH)View Attachments LuAnn Clark and Karen Halladay briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Councilmember Garrott said this was in his district and was a boarding house type of use. He said he supported the loan. #5. 3 : 16 : 04 PM RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE CITY CODE INCLUDING THE CITY' S ZONING REGULATIONS TO ELIMINATE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND THE LAND USE APPEALS BOARD AS LAND USE APPEAL AUTHORITIES AND REPLACING THE BOARDS WITH AN APPOINTED PROFESSIONAL HEARING OFFICER. THE HEARING OFFICER WOULD REVIEW AND MAKE DECISIONS RELATING TO VARIANCE APPLICATIONS, APPEALS OF ADMINISTRATIVE, PLANNING COMMISSION AND HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION DECISIONS. THE INTENT IS TO PROVIDE A MORE STREAMLINED AND CONSISTENT APPEAL PROCESS FOR LAND USE DECISIONS AND REDUCE THE EXPENDITURE OF CITY FUNDS AND STAFFING RESOURCES. RELATED PROVISIONS OF TITLE 21A - ZONING - MAY ALSO BE AMENDED AS PART OF THIS PETITION. PETITIONER - MAYOR RALPH BECKER, PETITION NO. PLNPCM2010-00312 (ITEM D4) View Attachments John Anderson, Wilf Sommerkorn, Lynn Pace and Nick Norris briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Mr. Pace said the beginning date of the ordinance should be after the Hearing Officer was in place . #6. 3 :47 : 29 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING ON AN UPDATED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT REGARDING THE SUGAR HOUSE/SOUTH SALT LAKE STREETCAR PROJECT. (BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 4) . (ITEM C7) View Attachments D J Baxter, Russ Weeks, Gina Chamness, Rusty Vetter, Kerry Doane and Jerry Benson briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Councilmember Penfold said the City had no commitment for operation and maintenance beyond two years . Mr. Baxter said that was correct . Councilmember Garrott asked the UTA representatives if they would lobby the State Legislature for future transportation levies . Ms . Doane said she would bring that back to UTA. #7 . 4 : 54 : 08 PM RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 2 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 . BUDGET AMENDMENTS HAPPEN SEVERAL TIMES EACH YEAR TO REFLECT ADJUSTMENTS TO THE CITY' S BUDGETS, INCLUDING PROPOSED PROJECT ADDITIONS AND MODIFICATIONS. THIS 11 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2011 AMENDMENT INCLUDES ITEMS RELATED TO THE IMPLEMENTATION AND PURCHASE OF PARKING PAY STATIONS, THE FLEET BUDGET, AND SOME GRANTS. (ITEM D2) View Attachments Jennifer Bruno, Gina Chamness, Gordon Hoskins, David Everitt, Greg Davis' Rick Graham, LuAnn Clark, Frank Gray, Leslie Kelen and Lehua Weaver briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Mr. Everitt said the Finance Director recommended Parking Pay Stations being a $2 minimum. Councilmember Christensen said he was concerned with paying half down and financing half . Councilmember Penfold asked the Administration to identify what was needed for neighborhood Master Planning nodes . Councilmember Christensen said funding could be granted to the Center for Documentary Expression & Art through the Arts Council . He said the Arts Council could assess the plan and make recommendations . Councilmember Love said another option was to approve the expenditure but hold off on allocation until a plan was presented to the Council . #8. 4 : 20 : 22 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING FROM SALT LAKE COUNTY STAFF REGARDING PROPOSED RENOVATION TO THE CAPITOL THEATER AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADJACENT BALLET WEST ACADEMY BUILDING. Mayor Corroon, Phil Jordan and Erin Litvack briefed the Council . Mayor Corroon said the community had outgrown the seating and restrooms at the Capitol Theater. He said the cost of the project was approximately $33 . 3 million and would be split between public and private funding. Ms . Litvack said this was part of the City Cultural Core. She asked the City to contribute $3 million toward the project. She said the shutdown for the theater would be 141 days . #9. 5 : 26 : 29 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING FROM THE ADMINISTRATION REGARDING THE RESULTS OF THE FACILITATED SERIES OF "CULTURAL CORE CONVERSATIONS." THIS EFFORT BROUGHT TOGETHER REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DIVERSE INTERESTS AND BACKGROUNDS TO PARTICIPATE IN A SERIES OF MEETINGS TO ZERO-IN ON HOW BEST TO ENRICH AND ENHANCE THE DOWNTOWN CORE WITH AN ACTIVE AND VITAL ARTS AND CULTURAL COMPONENT. This issue was moved to January 2012 . #10 . 5 : 41 : 53 PM RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP DISCUSSION ON THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND FINANCING OF A UTAH PERFORMING ARTS CENTER (UPAC) , INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: • A REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES COMPLETED REGARDING PERFORMING ARTS FACILITIES; 11 - 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2011 • A REVIEW OF THE ADMINISTRATION' S TRANSMITTAL REGARDING THE PROPOSED UPAC, INCLUDING A RESOLUTION APPROVING TERMS OF AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT RELATING TO A PROPOSED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AREA (CDA) ON BLOCK 70, A RESOLUTION REGARDING AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT ALLOWING A PORTION OF FUTURE PROPERTY TAX INCREMENT IN THE DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA (SARR FUNDS) TO BE USED TOWARDS DEBT SERVICE ON THE UPAC, AND A NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ISSUING SALES TAX BOND REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTES TO PAY FOR THE INITIAL DESIGN OF THE UPAC. (ITEM Fl) • A RELATED MATTER FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION IS A BUDGET AMENDMENT WHICH WOULD AUTHORIZE EXPENDITURE OF DESIGN FUNDS AND UPFRONT COSTS (APPROXIMATELY $15 MILLION) . (BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 3, ) (ITEM D1 A-C) View Attachments Jennifer Bruno, Ben McAdams, D.J. Baxter, Gina Chamness, Helen Langdon, David Everitt and Russell Weeks briefed the Council with the attached handout . Councilmember Love said by voting to issue the bonds did not mean that the Council had agreed to a payback formula. She said adjustments could be made later. Councilmember Simonsen asked the Administration to investigate what the impacts would be for others and how they would reposition themselves . #11. 6 : 12 : 27 PM INTERVIEW NICOLE GALLO PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HER APPOINTMENT TO THE SISTER CITIES BOARD. (ITEM H2) Councilmember Love said Ms . Gallo' s name would be forwarded to the Consent Agenda. #12 . 6 : 22 : 17 PM INTERVIEW HIKMET LOE PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HER APPOINTMENT TO THE LIBRARY BOARD. (ITEM H1) Councilmember Love said Ms . Loe' s name would be forwarded to the Consent Agenda. #13 . RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY' S ZONING REGULATIONS TO MODIFY REQUIREMENTS FOR APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS. THESE REQUIREMENTS WERE MODIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN JULY, 2008. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE INTENDED TO CLARIFY AND RESOLVE PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED BY THE COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN APPLYING THESE REQUIREMENTS. RELATED PROVISIONS OF TITLE 21A (ZONING) MAY ALSO BE AMENDED AS PART OF THE PETITION. PETITIONER - MAYOR RALPH BECKER, PETITION NO. PLNPCM2009-00174 . This item was not discussed. 11 - 5 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2011 #14 . RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING POLICY AND GUIDELINES FOR CITY ACCEPTANCE OF PRIVATE DONATIONS. THIS ORDINANCE WOULD AUTHORIZE PRIVATE DONATIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING IMPROVEMENT ON CITY PROPERTY AND PROVIDE GUIDELINES FOR ACCEPTANCE OF SUCH DONATIONS. This item was not discussed. #15. 5 : 28 : 23 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING FROM COUNCIL STAFF REGARDING CHANGES TO STATE STATUTE REGARDING RETIREMENT POLICIES FOR NEWLY ELECTED OFFICIALS. THE COUNCIL MAY THEN DISCUSS CHANGES TO RETIREMENT POLICES FOR CURRENT ELECTED OFFICIALS TO BRING THESE IN LINE WITH STATE STATUTE. View Attachments Jodi Langford, Jennifer Bruno and Dan Anderson briefed the Council with the attached handout. Ms . Bruno said the change was made last year by the State Legislature. She said it created two tiers of public employees and the newly elected employees fell into the second tier. She said the second tier mandated that all cities must contribute 10% to a 401K plan. She said currently Council Members were exempt. She said this created an inequity where newly elected Council Members had a retirement and current Council Members did not . All Council Members were in favor of contributing 10% to a 401K plan. #16. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE APPROVAL OF AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND THE UNIFIED FIRE AUTHORITY FOR THE PROVISION OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RESPONSE AND EXPLOSIVE DEVICE OPERATIONS. This item was not discussed. The mee t i adjourned at 6 : 3 9 p.m. fi CITj ,M� o c 1 Cha r 7' ; ( Nrb7. it ecord N 6,rp / This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held December 6, 2011 . cm 11 - 6 /Z -4 -l/ MEMORANDUM DATE: December 1, 2011 SUBJECT: Resolution—Housing Trust Fund Loan of $265,000—Conversion of retail space at Citifront Apartments into apartments(600 West North Temple) STAFF REPORT BY: Nick Tarbet AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: District Three Background City Front Partners, LLC (which operates Citifront Apartments) is requesting a Housing Trust Fund Loan for a$265,000 loan at 2%interest for 15 years,to convert approximately 3,500 sq ft of existing retail space at the Citifront Apartments into six (6) apartment units. The units will range in size from 518 to 769 sq ft. The space is located on the ground level of the west side of the Citifront Apartment community. • City Front Partners has found it difficult to rent the retail space at this location, (600 West North Temple) and it has created a cash flow problem. • The six (6) units would be rented at 80%of median income. • By converting the retail space into apartments, the total unit count will be 161. o 9 units at 50%AMI o 87 Units at 60%AMI o 6 Units at 80%AMI o 59 Units at Market Rate • The Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of this loan request with the following stipulation: o The entire loan amount of$265,000 will be tied to a cross default clause in the contract stating that should City Front Partners LLC default on any one of their current city note obligations, that all notes will be considered in default • Mayor Becker reviewed this issue and recommended approval of the loan as approved by the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board. • The Council may wish to clarify whether there are land use policy issues that should be discussed in relation to this request pertaining to mixed-use at this location. o Citifront will still maintain 9,500 sq ft of retail space. o The grocery mart will stay in place. • COUNCIL PROCESS: o December 6, 2011 Work Session Briefing 1 FRANK B. GRAY MUM%j[Y llJlnrRMARAT SCANNED O: DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT S ` `N iz`v ' •K OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR DATE.TC .Y DE LA MARE-SCHAEFER �„ A ` G // . _._.t , ,J • /T to,/ DEPUTY DIRECTOR ROBERT FARRINGTON, JR. DEPUTY DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Ir771-71Date Received: Z01 avid eritt, Chie f Staff By / a. Date Sent to City Council: TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: November 9r2011 Jill Remington Love, Chair FROM: Frank Gray, Community & Economic t �--� Development Department Director L) SUBJECT: City Front Partners, LLC requesting a Housing Trust Fund Loan in the amount of $265,000 at 2% over 15 years to convert retail space at the Citifront Apartments located at 600 West North Temple, SLC UT. The project consists of converting approximately 3,500 square feet of existing retail space into six (6) apartment units ranging in size from 518 square feet to 768 square feet. STAFF CONTACT: LuAnn Clark, Housing &Neighborhood Development Director, at 535-6136 or luann.clark@slcgov.com ACTION REQUIRED: Adopt the attached Resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign a loan agreement with City Front Partners LLC. DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: City Front Partners LLC is requesting a loan to convert approximately 3,500 SF of existing retail space at the Citifront project into six (6) apartment units ranging in size from 518 to 768 SF. This space is located on the ground level west side of the Citifront apartment community. By converting the space, Citifront is still able to maintain 9,500 SF of retail space, plus improve upon Salt Lake City's affordable housing goals. Citifront currently contains 155 apartment units and 13,000 SF of retail space. To complete this project, City Front Partners LLC is asking for a $265,000 Housing Trust Fund loan at 2% interest for fifteen(15) years. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 P.D. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TELEPHONE: 801-535-6230 FAX: 801-535-6005 WWW.SLCGOV.COM/CED if :i aecrcce rwoew The apartment community has performed well, averaging above 92% occupancy during its existence, and is currently over 95% occupied. Of the 155 units, 87 are designated to 60% of the median income, with nine units designated to 50% of median income and the remaining units at market rates. This plan would incorporate an additional six units on the ground level, west side, which would be rented at 80% of median income. The small grocery mart would stay in place and the two other tenants will be relocated to the retail space on the 600 West side of the building. Citifront was developed in 2001 under the Gateway District Master Plan and RDA. It is a mixed use development incorporating market rate and affordable apartment units, along with ground level retail space. Because of the lack of parking and the location of this 3,500 SF of retail, the leasing of such space has been extremely difficult and created a cash flow problem for the partners. By converting the retail space into apartments, the overall unit count will increase to 161 with nine units at 50%AMI, 87 units at 60%AMI, six units at 80%AMI (the units being converted), and 59 units at market rates. Independent of all other units, these six units will maintain a projected cash flow resulting in an NOI of$31,950 annually. This cash flow bolsters the projects overall returns, and better utilizes space that will otherwise sit vacant. Analysis: The project is currently encumbered by $11,855,532 of secured debt in first through fourth positions. Salt Lake City has a Housing Trust Fund loan with City Front Partners LLC in the amount of$1.5 million, and an RDA loan, both of which are in third and fourth positions. The $1.5 million loan is deferred and payments begin in September 2014. The loan funds would be used for the construction of the conversion from retail to apartment space. Recommendation: A. Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board's Recommendation On November 3, 2011, the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board unanimously voted to recommend approval of this loan request with the following stipulations: 1. That the entire loan amount of$265,000 at 2% over 15 years will be tied to a cross default clause in the contract stating that should City Front Partners LLC default on any one of their current city note obligations, that all notes will be considered in default. B. Mayor's Recommendation Mayor Becker reviewed this issue on November 7, 2011 and recommended approval of the loan as approved by the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board. RE: Citifront Apartment Retail Conversion Project Page 2 of 3 The City currently has $3,716,000 in the Housing Trust Fund and $564,259 in the RDA Housing Trust Fund. Funding this project from the Housing Trust Fund account would leave a fund balance of$3,451,000. PUBLIC PROCESS: The Housing Trust Fund Advisory Committee held a public meeting and reviewed this request on November 3, 2011. RELEVANT ORDINANCES: Chapter 2.80 of the Salt Lake City Code: Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board Resolution #47 of 2005: Housing Trust Fund Appropriations and Loan Criteria RE: Citifront Apartment Retail Conversion Project Page 3 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. OF 2011 AUTHORIZING A LOAN FROM SALT LAKE CITY'S HOUSING TRUST FUND TO CITY FRONT PARTNERS LLC FOR THE CITIFRONT APARTMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Corporation (the City) has a Housing Trust Fund to encourage affordable and special needs housing development within the City; and WHEREAS, City Front Partners, LLC, ("City Front") has applied to the City for a loan from the City's Housing Trust Fund in order to convert 3,500 SF of existing retail space into apartment space at the Citifront Apartment Project located at 600 West North Temple in Salt Lake City that will consist of six (6) apartment units, all of which are affordable rental housing units for residents at 80% of the City's area median income or lower; and WHEREAS, the City Council has studied the matter and has decided that this resolution is in the best interest of the City. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah as follows: 1. The City Council does hereby authorize the City to enter into a loan agreement with City Front Partners, LLC, to provide City Front with a $265,000.00 loan (the "Loan") from Salt Lake City's Housing Trust Fund with the understanding that such funds will be used to convert existing retail space into six (6) apartment units at the Citifront Apartment Project at 600 West North Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah. 2. The provisions of the Loan shall provide for a loan term of fifteen (15) years during which time interest shall accrue at a rate of two percent (2%) per year. 3. Ralph Becker, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, following approval of the City Attorney, is hereby authorized to execute the requisite loan agreement documents on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation and to act in accordance with their terms. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2011. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: CHAIR ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM SALT LATTORJj' OFFIC BY: g DATE: 11/1 6'J I I CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER EVALUATION SALT LAKE CITY HOUSING TRUST FUND Name of Organization: City Front Partners, LLC Name of Project: Citifront Location of Project: 600 West North Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Project Description: Conversion of approximately 3,500 SF of existing retail space at the Citifront project into six (6) apartment units ranging in size from 518 to 768 SF. This space is located on the ground level west side of the Citifront apartment community. Citifront currently contains 155 apartment units and 13,000 SF of retail space. AMI Targets # of Units Unit Type Rents 80% 6 1 Bedroom $750 Amount and terms requested: $265,000 at 2% for 15 years. Is the entire project eligible for Housing Trust Fund money? Yes—Salt Lake City currently has a Housing Trust Fund loan with City Front Partners LLC in the amount of $1.5 million. Loan is deferred and payments begin in September 2014. Are the funds leveraged with non-government dollars? SOURCES OF FUNDS - Permanent Financing: 5'h Mortgage $265,000 TOTAL $265,000 USES OF FUNDS Rehabilitation/Construction Costs $255,000 A/E, Permit and Other Fees $10,000 TOTAL $265,000 Costs per unit: $44,166.67 Does the requesting agency have sufficient cash flow to repay the loan? Yes. Cash flow was figured on just these six units supporting the loan. These units will stand alone from the rest of the project. Does the project have demonstrated community support? Yes Does the requesting agency have a track record of owning, operating and maintainingthis type of housing project? Yes—they have owned and managed the existing project since 2003. The 1 retail space on the west side ground level has been difficult to lease since inception due to both the location and construction in and around the North Temple area. The apartment community has performed well, averaging above 92% occupancy. It is currently 95% occupied. Does the project meet the requirements of LEED Standards in City Funded Construction (Chapter 18.95 adopted in 2006)? N/A. This project consists of approximately 3,500 SF which is under the 10,000 SF requirement to be LEED certified. It will, however, be designed to be energy and noise efficient, including appliances, heating and air conditioning systems. Housing Policies and Preferred Housing Criteria for City-funded Projects This project meets the following new housing policies currently being reviewed by the City Council: Creation of a variety of city-wide residential housing units, including affordable housing Proximity to mass transit, retail and commercial services Housing units that are consistent with the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act New housing development within the Downtown area Project Strengths: This is an established project with a solid history of performance. The current owners have a history of running the project. '""k The project cash flows and allows for repayment of the loan. Salt Lake City is currently involved in the Citifront Project. Increase the city's net housing stock. Project Weaknesses: The loan would be in fifth position. Board Options Approve the request as presented. Deny the request. Trust Fund Balances: RDA Housing Trust Fund--$564,259 Housing Trust Fund--$3,716,000 2 HOUSING TRUST FUND ADVISORY BOARD Meeting of November 3, 2011 The following board members were in attendance: Michael Brough, Stephanie Jensen, Rick Knuth, Elly Muth, Faina Raik, and Shawn Teigen. Staff members in attendance were LuAnn Clark, Director of Housing and Neighborhood Development, Michael Akerlow, Deputy Director of Housing and Neighborhood Development, Sandi Marler, CD Programs Administrator, Steven Akerlow, Housing Development Programs Specialist, and Jan Davis, Administrative Secretary. Chairperson Shawn Teigen called the meeting to order at 12:15 p.m. The Board unanimously motioned to approve the June 2, 2011 minutes. Shawn Teigen welcomed the Board members to the meeting. New Board member, Ms. Stephanie Jensen introduced herself and briefed the Board on her work experience. Consider a request from Volunteers of America, Utah for a HOME grant in the amount of$100,000 to acquire and renovate the group home located at 556 South 500 East. The project consists of renovating 12 units/14 beds of transitional housing for men ages 18-24 who are homeless. Ms. Kathy Bray, President & CEO of Volunteers of America, Utah was present to provide details and answer questions pertaining to the request. Ms. Bray said that the requested funds would assist their organization to develop a new transitional home for young homeless men. Ms. Bray said that the Salt Lake City Planning Commission approved the zoning conditional use permit and that they have secured a HUD grant for $833,000 to purchase and rehab the property. Ms. Bray said that the HTF funds will be used to help purchase and remodel the property. Ms. Bray stated that they have acquired funding from private foundations and individuals and that additional funding is being solicited. Ms. Bray said that the transitional home will consist of 12 units/14 beds and will be based on the transitional home for females currently being operated by VOA. Ms. Bray said that the VOA served over 1,000 homeless youth at their drop-in center in fiscal year 2010- 2011. Ms. Bray said that the transitional home will be staffed 24-hours per day/7 days a week focusing on education, employment, permanent housing and providing supervision, as many of them have no parental support. The Board inquired about the length of stay for the transitional housing. Ms. Bray said that based on the transitional home for females, lengths of stay vary. Some of the youth are in a better position to move forward toward self sufficiency in a few months and others stay closer to the two year maximum stay. The Board asked about the rehab of the property. Ms. Bray described the rehab that will consist of the property being handicap accessible by building a ramp on the front of the house and renovating the bathroom on the first floor to handicap accessible standards. The kitchen will be remodeled creating an open space into the dining area in the back of the house. A new air conditioning system will be installed. The Board asked why the VOA selected this house. Ms. Bray said that the house already exists as a boarding house with bedrooms and multiple bathrooms so there limited remodeling will be required for the transition. Ms. Bray said that the location is a plus as the TRAX station is two blocks north and there are bus lines available. The Board asked about the structure of the request as a grant and if the HTF Board is allowed to consider this as a grant. Ms. LuAnn Clark said that the HTF is allowed to consider approving a grant for the project. She pointed out that funding for this project will come from the City's HOME allocation, Ms. Clark said that most of the requests that are presented to the Board are for HTF dollars which are Non- Federal dollars. Ms. Clark reminded the Board that the annual review of HOME funds falls under their purview, and that based on the criteria of the request, the funds could be approved as a grant. Ms. Clark stated that they had recommended funding for affordable housing match funds from the City's HOME funds last December, to be set aside for special needs housing, like this project, throughout Salt Lake City. Ms. Clark indicated that the project will never cash flow and to be able to repay the loan but the project will be monitored with a restriction that if the VOA discontinues transitional housing at this site, the money would have to be repaid to the City. Ms. Clark stated that since this project has other HUD monies invested in it, funding the project with HOME dollars will not place additional federal restrictions on the project. The Board inquired about the homeless youth and their special needs. Ms. Bray briefed the Board on the needs of the homeless youth and how the transitional housing will provide the youth with long term stability and help prevent them from becoming part of the chronic homeless population. Ms. Bray said that the youth will be screened for housing at their Homeless Youth Resource Center and that they will be looking for youth who are ready to engage in education and employment. Rick Knuth motioned to approve the request as submitted for $100,000 in the form as a grant. Michael Brough seconded the motion. All voted "Aye." The motion passed. Consider a request from City Front Partners, LLC, for a loan in the amount of$300,000 at 2% over 15 years to convert retail space at the Citifront Apartments located at 600 West North Temple. The project consists of converting approximately 3,500 SF of existing retail space into six (6) apartment units ranging in size from 518 SF to 768 SF. Mr. David Galvan, from NeighborWorks Salt, one of the partners of City Front Partners, LLC, and Mr. Bernardo Flores, Architect, were present to provide details and answer questions pertaining to the request. Amok Mr. Galvan stated that the Citifront apartments is a 155 unit mixed- income project on the corner of 600 West and North Temple. Mr. Galvan said that 87 units are 60% AMI, 9 units are 50% AMI, and the remaining units are market rate units. Mr. Galvan said that the property is located by the freeway, fronts North Temple, and is not favorable for retail use making it very difficult to lease. Mr. Galvan said that the retail space consists of 13,000 sq. ft. and City Front Partners is requesting to convert approximately 3,500 sq. ft. into residential housing at 80% AMI, leaving 9,500 square feet of retail space fully functional. The Board asked if the retail tenants agreed to be relocated. Mr. Galvan said that the tenants have agreed to be relocated. A discussion followed regarding the terms of the loan and that the loan would be in fifth position. The Board expressed concern regarding the fifth mortgage but agreed that the purpose of the loan is to provide the necessary funding for affordable housing. When the property was initially built, it was designed to have mixed-use with retail and residential space working together. Members of the Board asked if the conversion of retail space into residential space might be premature considering the development of the extended TRAX line and the significant upgrades toNorth Temple. Mr. Galvan said that the issue for retail has been and will continue to be no parking, particularly the retail units on North Temple. Mr. Galvan said this is a constant challenge for retail businesses. Mr. Galvan said that the residential component of the Citifront Apartments is very successful, but the retail has not worked. The Board inquired about the occupancy of the current 155 apartments. Ms. Sandi Marler stated that the apartments are currently 95% occupied. Mr. Galvan replied that the occupancy rate is consistent at the 95% level. The Board asked if the request could compromise the original intent of the plan. Mr. Galvan said that the property is zoned for mixed-use and that there is no on-going agreement stating that a , , specific percentage of retail use is required. Mr. Galvan indicated that there will still be retail space in the project. 2 Mr. Galvan said that the project meets the housing policies established by the City. The Board agreed that there is a strong rental market for people that cannot afford market rate rents. . Ms. Clark stated that there is the need for rental units for those with incomes between 60% and 80% of area median income in the community. The Board recognized that a cost of$44,000 per unit is very reasonable.. Ms. Marler stated that based on their proforma, City Front Partners does have the capability to pay back the loan regardless of the fact that this loan would be placed in the fifth position and reminded that Board that they are an affordable housing board and need to consider the needs of affordable housing, not just the loan position. Ms. Marler said that NeighborWorks, one of the City Front LLC partners, is one of the City's strongest partners and has done business with the City for 35 years. Mr. Galvan stated that he did not feel the added TRAX line would change the viability of retail projects when completed. Rick Knuth motioned to approve the request as presented for $265,000 at 2% over 15 years. The motion died due to lack of a second to the motion. The Board asked for an explanation pertaining to how the loan will be monitored. Ms. Clark said that the project is a tax credit project and will be monitored by the Utah Housing Corporation for 99 years. Board member Mr. Rick Knuth asked the Board if they would be willing to approve the project with a cross- collateralization of all the City obligations which currently hold third and fourth positions on the property title. This would mean that a default under one loan would create a default under all three City loans. Mr. Knuth said this would consolidate the three liens into one priority and if there was a default on any one, it would default under all. Ms. Clark said that the City's and RDA's loan is a deferred loan until 2014. The City deferred the loan because it was a new mixed-use project and a new type of project for the City.. Ms. Clark said that the City had believed in the project and that the additional rental income from the new project will provide more available cash flow to repay the $1.9 million loan. Ms. Clark explained that the original idea had been that the retail portion of the project would help the project cash flow but that had not been the case with this portion of the retail for the past 11 years. Ms. Clark asked the Board to look at the request as a tool for the applicant to repay the $1.9 million. Mr. Galvan said that NeighborWorks Salt Lake wanted available housing for the neighborhood and the community on that corner of North Temple by creating 155 affordable units. The Board agreed that the additional loan to convert the retail space to apartments would provide cash flow that the retail currently does not provided. Michael Brough motioned to approve a loan in the amount of$265,000 at 2% interest per annum over 15 years as presented with the condition that the loan be cross-defaulted to the City's and RDA's mortgages identified as the third and fourth mortgages with equal rights to default. Elly Muth seconded the motion. All voted "Aye." The motion passed. Update by LuAnn Clark LuAnn Clark said that Congress has not made a decision on the HOME and HOPWA funds so the Board will not meet in December. Ms. Clark said there will be a meeting scheduled probably the end of January to discuss HOME and HOPWA funding. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 1:31 p.m. 3 FUNDING APPLICATION SALT LAKE CITY HOUSING TRUST FUND Cover Sheet Project Name: Citifront Applicant/Organization: City Front Partners, LLC Mailing Address: 5295 South Commerce Drive, Suite 175 Murray, Utah 84107 Contact Person: Dan Stanger Phone Number: 801-201-7209 Fax Number: 801-284-5972 E-mail: danc1 therocfund.com Federal Employee Identification Number 87-0666042 Project Name: Citifront Apartments and Retail Project Location: 600 West North Temple, Salt Lake City, UT 84103 Amount Requested: $300,-080 ZC 7cc-c Terms Requested: 15 Year Amortization/2.0% Interest Rate Please contact Steven Akerlow at 535-7115 if you have questions or need assistance completing this application. The application is typed in Microsoft Word and is available on disc. Project Description Part I 1. Describe the scope of the project (how many total units, how many affordable units, type of project, etc.). Please address how your project will be accessible/visit-able. Please attach site plan, floor plan, and elevation of your project, if available. The scope of this project is to convert approximately 3,500 sq. ft. of dysfunctional retail space to 6 apartment units ranging in size from 518 to 768 sq. ft., on the ground level, west side of the Citifront Apartment Community. Citifront currently contains 155 apartment units, and approximately 13,000 sq. ft. of retail space. The retail space has been difficult to lease since inception due to both the location and the construction in and around the North Temple area. SLNHS and Bridge Development subsidize this space under a master lease required by the lender. This takes away from cash that could be put to use for other community services. The apartment community has performed well, averaging above 92% occupancy during its existence, and currently over 95% occupied. Of the 155 units, 87 are designated to 60% of median income, with 9 units designated to 50% of median income, and the remainder rented at market rates. The plan would incorporate an additional 6 units on the ground level, west side, which would be rented at 80% of median income, giving the property and the neighborhood a nice income and rental mix. The small grocery mart would stay in place on this side, and the two other tenants, currently in this space, would be relocated to the retail space on the 600 West side of the building, providing better parking, access, and synergy to the retail frontage on 600 West. The project is accessible via both North Temple and 600 West (see attached site plan and floor plans — Exhibit 1). 2. Does the project conform to the City's Master Plans for the area? Please indicate which master plan(s). Briefly restate the master plan objectives the project will meet. Citifront was developed under the Gateway District Master Plan and RDA. It is a mixed use development incorporating market rate and affordable apartment units, along with ground level retail space. It is our belief that both components meet the objective of the master plan, but more appropriate sizing would be desirable related thereto. 3. What is the property zoned? Gateway Mixed Use 4. All new construction projects will need to be reviewed by the appropriate Community Council. Please provide a copy of the Community Council's response to the review of your project. Since Citifront is an existing development with both uses continuing, it was not felt that this needed to be reviewed by the Community Council. However, the developer is prepared to do so, if needed. 5. Please include a breakdown of the number of units that will be provided for the various percentages of area median income (i.e., how many units for those at 80%, 50% AMI, etc.), along with a list of the rents that will be charged to each group. The conversion of this retail space to apartment units will increase the unit count to 161, with 9 units c 50% AMI, 87 units 60% AMI, 6 units c 80% AMI (the units being converted), and 59 units at market. Attached as Exhibit 2 is the rental rate schedule for the various floor plans, and relative affordability factor described above. 6. How will the project be accomplished if the Salt Lake City Trust Fund is unable to fund this request? Funding of this project will be difficult without the Trust Fund due to the secured mortgages that currently exist on the site, and the current credit markets. 7. How do you intend to use funds provided by Salt Lake City Corporation?We intend to use the funds for hard costs related to Architectural, Engineering, Remodel of the 6 units, and tenant improvements for the tenant relocation. No funds will be used for soft costs related to this project. 8. Are there tenants currently living in the project? Will they be able to remain in the project once it has been completed? Please explain how the tenants will be affected by the project and the steps you have taken to deal with their issues. The current space is retail, with two tenants. We will relocate the existing tenants on site. 9. How many square feet will the project contain? Please describe how the project will meet the requirements of LEED Standards in City Funded Construction (Chapter 18.95 adopted in 2006), or National Green Build Standards if the project is for new construction or major renovation of a multi-family residential building that will contain more than 10,000 square feet. All units are designed to be energy and noise efficient, including appliances, heating and air conditioning systems. The project contains approximately 3,500 sqft as identified on Exhibit 1. 10. If you have applied for tax credits or bond financing for this project, have you received notification that your application was approved? If so, please provide the date of approval; if not, please provide the date the decision will be made. We have not applied for bond financing. The project is a tax credit project, which we applied for and received in 2004. Project Funding Part II 1. Please list the sources of all funds as of the date of the application. If this is a tax credit project, please provide one complete copy of the tax credit application. Permanent Sources of Funding/Post Construction: Source Amount Equity 1st Mortgage Wachovia $8,677,830 2nd Mortgage GE $1,212,702 Other Secured Debts SLC Corp & SLC RDA $1,965,000 Unsecured Debt NHS & Bridge Development $1,719,524 Other Salt Lake NHS -$300 600 • c� c Total Sources $13,875,056 1 a. Ratio of Salt Lake City Trust Funding to total funding: 2.44% 2. Please list the uses of all funds for the proposed project, being as specific as oak possible. The total of Uses of Funds should equal the total project cost. Uses: Land/Building Acquisition Cost $0 Rehabilitation/Construction Cost $255,000 NE, Permit and other fees $10,000 Otter please specify-Tenant-improvements_ $3-5;000- $300-000 As identified on Exhibit 3 3. What will be the value of the project at the time of completion?We estimate the value at approximately $13.0 million. 1. 4. Please attach sales or operating projections for the project for the first five years after completion. Please list below the assumptions made to prepare the operating projection. Please show revenue and expense categories in as much detail as possible. As noted previously, Citifront is an existing g project. We will be replacing existing retail space that is difficult, at best, to lease, with 6 one 4 bedroom units that will lease immediately. The 2012 operating budget is provided as Exhibit 4. The impact to cash flow at the project will be as follows: Average Unit Rental: $750.00 Total Potential Revenue: $54,000 annually based on 6 units $750 per unit rental. Vacancy: $(4,050) annually based on 7.5% economic vacancy assumption. Other Income: $ 3,000 annually based on historical per unit average at Citifront. Total Income: $52,950 annually Total Expenses: $21,000 annually based on $3,500 per unit. Total NOI: $31,950 annually 5. What is the source of repayment of the funds? Project NOI projected at $800,000 for 2012. Current 1st and 2nd mortgages equate to $698,016 annually. 6. What type of security is being offered to the City? The project is currently encumbered with $11,855,532 of secured debt in 1st thru 4th position. A new mortgage, or consolidated mortgage could be completed with the other $1,965,000 in SLC mortgages. 7. Please list all other governmental grants, loans, tax credits, licenses, etc., necessary for this project to proceed. Please include information on the status of all funding required for the completion of this project. No additional grants, loans, tax credits or licenses are required to proceed forward with this project. The project must be approved by the current tax credit investor (American Express Utah Equity Fund through its servicer ESIC). 8. Please describe the purchase terms under which the applicant will/has acquire(d) the property. How much of the purchase price will be paid with equity provided by the applicant? By others? The property is currently owned by the applicant and therefore does not require any additional funds to purchase. The partnership currently has approximately S1.719 million invested into the project. 9. If an appraisal of the property has been obtained, please attach a copy. N/A 10. Please state the number of years you will maintain this property as affordable. 40 years. Applicant Information Part III 1. Please check each of the following which is true for the Applicant (a) The Applicant is an individual doing business under his/her own name. X (b) The Applicant has the status indicated below and is organized or to be organized under the laws of Utah A corporation A nonprofit or charitable institution or corporation A partnership known as or to be known as: A business association or joint venture known as or to be known as: A Federal, State or local government or instrumentality thereof Am** Individual known as: Social Security Number of Individual: X Other (explain): a limited liability company known as City Front Partners, LLC 2. If the Applicant is not an individual or a government agency, give date of organization: January 2, 2001 3. Please provide a list of the officers, director or trustees, board of trustees or board of directors, or partners of the applicant's organization. The Managing members are Salt Lake NHS — 66.7% and Bridge Development, LC — 33.3%. 4. Who will manage the property once it has been acquired? The property is currently managed by Bridge Property Management, 5295 South Commerce Drive, Suite 175, Murray, Utah 84107 6 5. Please provide a brief description of your organization. City Front Partners, LLC is a single purpose entity created for the purpose of developing the Citifront apartments and retail space located at 600 West North Temple. This entity is managed by Salt Lake NHS and Bridge Development, LC, with American Express as its tax credit partner, through its servicing agent ESIC. 6. Who will be responsible for this project? Salt Lake NHS and Bridge Development, LC. 7. Please provide examples of experience your organization has with this type of project. Attached as Exhibit 5 you will find a current portfolio identifying all of the projects within the Bridge sponsored network. All apartment communities on this list are managed by Bridge Property Management, and have been rehabbed, with some rehabs costing over $4 million. The team has extensive experience in both development,and management of capital rehab projects throughout the Western United States. Current Ownership Information Part IV 1. Who is the current owner of the property? City Front Partners, LLC, a Utah Limited Liability Company. 2. Who is the current manager of the property? Bridge Property Management, 5295 South Commerce Drive, Suite 175, Murray, Utah 84107 3. Please provide a list of the officers, director or trustees, board of trustees or board of directors, or partners of the organization that currently owns the property. Certification Amok I (we), Danuel R. Stanger certify that this Applicant Disclosure of Ownership and Control is true and correct to the best of my (our) knowledge and belief. Signature Signature Manager, City Front Partners LLC Title Title 5295 S. Commerce Drive,#175, Murray, UT 84107 Address and Zip Code Address and Zip Code Date: 9 J6 // Date: 8 PREPARATION OF LOAN DOCUMENTS Applicant understands and agrees with Salt Lake City Corporation's policy that all loan documents required from Salt Lake City Corporation, necessary for closing of the loan, will be processed and signed two weeks prior to the loan closing date and that no changes to those loan documents and/or requests for additional documents and/or letters requiring the Mayor's signature will be made during the two week period prior to the loan closing. ignature Signature Manager, City Front Partners LLC Title Title 9/40 Date Date ACCESS TO TAX CREDIT APPLICATION INFORMATION Applicant agrees to grant Salt Lake City Housing and Neighborhood Development permission to access information contained in their Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Application filed with the Utah Housing Corporation and/or any Private Activity Bond applications. ature Signature Manager, City Front Partners LLC Title Title &) // Date Date NOTE: PLEASE PROVIDE FOURTEEN (14) COPIES OF YOUR ENTIRE APPLICATION AT THE TIME THE APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED AND ONE (1) COPY OF YOUR TAX CREDIT APPLICATION and APPRAISAL. 9 Eligible Activities for Salt Lake City Housing Trust Funds Part V As set forth in Salt Lake Ordinance 78-00 of 2000, funds are provided to Salt Lake City's Housing Trust Fund to be used exclusively to assist with affordable and special needs housing in the City. Fund moneys may be used for: 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 affordable and special needs housing units 7. Technical assistance; 8. Other activities and expenses incurred that directly assist in providing affordable and special needs housing. Fund moneys may not be used for administrative expenses. io IIII NI, ql _ 1 l _. N a •.. n,5) \ I,_„1 n NTMf NI] \\ % I LXIS,5 ➢R - 1 9, \ MITIALN I6 PS,BSF / II- nI S-I6SF _ 71 U 9.\I oYZ <1 Tom_ _ roE---- .__ C r, � -� I— W �U \APARTMENT 5 t j c t�l _^— / • 578 S.F. I EXISTI r BATHROOM —"- /1 I- Q 1 ,.. __ lip 1F ,/ H �� Q1_�� (i pp OP �` EXIST BAI muom I 1.� I— �., Y�� // APARTMENT z // I APARTMENTS ] I l / 168s6 Lc - L_ 1 n 1. C --] r I e\ / / \ EXIST CLOSET o".J1. J f 1 - rn 9 1-1 < b � I j OI��] j I '�1 , 1 O o; IL T NTSFT I I°i I (M j) �_,- 41° 11 f l _ 1� W I-1 E I I GROUND LLVEL FLOOR PLAN /7 J.L. w I � :..,. A1.1 I INB,IZA� ,0„ HALF SIZE SET-FIELD VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS on,r,o„xn,6 2011 Citifront/Bridge Property Management Information Sheet—60% of Median Income Welcome to Citifront Apartments. Our community is operated under the Affordable Housing Program under the Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code. This program is designed to facilitate the housing needs of moderate and middle-income families. Residence at the Citifront Apartments requires that applicants meet certain qualifying standards established by the government. This program is not connected with Section 8. Residency at the Citifront Apartments is limited to those families having moderate incomes. The maximum allowable incomes (by family size) are as follows: Household • Maximum Members Allowable Income $29,580.00 2 $33,840.00 3 $38,040.00 4 $42,240.00 5 $45,660.00 6 $49,020.00 7 $52,380.00 In addition to standard wages, income includes money received from many sources such as alimony, child support, pensions, and social security. A complete definition of income is posted in the rental office for inspection. All income information provided by applicants must be verified before occupancy. This qualification and certification process must be completed annually upon renewal. The rents at the Citifront Apartments are limited by statue. Currently, the allowable rents by bedroom are: Monthly Monthly Monthly Total Housing Cost Allowable Rent Utility Allowance Allowable One Bedroom $ 731.00 $ 61.00 $ 792.00 Two Bedroom $ 870.00 $ 81.00 S 951.00 Three Bedroom $ 996.00 $ 102.00 $ 1098.00 The allowable rent is subject to change annually and is based upon median incomes as determined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Resident Signature Date Resident Signature Date 2011 Citifront/Bridge Property Management Information Sheet—S0% of Median Income Welcome to Citifront Apartments. Our community is operated under the Affordable Housing Program under the Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code. This program is designed to facilitate the housing needs of moderate and middle-income families. Residence at the Citifront Apartments requires that applicants meet certain qualifying standards established by the government. This program is not connected with Section 8. Residency at the Citifront Apartments is limited to those families having moderate incomes. The maximum allowable incomes (by family size) are as follows: Household Maximum Members Allowable Income 1 $24,650.00 2 $28,200.00 3 $31,700.00 4 $35,200.00 5 $38,050.00 6 $40,850.00 7 $43,650.00 In addition to standard wages, income includes money received from many sources such as alimony,child support,pensions, and social security. A complete definition of income is posted in the rental office for inspection. All income information provided by applicants must be verified before occupancy. This qualification and certification process must be completed annually upon renewal. The rents at the Citifront Apartments are limited by statue. Currently, the allowable rents by bedroom are: Monthly Monthly Monthly Total Housing Cost Allowable Rent Utility Allowance Allowable One Bedroom $ 599.00 $ 61.00 $ 660.00 Two Bedroom $ 711.00 $ 81.00 $ 792.00 Three Bedroom $ 813.00 $ 102.00 $ 915.00 The allowable rent is subject to change annually and is based upon median incomes as determined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Resident Signature Date Resident Signature Date 1 FLORES - SAHAGUN + ASSOCIATES September 14, 2011 Sent via e-mail DStanger@BridgelG.com Dan Stanger Bridge Property Management L C 5295 Commerce Drive Ste 175 Salt Lake City, Utah 84107-4786 Re: Architectural Services CitiFront-Retail"A" 6`h West North Temple Salt Lake City, Utah Dear Dan: We are pleased to submit this proposal to provide Architectural Services for CitiFront located at 61h West North Temple in Salt Lake City. We are very excited to have the opportunity to work in conjunction with you to renovate commercial space into residential units. This is the outline of the Scope of Services and a proposed fee schedule. This proposal does not include any type of consulting services (i.e. electrical, mechanical,structural,civil, etc.)that might be required by the new building design and/or by building code. The selection and payment of any/all consultants will be coordinated directly by the owner. 1.0 BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS 1.1 Meetings with Municipality 2.0 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 2.1 Construction Documents a. Cover Sheet/Site Plan b.Floor Plan for Each Unit(6) c. Interior Elevations and Details d.Windows, Doors and Finish Schedules e.Wall Sections f. Coordination and Integration of Work from Structural, Mechanical, Electrical, etc. 3.0 COORDINATION MEETINGS 1 7 1 WEST PIERPONT AVENUE + SALT LAKE CITY UT 6 4 1 0 1 + 6 0 1 3 5 0.0 1 3 6 + I s a r c h©q w e s l o f f i c e n e l 2 3.1 Coordination meetings with Consultants and General Contractor 4.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION 4.1 Max of 5 Site Visits. For additional visits see below for hourly rate. 5.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES NOT INCLUDED AND SHALL BE CONTRACTED OUT BY OWNER No Consultants (structural, mechanical,electrical,civil,interior design etc.)are part of this contract. All additional consultants shall be selected and paid by Owner. 5.1 *Structural Drawings and Calculations(Required) 5.2 Energy Calculations(if required) 5.3 'Fees Associated with Building Permit 5.4 Certified Survey(By licensed Surveyor,if required) 5.5 Construction Management(if required) 6.0 FEE STRUCTURE 6.1 Fee is Lump Sum Fee of$800.00 per unit,totaling $4,800.00 An initial retainer of$500.00,to be credited at the completion of the contract,and progress payments as described below: 6.2 Progress Payments CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT PHASE 95% CONSTRUCTION PHASE 5% TOTAL BASIC COMPENSATION 100% 6.3 Reimbursables Reproduction (copies, blue prints, plots, etc.), standard form documents, postage, handling,and delivery of Instruments of Service, fees paid for securing approvals of authorities having jurisdiction over the project, renderings, models, and mock-ups requested by the owner will be invoiced plus 10%. 7.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES In the event that additional hours or services are required,we will seek authorization from you prior to any additional work taking place.The number of each of the proposed hours will be quantified and qualified. 7.1 Standard Hourly Rate Project Architect $175.00 Technician II $84.50 We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal and look forward to working with you. 1 7 1 WEST PIERPONT AVENUE + SALT LAKE CITY UT 8 4 1 0 1 + 8 0 1 3 5 0 0 1 3 6 + f s a r c h C g w e s t o l l i c e net CALDER RICHARDS Dan Stanger September 14, 2011 Bridge Property Management L C 5295 Commerce Drive Ste 175 Salt Lake City, Utah 84107-4786 Transmitted Via e-mail: fsarch( gwestoffice,net Reference: Citifront Remodel 600 W North Temple—Fee Estimate Dear Dan, We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal for providing structural engineering services on the above referenced project. Based on the drawings provided, our understanding of the scope of this project is outlined as follows: Project Building Description&Assumptions • Existing 4 story multi-family residential structure with retail on the main level on the west side of Salt Lake City. • Existing construction is wood and steel framing, stud bearing walls and wood framed floors and roofs. • The lateral system is plywood shearwalls and steel cross bracing. • Foundations are standard concrete foundation walls and footings. • Structural work includes adding new windows, possibly removing part of shearwalls and infilling some slab on grade ramps and removing and replacing slab on grade areas for new plumbing. • Construction costs are not known at this time. Scope of Services • Design &Construction Documents. 1. Review the existing drawings to determine loading on the structural elements to be remodeled. 2. Provide structural design of the new openings, existing structural elements needing upgrade and slab work. 3. Redline architects plans and sections and provide redlined details for drafting by the architect. 4. Provide input redlined on the architectural drawings for architectural elements. 5. Provide stamped structural calculations and stamp structural drawings as required for building permit. • Pre-construction Services. Respond to building department comments and provide addendums as needed. • Construction Services. I. Respond to contractor RFI's. 2. Review of structural shop drawings as needed. 3. Provide one site visits during construction. 634 South 4C0 West k100, Salt Lake City, Utah 64101 T 801 466. 1699 F 801 467 2495 (I) Citifront Remodel Fee Proposal Page 2 Proposed Lump Sum Fees: Investigation, structural design and detailing - $ 600.00 Construction Services - $ 200,00 Total: $ 800,00 Reimbursable expenses(not included in the lump sum fee): 1. In-house reproduction of"multiple"drawing sets, (not to exceed $ 150). Project Delivery&Schedule • We are not aware of the schedule at this time, but should be able to meet any reasonable deadline. Terms& Conditions • See the attached Terms and Conditions that are proposed for this project. In the event that no other formal contract is implemented these terms and conditions shall apply. mok Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding this proposal. "" Respectfully, Authorization to Proceed: /LA( WX.E/L— Citifront Scott Wilson, S.E. Date: 004* 63a South 400 West 4100, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 T 801 .466. 1699 F 801 .467.2495 (2) THESE"TERMS AND CONDITIONS"ARE ATTACHED TO AND ARE A PART OF THE PROPOSAL AND CONTRACT FOR SERVICES PREPARED BY CALDER RICHARDS CONSULTING ENGINEERS,LLC.(herein"CRC"),FOR PROJECT NAME:Citifront Remodel PROPOSAL DATE:September 14,2011 I. Responsibilities of Structural Engineer of Record CRC will perform all such services as specified in the proposal under"Scope of Services". II. Responsibilities of Client Provide all criteria and full information as to requirements for the project.Give prompt notice to CRC of any development that may affect the scope and/or timing of CRC services. III. Billings/Payments Fees for services are as noted in the above referenced proposal.Invoices will be submitted monthly for services and reimbursable expenses and are due when rendered. Invoice shall be considered PAST DUE if not paid within 30 days after the invoice date and CRC may without waiving any claim or right against Client,and without liability whatsoever to Client,terminate the performance of the service.Retainers shall be credited on the final invoice.A service charge will be charged at 1.5%(or the legal rate)per month on the unpaid balance. In the event any portion or all of an account remains unpaid 90 days after billing, the Client shall pay cost of collection,including reasonable attorneys'fees. IV. Indemnification The Client shall indemnify and hold harmless CRC and all of its personnel from and against any and all claims,damages,losses and expenses(including reasonable attorneys fees) arising out of or resulting from the performance of the services, provided that any such claims,damage,loss or expense is caused in whole or in part by the negligent act of omission,and/or strict liability of the Client, anyone directly or indirectly employed by the Client(except CRC)or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable. V. Risk Allocation In recognition of the relative risks, rewards and benefits of the project to both the Client and CRC,the risks have been allocated so that the Client agrees that, to the fullest extent permitted by law, CRC's total liability to the Client, for any and all injuries, claims, losses,expenses,damages or claim expenses arising out of this agreement,from any cause or causes,shall not exceed the total amount of$ 100,000, the amount of CRC's fee (whichever is greater) or other amount agreed upon when added under special conditions. Such causes, indude, but are not limited to CRC's negligence, errors, omissions, strict liability, breach of contract or breach of warranty. VI.Miscellaneous 1. It is expressly understood and agreed, notwithstanding any reference to any rule or regulation, that CRC has no responsibility or duty for guaranteeing, directing, or superintending the contractor's work methods, safety of the job site, failure to carry out the work in accordance with contract requirement,timeliness in performance of the work, or any other aspect of construction for which the contractors have responsibility. 2. If the project is postponed, delayed, suspended, or abandoned, CRC will be paid for all work already performed up to the date postponement,delay suspension or abandonment. 3. This agreement may be terminated by either party upon 10 days written notice to the other party,in which case,CRC will be paid for all work performed up to and including the effective date of termination. 4. In the event of alleged error or omission by CRC in performance of the project,Client shall notify CRC promptly in writing of that fact and allow CRC a reasonable time to remedy the problem. Client agrees not to remedy the problem or to contract with a third party to remedy the problem at the cost of CRC without first giving CRC a reasonable opportunity to remedy the problem. 5. All documents, including drawings and specifications,as instruments of service,are the property of CRC and area not to be used on other work including repetitive construction,except by specific,written agreement.Such documents may be retained by the Client with other documents pertaining to the project. VII. Applicable Law Unless otherwise spe ified,this agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Utah. Offered by: Accepted P by: Dale: Calder Richards Consulting Engineers Name/Title: 634 South 400 West 0100, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 T 801 .466. 1699 F 801 .467.2495, WESTLAND CONSTRUCTION 0 ATROBASEiBIDITOTALISM ,4,-..--,,;:: ::..i.:-1. • __t._ -_-_:;:: ::-_--;,:„.&.:-.5.-zi.;. Citi Front Retail Space-> Apartments Remodel Box CSI# CSI Name & Description FOurilita Name of Sub-Contractor V51111:0ifiB.Hra Add.If Notes Line Totals Div.Totals 112a. SITEWORK . _ . . =- - — ' _ -- . . - —- . -• — ' . . . 2080 1M:tiding Demolition Mairtta.Virl 1 1 13 men-5 days-0 550rtv-dumpstera ki GC5 1 I 12070 iSawcutling letrArffiglientral/IIIS Plumbing&Westland I _I IQ curbs and rama• 2800 !Temporary Fencing klategalea$1 . I; I I I . 'Site Work Totals $4,890 54,890 I .. . . an CONCRETE.- • .- '....-.-.•:,.-.2,-,n :::!=:- --::_':.:-.--1 ‘..-L—r---:--- '-__:.- L- . . . :__-..: ,- : '.-. • 3300 IBuilding Concrete I 1,'-:. • 1r.,:l.l. •,., r i 1-,1 . 3100• I Concrete Materials :=11aQ 1€1-- -_,-;WesUand Labor&Materials 15 yards and a couple short loads 3300 I Concrete Labor, I3200 1Concrete Reinforcement 11011MOVIIIIClydeco I 1 I . .. . 1 3210 lAnchor bolts&Inserts R5115efebttarilClydeco 1 I IDral&Epoxy Concrete Totals $one 58,088 .... _ . .... . . • - - - - - 161111-31WOODS-"IW'RUASTICSiaz::7-a-f4e?:,-,ft,f_',..,-_'0 .-5.:-Ei.-----:;:.--,1:,.'-',, :r--_'-A-k5--'-.T..., ;7:-_-_-_,-5-,-,Y,f_._'.-.7:174._;.- --I_KfiT71447:-i-.:-.17.-,;ET(i.-_-7T-i::.-F-t -,_:,•-_-_—:„.7.-, ,,-.--,----;="---:-- _ 6100 1Rough Carpentry - (Labor) 5100 (Rough Caprentry, (Material) 1 Westland Materials I Backing for new doors&hardware . __ .. . 16200 !Finish Carpentry 1135505MagMBMC West 1 1 I - ,e 16250 {Door&Hardware Installation ritaltalatilemc West 1 I I - I I.' 16400 lInterior Architectural Woodwork WaViitcwitOlemc west 1 j '1 -- - I 4 :Woods and Plastic Totals 5231.145 $23,145 ItStiiind insulation Worik&-Vit4Olcaroans 1 I I I IStutr-m Palth&Repair ParitiftingliailHoUghlort PlaSter 1 1 I - 1:• 1 -"Mole 1 F.:1.,", !, ; . • 1 • 'Foundation 8.Window Flastings- InfatireaMr344 Westland Libor&Materials 1 - 1 -1Fo;r new windows end v.tere;rernps are Med I IJotrit Sealants/CaufIrN 1401WITO$51MtWesliand Labor&Materials I_ 1 • -.1 Thermal&Moisture Protection Totals $8,889 •58,1359 ...._.-- . ..1 i Doors F reMC-3 5 Hardware 1.41M005-IttiCOIBMC West I I • I 1 ' 1New Windows IYIU64123401gION City Glans I I Nino I I .IWIndOW I!2I9L 1,. I !Aluminum Entrances&Storefronts IitrOR5-5111i$01atan City Glass 1 1 1 F1' !4.I, 1 I Glazb-.9 ItiMUFirio-lifikli ctty Glass 1 I I 1 IDoors&Windows Totals $5,390 $5.390 Z..9i1 TINISHES. . _ . . ..., . . ._ Non-Lcrad.Bearing Steel Framing R.V...ei4.0_,5431 .1 HS F 1 IF I .:1.-••••l: 1 !Gypsum Board 14-Fraca4HSF I 1 I lAcoustieal Ceilings WA5451140311VYINtike Holt 1 1 I iGarpealoor Covering's tra141i11:101ftEWestern Viholesele I I I I14 •1.,1 1VCT in Bathrooms 11*UftrZiCkrtt Oi WW 1 1 I F 'Paint Kf1-3•115ii5,064. 1Holyoak Parritind 1 1 I 1Finishes Totals $49,106 $49,105 1401 'S PEC IALTI ES . . . . . !Mirrors V--.;&5111177-5'.55-WIBMC We st I 11 basic large mirror irs!aeed in each Whew) " ISpecialties Totals $1,755 $1,7-14414% 1'1.1 EQUIPMENT Includes microwave, range,dishwasher&fridg-A with delivery & install 11132 1Appliances 11,1'..'2.151f21:811.ii.M-IGE Consumer Appliances 1 I I ;Equipment Totals $12,821 512.821 121 FURNISHINGS Page 1 of 2 Box CSI A CSI Name & Description � $ .,t i..,,E,£'zh=,G=" P its Name of Sub-Contractor " 3 Ot7iel H(Q i� Add.A Notes Line Totals Dlv.Totals 1Horizontal Louver Blinds P�6 0� Colton I 124 sets of blinds 1Furnishings Totals $2,880 52.880 S43ESPECIAL CONSTRUCTION -_ . 13900 (Fire Sprinkler System �� I I- 630�Mdrrrrountain Fire 'Special Construction Totals 57,650 57,650 I g,15 ; MECHANICAL -..�.t� _- . - . -- . 15400 I PIurilbing 11 +'�4 +tenet Tams I . ,`<I' " `1- .- : . I 1 - 15500 IHVAC Syatom _ Taurus I - I - F- - 1 . (15700 IHVAC Instruments&Cntrts WatilaniAirsullls I I I 15800--[Testing,Adjust.;Balancing � Taurvs I I- I I Mechanical Totals $42,800 $42,800 1i6J.cELECTRICAL - .;-..- - _ -:- _--.. - ;_, •,•-- Y ; - r: . ::, _ 16000'lEledrtcal a23 SG Silver Lake I, .. ...-I:J;G:I •. <.. _ ^ •- -_.' -. 1Electrical Totals $23,400 $23,400 j Ilia . -- - -- - - Westland Cdnling incy . .._ : ' I Misc.Totals S6,000 $6,000 AF.errtiits:& Fees/Allowances/Connt'iingencies - - . - ' . _ _ IPernilts&Fees a :.�Of4netfc r .t . .. .-:3E FOwnerConllt encl.. � .:i•- --- --— Addnd Totals ©II IIVTLabor&General Conditions S38,130 $38,130 (Job Totals'(Incl.Gen"Cond's.): I $234,943 _ 92% SUB TOTAL(A)-JOB COSTS: ',.' '-':7,' )''.234°943 ; 1= _OVERHEAD&PROFIT :I $18,796 .1 8.00% I 7% GL INSURANCE: - 5282.16 s'244h1z'd of St,b:cntmn.v Builders Risk INSURANCE S500.00 .22i100 Tar,wrtyra, SUB TOTAL(B)i 5254,521 52,863 jfend win Bond a PERFORMANCE&PAYMENT BOND:I - Bond with Bond Added _ �f' R r ; -::-.c.r�j -4- Y• c t,-,*per.r? ,:.. ttiiin':;:s-c• �. . 2p4 5J221. —�. �. a-�c:�?�;��r��u� r f:j-�-:i'x .z. �;.t: '':s1.cA:Lsiy r �<y,,y. Page 2 of 2 BRIDGE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 2012 Operating Budget 033 Citifront - 155 Units 118,469 SgEt 2012 %of Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Out Nov Dec Per Apt Gross Trading 12 Jubtl GL Account/Description Colonpt�on _ - - - - -- 3999.9000 REVENUE 4000.0000 4000 GROSS POTENTIAL RENT 113,926 114,176 114.426 114,676 114.926 115,176 115,426 115,676 115,926 116,176 116,426 116,676 1,383,612 8.926.53 10000% 1,344,952 112.036 4020.0000 4020 VACANCY LOSS 5.00% (5,696) (5,709) (5,721) (5,734) (5,746) (5,759) (5,771) (5,784) (5,796) (5,809) (5,821) (5,834) (69,181) (446.33) -5.00% (77,715) (6,326) 4050.0000 4050 BAD DEBT/WRITE-OFFS 1.00% (1,281) (1,281) (1,281) (1,281) (1,281) (1,281) (1,281) (1,281) (1,281) (1,281) (1,281) (1,281) (15,372) (99.17) -1.11% (15,372) 0 4030.0000 4030 RENT CONCESSION (2,000) (2,000) (2,000) (2,000) (2,000) (2,000) (2,000) (2,000) (2,000) (2,000) (2,000) (2,000) (24,000) (154.84) -1.73% (30,211) (1,535) 4060.9900 EFFECTIVE RENT 104,949 105,186 105,424 105,661 105,899 106,136 106,374 106,611 106,849 107,086 107,324 107,561 1,275,059 8,226.19 92.15% 1,221,655 104,175 4300.0000 4300 COMMERCIAL RENT 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 156,000 1,000.45 11 27% 156,000 13,000 4599.0000 TOTAL OTHER INCOME 5,010 5,055 5,100 4,995 5,190 5,235 5,235 5,085 5,235 5,235 5,235 5,235 61,845 399.00 4.47% 58,424 5,457 4720.0000 COMMERCIAL EXPENSE RECOVERY 235 235 235 235 235 235 235 235 235 235 235 235 2,820 18.19 0.20% 4,035 305 GROSS OPERATING INCOME 123,194 123,476 123,759 '123,891 124,324 124,606 124,844 124,931 , 125,319 125,556 125,794 126,031 1,495,725 9,649.84 106.10% 1,440,113 123,017 7000.0000 OPERATING EXPENSES 7099.0000 TOTAL PAYROLL EXPENSES (15,943) (15,943) (16,283) (15,943) (15,943) (16,283) (15,943) (15,943) (16,283) (15,943) (15,943) (18,779) (195,169) (1,259.16) -14.11% (192,414) (13,950) 7199.0000 TOTAL ADVERTISING EXP. (2,002) (2,002) (2,202) (2,252) (2,002) (2,002) (2,002) (2,002) (2,202) (2,252) (2,002) (2,002) (24,924) (160.80) -1.80% (24,466) (2,197) 7299.0000 TOTAL LEASING EXPENSE (797) (947) (797) (797) (797) (797) (797) (797) (947) (797) (797) (797) (9,864) (63.64) -0.71% (9,587) (818) 7399.0000 TOTAL REDECORATING EXPENSE (2,019) (2,019) (2,019) (2,019) (2,069) (2,244) (2,244) (2,244) (2,019) (2,019) (2,019) (2,019) (24,953) (160.99) -1.80% (24,415) (1,996) 7499.0000 TOTAL ADMIN.EXPENSE (7,021) (6,283) (6,294) (6,299) (6,317) (6,328) (6,337) (7,841) (6,356) (6,366) (6,375) (6,395) (78,203) (504.53) -5.65% (76,451) (6,064) 7599.0000 TOTAL UTILITIES (9,897) (9,797) (9,497) (9,097) (9,697) (9,747) (9,647) (10,547) (10,547) (9,997) (9,797) (9,797) (118,064) (701.70) -8.53% (116,150) (10,126) 7699.0000 TOTAL CORPORATE APT EXP. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 00% 0 0 7799.0000 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSE (4,489) (3,855) (2,605) (8,024) (3,560) (2,305) (3,734) (3,205) (2,410) (3,684) (4,330) (2,905) (43,106) (278.10) -3.12% (46,213) (5,304) 7899.0000 TOTAL MAINT.&REPAIR EXPENSE (1,675) (1,665) (1,765) (1,785) (1,865) (1,865) (1,885) (1,865) (1,865) (1,785) (1,665) (1,665) (21,350) (137.74) -1.54% (20,916) (1,702) 7949.0000 TOTAL RECREATION FAC.EXPENSE (200) (200) (640) (200) (200) (575) (200) (240) (200) (200) (375) (575) (3,805) (24.55) -0.28% (2,988) (218) 7955.0000 TOTAL SWIMMING POOL EXPENSE (150) (200) (200) (250) (400) (550) (550) (550) (400) (200) (150) (150) (3,750) (24.19) -0.27% (3,745) (537) 8099.0000 TOTAL REPLACEMENT EXPENSE (5,360) (1,860) (5,210) (5,810) (5,210) (5,360) (4,340) (3,960) (4,110) (1,610) (2,060) (1,610) (46,500) (300.00) -3.36% (38,759) (3,966) 8150.0000 TOTAL TAXES/INSURANCE (12,020) (9,625) (10,275) (10,023) (9.625) (12,125) (9,625) (9,625) (9,625) (9,625) (9,625) (9,625) (121,443) (783 50) -8.78% (114,436) (8,887) 8190.0000 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSE (61,573) (54,395) (57,787) (60,499) (57,684) (60,181) (57,304) (58,819) (56,964) (54,478) (55,138) (56,309) (691,131) (4,456.91) -49.95% (670,542) (55,766) 8199.0000 NET OPERATING INCOME 61,621 69,081 65,972 63,392 66,639 64,425 67,540 66,113 68,354 71,079 70,656 69,722 804,594 5,190.93 58.15%. 769,571 67,251 8202.0000 TOTAL REHAB COST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 00% 0 0 8204.1004 TI-CITIFRONT 0 0 0 (6,245) 0 0 0 0 0 (6,245) 0 0 (12,490) 80 58 0 90% (1,000) 0 8299.0000 TOTAL FINANCIAL EXPENSE (44,774) (44,177) (42.141) (44,394) (43.260) (44,261) (43,130) (44,305) (44,063) (42,936) (43,927) (43,923) (525,291) (3,388.97) -37.97% (538,224) (48,031) 8350 0000 TOTAL CAPITAL ENHANCEMENT 0 0 (500) (8,000) (1,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 (4,100) (13,600) (87.74) -0.98% (13,565) (43) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (53,334) (53,334) (344.09) -3.85% 0 0 8399.0000 NET INCOME B/F DEPR. 16,847 24,904 23,331 4,754 22,380 20,164 24,410 21,808 24,291 21,898 26,728 (31,635) 199,879 1,28954 14.45% 216,781 19,177 8420.0000 TOTAL DEPRECIATION/AMORT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 00% (536.253) 0 9998.0000 NET PROFIT 8 LOSS/CASH FLOW 16,847 24,904 23,331 4,754 22,380 20,164 24,410 21,808 24,291 21,898 26,728 (31,635) 199,879 1,289.54 14.45%, (319,472) 19,177 9998.9000 TOTAL OTHER CASH FLOW (16,359) (16,947) (18,992) (16,735) (17,873) 3,132 (18,003) (16,828) (17,066) (18,197) (17,201) 2,790 (168,279) (1,085 67) -12167. 0 0 9998.9500 NET CASH FLOW I 488 7,956 4,339 (11,981) 4,507 23,297 6,407 4,980 7,226 3,701 9,527 (28,844) 31,600f 203.87 2.28% (319,472) 19,177 9/30/2011, Page 1 of 9 BRIDGE PR' '.TY MANAGEMENT 2012 Opt .ng Budgct 033 Citifront - 155 Units 118,469 SqFt 2012 %of Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Per Apt Gross Trailing 12 Jul-11 GL Account/Description TOTAL ;Urn_ _ _ 3999.9000 REVENUE 3999.9998 POTENTIAL RENT-RESIDENTIAL 4000,0000 4000 GROSS POTENTIAL RENT 125,365 125,365 125,365 125,365 125,365 125,365 125,365 125,365 125,365 125,365 125,365 125,365 1,504,380 9,705.68 108.73% 1,481,860 124,770 4005.0000 4005 PREPAID RENT-CASH BASIS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 4010.0000 4010 LOSS TO LEASE (11,439) (11,189) (10,939) (10,689) (10,439) (10,189) (9,939) (9,689) (9,438) (9,189) (8,939) (8,689) (120,768) (779.15) -8.73% (138,908) (12,734) 4010.9000 GROSS SCHEDULED RENT 113,926 114,176 114,426 114,676 114,926 116,176 115,426 115,676 115,926 116,176 116,426 116,676 1,383,612 8,926.53 100.00% 1,344,952 112,036 4010.9900 RENT ADJUSTMENT-RESIDENTIAL 4020.0000 4020 VACANCY LOSS (5,698) (5,709) (5,721) (5,734) (5,746) (5,759) (5,771) (5,784) (5.796) (5,809) (5,821) (5,834) (69,151) (446.33) -5.00% (77,715) (6,326) 5.00% 5.00% 5,00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 4030.0000 4030 RENT CONCESSION (2,000) (2,000) (2,000) (2,000) (2,000) (2,000) (2,000) (2,000) (2,000) (2,000) (2,000) (2,000) (24,000) (154.84) -1 73% (30,211) (1,535) 4050,0000 4050 BAD DEBT/WRITE-OFFS 1.00% (1,251) (1,281) (1,281) (1,281) (1,281) (1,281) (1,281) (1,281) (1,281) (1,281) (1,281) (1,281) (15,372) (99.17) -1.11% (15,372) 0 4060.0000 4060 MODEL APARTMENT ALLOWANCE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 4060.9000 TOTAL LOST RENT (1,977) (9,990) (9,002) (9,015) (9,027)' (9,040) (9,062) (9,066) (9,077) (9,000) (9,102) (9,115) (108,553) (700.34) -7.85% (123,298) (7,861) 4060.9900 EFFECTIVE RENT I 104,949 105,186 105,424 105,661 105,899 106,136 106,374 106,611 106,849 107,086 107,324 107,561 1,276,059 I 8,226.19 92.157. 1,221,655 104,175 4300.0000 4300 COMMERCIAL RENT ,13,,000 _ 13,000 ' 13,000.,. ' 13,000 ' .i13,000.` ;, 13,000 "13.000 :' 13,000'.,' 13,000, 13,000' 13,000 ''13,000',,, ' 166,000 1,006.45 11.27% 156.000 13.000 OTHER INCOME 4500,0000 4500 STORAGE INCOME 325 345 365 385 405 425 425 425 425 425 425 425 4,800 30.97 0.35% 3,879 320 4501.0000 4501 PATIO INCOME 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0.00% 0 0 4505.0000 4505 SHORT TERM RENTAL INCOME 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 4510.0000 4510 PARKING INCOME 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 5,400 34.84 0.39% 5,140 510 4520.0000 4520 LATE I NSF FEES 660 660 660 660 660 660 660 660 660 660 660 660 7,920 51 10 0 57% 7,895 820 4523.0000 4523 MONTH TO MONTH FEE 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 SO 50 600 3.87 0.04% 550 250 4524.0000 4524 FORFEITED SECURITY DEPOSIT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 4525.0000 4525 LEASE INITIATION FEE 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 8,400 54.19 0.61% 8,507 237 4528.0000 4526 EARLY TERMINATION FEES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 00% 0 0 4528.0000 4528 RECOVERED RENT 410 410 410 410 410 410 410 410 410 410 410 410 4,920 31.74 0.36% 4,896 224 4530.0000 4530 APPLICATION FEES 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 1,740 11.23 013% 1.710 150 4532.0000 4532 ADMINISTRATION FEES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0.00% 0 0 4534.0000 4534 CLEANING I DAMAGE FEES 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 5,400 34.04 0.39% 5,230 078 4536.0000 4536 PET INCOME 235 235 235 235 235 235 235 235 235 235 235 235 2,820 18.19 0.20% 2620 325 4537.0000 4537 UTILITY REVENUE 530 555 580 605 630 655 655 655 655 655 655 655 7,485 48.29 0.54% 5.850 529 4538.0000 4538 VENDING INCOME 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 4539.0000 4539 TRASH REMOVAL REBATE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 00% 0 0 4510.0000 4540 LAUNDRY INCOME 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00% 0 0 4541.0000 4541 REDECORATING FEES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 4542.0000 4542 RECREATION CENTER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00% 0 0 4544.0000 4544 CORPORATE APARTMENT 150 150 150 0 150 150 150 0 150 150 150 150 1,500 9.68 0.11% 1,449 201 4546.0000 4546 CABLE TV INCOME 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0.00% 0 0 4548.0000 4548 INTERNET INCOME 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 4550.0000 4550 TELEPHONE INCOME 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 552 3 56 0.04% 550 0 4551.0000 4551 COMMUNICATIONS INCOME 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 4552.0000 4552 SIGN REVENUE 567 567 567 567 567 567 567 567 567 567 567 567 6,804 43.90 0.49% 6.674 567 4553.0000 4553 ALARM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0.00% 0 0 4554.0000 4554 COMMERCIAL SPACE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 4556.0000 4556 DISCOUNT INCOME 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00% 0 0 4580.0000 4580 INTEREST INCOME 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 2,880 18.58 0.21% 2,847 336 4590.0000 4590 MISCELLANEOUS INCOME 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 624 4.03 0.05% 618 50 4599.0000 TOTAL OTHER INCOME 6,010 6,066 6,100 4,995 6,190 6,235 6,235 5,085 6,235 5,235 5,235 5,235 61,646 399.00 4.47% 58,424 5,457 OTHER INCOME-RETAIL 4720.0000 COMMERCIAL EXPENSE RECOVERY . 235 235 235 235 235 235 235 235 235 235 235 235 2,820 18.19 0.20% 4.035 385 GROSS OPERATING INCOME I 123,194 123,476 123,759 123,891 124,324 124,606 124,844 124,931 125,319 125,556 125,794 126,031 1,495,725 1 9,649.84 108.107. 1,440,113 123,017 9/30/2011 Page 2 of 9 BRIDGE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 2012 Operating Budget 033 Citifront - %of 155 Units 118,469 SgFt 2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Au0 Sep Oct Nov Dec Per Apt Gross Tradin012 Jul-11- TOTAL scnra _ �___ GL Account/DescnPtion 7000.0000 OPERATING EXPENSES 7001.0000 PAYROLL EXPENSES 7005.0000 7005 PROPERTY MANAGER (3,283) (3,283) (3,283) (3,283) (3,283) (3,283) (3,283) (3,283) (3,283) (3,203) (3,283) (3,283) (39,39) (254.17) -2 85% (44,5'00) (3,250) 7006.0000 7006 ASSISTANT MANAGER (2,253) (2,253) (2,253) (2,253) (2,253) (2,253) (2,253) (2,253) (2,253) (2,253) (2.253) (2,253) (27,03) (174 43) -1.95% (24,248) (2,074) 7010.0000 7010 INCENTIVES 0 0 (300) 0 0 (300) 0 0 (300) 0 0 (2,500) (3,40) (20 o4 o 001.94) (2,7500) (750) 7015.0000 7015 LEASING CONSULTANT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7016.0000 7016 LEASING CONSULTANT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 30.00) -0 0.00 0.00%0 (5,850) (500) 7017.0000 7017 LEASING INCENTIVES (487) (487) (487) (487) (487) (487) (487) (487) (487) (487) (487) (487) ( ,644) ( 0 7019.0000 7019 COMPLIANCE MONITOR (279) (279) (279) (279) (279) (279) (279) (279) (279) (279) (279) (279) (3,34) (21 60) 0.24% (3,3499) 0 7020.0000 7020 OFFICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7021.0000 7021 RECEPTIONIST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0% 0 0 7023.0000 7023 TENANT COORDINATOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36,92) (230.1 0.00 0) 0 0.00 0067% (35,740) (2,800) 7025.0000 7025 MAINT./REPAIR-LEAD (3,077) (3,077) (3,077) (3,077) (3,077) (3,077) (3,077) (3,077) (3,077) (3,077) (3,077) (3,077) ( 8. 9 0.00% 0 0 2. 7029.0000 7029 MAINTENANCE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7030.0000 7030 MAINT./REPAIR-TECH-I (2.167) (2,167) (2,167) (2,167) (2,167) (2,167) (2,167) (2,167) (2,167) (2,167) (2,167) (2,187) (26,00) (167.74) 1,98 (24,9700) (2,1000) 7031.0000 7031 MAINT./REPAIR-TECH-II 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 7032.0000 7032 MAINT./REPAIR-TECH-III 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 7033.0000 7033 MAINT./REPAIR-TECH-IV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7034,0000 7034 DAYPORTER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 0 0 7035.0000 7035 HOUSEKEEPING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 oDo D.ao% 0 0 7036.0000 7036 DAYPORTER 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0.00% 0 0 7040.0000 7040 GROUNDS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7041.0000 7041 MAINT-HVAC 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00% 0 0 7042.0000 7042 REHAB REPAIR LEAD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 00% 0 0 7043.0000 7043 REHAB REPAIR TECHNICIAN 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0.00% 0 0 7045.0000 7045 NIGHT MONITOR (1,733) (1,733) (1,733) (1,733) (1733) (1,733) (1,733) (1,733) (1,733) (1.733) (1,733) (1,733) (20,79) (134.17) -1.50% (18,592) 0 7050.0000 7050 ACTIVITIES COORD. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 00% 0 0 7052.0000 7052 TEMPORARY 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00% 0 0 7053.0000 7053 RENT REBATE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0.00% 0 0 7055.0000 7055 PAYROLL TAXES 13!5% (1,553) (1,553) (1,593) (1,553) (1,553) (1,593) (1,553) (1,553) (1,593) (1,553) (1.553) (1,889) (19,09 ) (123.17) -1.38% (19.072) (1.317) 7056.0000 7056 PAYROLL PROCESSING FEE 0 00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0.00% 0 0 7058.0000 7058 WORKERS COMP. 0 00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 7060.0000 7060 EMPLOYEE INS/BENEFITS (1.112) (1,112) (1.112) (1,112) (1,112) (1.112) (1.112) (1.112) (1.112) (1,112) (1.112) (1.112) (13,33 ) (86 05) -0.96% (13.330) (1.062) 7063.0000 7063 401K-EMPLOYER MATCHING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 7065.0000 7065 EDUCATION&TRAINING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0.00% 0 0 7099.0000 TOTAL PAYROLL EXPENSES (15,943) (16,943) (16,283) (15,943) (15,943) (16,263) (15,943) (15,943) (16,283) (15,943) (15,943) (18,779) (195,16) (1,259.16) -14.11%, (192,414) (13,950) 7100.0000 ADVERTISING EXPENSES 7111.0000 7111 NEWSPAPER ADVERT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 7121.0000 7121 WEB SITE (102) (102) (102) (102) (102) (102) (102) (102) (102) (102) (102) (102) (1,224) (7.90) -0.09% (1.247) (141) 7131.0000 7131 PRINT MATERIAL 0 0 (200) 0 0 0 0 0 (200) 0 0 0 (400) (2 58) -0.03% (319) 0 7141.0000 7141 SIGNS/EXHIBIT/DISPL 0 0 0 (250) 0 0 0 0 0 (250) 0 0 (500) (3.23) -0.04% (478) (168) 7161.0000 7161 RENTAL DIRECTORIES (1,175) (1,175) (1,175) (1,175) (1,175) (1,175) (1,175) (1,175) (1,175) (1,175) (1,175) (1,175) (14,100) (90 97) -1 02% (13,670) (1,177) 7171.0000 7171 MODEL UNITS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 7191.0000 7191 OTHER ADVERTISING (725) (725) (725) (725) (725) (725) (725) (725) (725) (725) (725) (725) (8,700) (56.13) -063% (8,752) (711) 7199.0000 TOTAL ADVERTISING EXP. (2,002) (2,002) (2,202) (2,252) (2,002) (2,002) (2,002) (2,002) (2.202) (2,252) (2,002) (2,002) (24,924) (160.80) -1.80% (24,466) (2,197) 7200.0000 LEASING EXPENSES 7221.0000 7221 LEASING SUPPLIES (92) (92) (92) (92) (92) (92) (92) (92) (92) (92) (92) (92) (1,104) (7.12) -0.08% (1,110) (72) 7241.0000 7241 CREDIT REPORTS (260) (260) (260) (260) (260) (260) (200) (250) (260) (260) (260) (260) (3,120) (20 13) -0.23% (3,103) (267) 7251.0000 7251 MODEL APARTMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 00% 0 0 7281.0000 7281 RESIDENT REFERRALS 0 (150) 0 0 0 0 0 0 (150) 0 0 0 (300) (1.94) -0.02% (300) (150) 7285.0000 7285 LOCATOR REFERRALS (300) (300) (300) (300) (300) (300) (300) (300) (300) (300) (300) (300) (3,600) (23.23) -0.26% (3,559) (329) 7291.0000 7291 OTHER LEASING (145) (145) (145) (145) (145) (145) (145) (145) (145) (145) (145) (145) (1,740) (11 23) -0.13% (1,514) 0 7299.0000 TOTAL LEASING EXPENSE (797) (947) (797) (797) (797) (797) (797) (797) (947) (797) (797) (797) (9,864) (63.64) -0.71% (9,587) (818) Page 3 0l 9 9/30/201' BRIDGE PRt IITY MANAGEMENT Ii I 2012 O ng Budget l 033 Citifront 155 Units 118,469 SqFt Jan Fc0 Mar Apr 2012 %of GL Account I Descnplion P May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Per Apt Gross Trailing 12 Jul-11 TOTAL Srhod 7300.0000 REDECORATING EXPENSES 7302.0000 7302 JANITORIAL CONT./SUPPLIES (700) (700) (700) (700) (750) (750) (750) (750) (700)7303.0000 7303 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES (19) (19) (19) (19) (19) (19) (19) (19) (19) (700) ( 9) ( 9) (8,600)8 ( .47) -002% (8224) (58) 7311.0000 7311 PAINT CONTRACT (330) (330) (330) (19) (19) (19) ,290) (1.47)8 -0 31% (224) (58) 7313.0000 7313 PAINT SUPPLIES (385) (385) (385) (385) (385) (385) (385)(440) (385) (330) (330) (330) (330) (4,620) (29.81) -0.33% (4,208)1 (270) 7321.0000 7321 WINDOW COVERING/REPAIR 0 0 0 0 0 0 (385) (385) (385) (385) (385) (4,6z0) (20.00) -.00% ({,510) (554) 7322.0000 7322 REDEC WINDOW REPAIR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.55 0.02% 0 0 7323,0000 7323 CARPET CLEANING (585) (585) (585) (SBS) '(585) (050) (650) (650) (585) SB5 7324.0000 7324 CARPET REPAIR/DYE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ( ) (580) (580) (7,210) (40.00) -0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0.00% (7,020 (7(110) 7325,0000 7325 COUNTERTOPS/CABINET REPAI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 00% 0 0 7327.0000 7327 LEASE RENEWAL CONCESSION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% p 7399.000D TOTAL REDECORATING EXPENSE (2,019) (2,019) (2,019) (2,019) (2,069) (I,244) (2,244) (2,244) (2,019) (2,019 0(2,019) (2,019) (2{,96J) (160.99) -1.80% (24,415) (1,996) 7400.0000 ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES 7412.0000 7412 MANAGEMENT FEE 4.00% (4,928) (4.939) (4,950) (4,956) (4,973) (4,984) (4,294) (4,997) (5,013) (5,022) (5,032) (5,041) (59,82) (385 99) -4 32"/, 7415.0000 7415 SEMINARS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (58,200) (4,970) 7417.0000 7417 EDUCATION/TRAINING0.00 0..13 0 0 7422.0000 7422 OFFICE EQUIPMENT (30) (66) (30)66 (30)6 (30) (30) (30) (1,530) (30) (30)6 (30) (30) (1,98 ) (12.82) -0.14% (1,988) (31)5 7423.0000 7423 OFFICE SUPPLIES (166) (166) (50) (50) (166) (166) (166) (166) (166) (20) (166) (50) (1,98) (12 82) -0.22% (1,988) p 7424.0000 7424 TELEPHONE (250) (250) (250) (250) (250) (250) (250) (250) (250) (250) (250) (250) (3,00 ) (34.84) -0.32A (5,03) (91) (450)1 (450)1 (450)1 (450)1 (450)1 (450)1 (450)11 (450)11 (450)1 (450)1 (450)1 (450)1 (5,40 ) (34.84) -0 10% (5,403)7 (96) 7425.0000 7425 ANSWERING SERVICE/PAGERS (115) (115) (115) (115) (115) (115) (115) (115) (115) (115) (115) (115) (1,38 ) (8.90) -010% 7427.0000 7427 INTERNET CHARGES (96) (98) (98) (98) (98) (98) (98) (98) (98) (98) (98) 9B (1,168) ((95) 7429.0000 7429 OTHER ADMINISTRATION ( ) (1,17 ) (0.00) -0 OB% (1,160) (90) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (10 55 000% 0 0 7430.0000 7430 POSTAGE (20) (20) (20) (20) (20) (20) (20) (20) (20) (20) 7432.0000 7432 COLLECTION COSTS (20) (20) (24 ) 00) -0.02% (243) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.84 0 00% 0 0 7451.0000 7451 LEGAL SERVICES (750) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7455,0000 7455 ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I75 ) (0 00) -0 OS% (750) 0 7461 0000 7461 ACCOUNTING SUPPLIES 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 00% 0 0 7471.0000 7471 ACCOUNTING/AUDIT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 00% p 7477,0000 7477 NEWSPAPER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7481.0000 7481 COMPLIANCE MONITOR 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 0 7485.0000 7485 BANK CHARGES (215) (215) (215) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 60 0.00% 0 7 ) 7491.0000 7491 OWNERSHIP COSTS 0 0 (270) (215) (215) (215) (215) (215) (215) (215) (210) (2,58 I (10.00) -0 19% (2,580) (3G0 7492.0000 7492 OFFICE RENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00% 0 7499.0000 TOTAL ADMIN.EXPENSE (7,021) (5,283) (6,294) (6,298) (6,317) (6,728) (6,337) (7,841) (8,356) (6,766) (6,]75 0(6,Jbb) (78,20 ) (SO4,SJ) -5.65% (76,651) (6,064) 7500.0000 UTILITIES 7511.0000 7511 GAS (450) (350) (350) (450) (450) (500) (500) (500) (500) (450) (350) (350) (5,20 455) 7521.0000 7521 ELECTRICITY (5,300) (5,300) (5.000) (4,500) (4,600 ) (77.45 -4.23"/e 7531.0000 7531 WATER (1,500) (1,500) ) (2,100) (2,000) (5,000) (2,400) (2.400) (5.000)1 (5,300)1 (22,60) (145.81) -1.63% (22,173) (2,106) 7551.0000 7551 SEWER (1,422) ) (2,000)1 (1,422) (2,422) (,4 ) (1,422) (2.400)1 (1,4221 (1,422) (22,60) (1100.09) -1 63% (1.422) (1,422) (1,422) (1,422) (1,422) (1,422) (1,422) (1�22 (22,173) (2,186) 7561.0000 7561 TRASH REMOVAL CONTR (1,225) (1,225) (1,225 ) (1,225) (7!25) (1,225) (17,06 ) ((94 64) -1.23% (14,685) (1,494) 7562.0000 7562 CABLE 0 0 0 (1,220) (1,220) (1,220) (1,220) (1,225) (1 225) (1 220) (1,220) (1,220) (14,70 ) (90.00) -1.06% (11,685 7575.0000 7575 INTERNET 6 PHONE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 (1,215) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 7578.0000 7578 METERING CONTRACT 0 0 0 00 0 0.00 0 00% 0 0 7580.0000 7580 COMMUNICATION REIMBURSEMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0.00% 0 0 7599.0000 TOTAL UTILITIES 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0. % 0 (9,697) (9,797) (9,497) (9,097) (9,697) (9,747) (9,647) (10,547) (10,54700 (9,997) (B,78T) (8,79T) (118,06 ) (761.70) -8.53% (716,150) (70,126)7600.0000 CORPORATE APARTMENT EXP. 7601.0000 7601 FURNITURE RENTAL 0 0 0 7611.0000 7611 HOUSEWARES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 000%% 0 0 7615.0000 7615 CLEANING EXPENSE 0 5 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0.00% 0 0 7621.0000 7621 UTILITIES 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 7631.0000 2 7631 TELEPHONE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% p p 1, 7632.0000 7632 INTERNET 0 0 0 0 0 000 0.00% 0 0 7641.0000 7641 CABLE TV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 7649.0000 7649 UTILITY REIMBURSEMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 j 0 7699.0000 TOTAL CORPORATE APT EXP. ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 D { ( I 7 1 1 S 9/30/2011 Page 4 of 9 BRIDGE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 2012 Operating Budget 033 Citifront - 155 Units 118.469 SgFt 2012 %of Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep OU Nov Dec Per Apt Gross Trailing 12 Jul-11 GL Account/Descnption _ TOTAL Sc-nod 7700.0000 OPERATING EXPENSES 7701.0000 7701 COMMON AREA MAINT. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 00% 0 7702.0000 7702 JANITORIAL-COMMON AREA (700) (700) (700) (700) (700) (700) (700) (700) (700) (700) (700) (700) (8,40) (54.19) -0.01% (8,849) (700) 7703.0000 7703 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES (115) (115) (115) (115) (115) (115) (115) (115) (115) (115) (115) (115) (1,38) (890) -010% (1.353) (202) 7704.0000 7704 CARPET CLEANING-COMMON 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 7705.0000 7705 RECREATION EQUIP.CONTRAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 7722.0000 7722 PEST CONTROL CONT/SUPPLIE (140) (140) (140) (140) (140) (140) (140) (140) (140) (140) (140) (140) (1,68) (10.84) -0.12% (1,656) (206) 7723.0000 7723 PEST CONTROL SUPPLI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0.00% 0 0 7732.0000 7732 SNOW REMOVAL CONT/SUPPLIES (800) (800) (300) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (300) (B00) (3,00) (19 35) -0 22% (2.033) 0 7733.0000 7733 SNOW REMOVAL SUP. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 7742.0000 7742 LANDSCAPE CONTRACT (850) (850) (850) (850) (850) (850) (850) (850) (850) (850) (850) (850) (10,20 ) (05.81) -0.74% (10,184) (830) 7743.0000 7743 LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES/MATER. 0 0 (200) (2,500) (350) (200) (200) (150) (150) (150) 0 0 (3,90) (25.16) -0 28% (3,931) (303) 7744.0000 7744 LANDSCAPE PLANT MATERIAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 7745.0000 7745 ELEVATOR CONTRACT (1,619) (450) 0 (1,619) (450) 0 (1,619) (450) 0 (1,619) (450) 0 (8,27) (53 39) -0 00% (8,022) (1,933) 7746.0000 7746 SWEEPING/PAVED AREA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 7753.0000 7753 PAVED AREA SUPPLIES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00% 0 0 7763.0000 7763 LANDSCAPE STR.SUPP. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 7772 0000 7772 WATER FEATURE CONT/SUPPL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 00% 0 0 7773.0000 7773 WATER FEATURE SUPPL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0.00% 0 0 7789,0000 7789 KEYS 8 ACCESS CARDS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00% 0 0 7790.0000 7790 FIRE MONITORING/ALARM (100) (800) (300) (10O) (B00) (300) (100) (000) (300) (100) (1,775) (300) (5,77 ) (37.26) -0.42% (8,791) 0 7791.0000 7791 ALARM MONITOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 7792.0000 7792 SECURITY CONTRACT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00% 0 (960) 7793.0000 7793 NIGHT MONITOR SUPP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0.00% 0 0 7794.0000 7794 UNIFORM (155) 0 0 0 (155) 0 0 0 (155) 0 0 0 (46) (3 00) -0 03% (465) 0 7795.0000 7795 VEHICLES/MILEAGE (10) 0 0 0 0 0 (10) 0 0 (10) 0 0 (3) (019) 0.00% (30) 0 7798.0000 7795 MISCELLANEOUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 00% 0 0 7799.0000 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSE (4,489) (3,855) (2,605) [6,024) (3,560) (2,305) (3,734) (3,205) (2,410) (3,684) (4,330) (2,905) (43,10) (278.10) -3.12% (46.213) (5,304) 7800.0000 MAINT.&REPAIR EXPENSE 7812.0000 7812 MAINT./REPAIR CONTR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00% 0 0 7830.0000 7830 WATER TREATMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 00% 0 0 7831.0000 7831 APPLIANCES (320) (320) (32) (320) (320) (320) (320) (320) (320) (320) (320) (320) (3,84) (24.77) -0.28% (3,785) (324) 7832.0000 7832 HVAC (350) (350) (45) (450) (550) (550) (550) (550) (550) (450) (350) (350) (5,50) (35.48) -0.40% (5.275) (292) 7833.0000 7833 SUPPLIES-HEATING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 7834.0000 7834 PLUMBING (170) (170) (17) (170) (170) (170) (170) (170) (170) (170) (170) (170) (2,04 ) (13.16) -0.15% (2.038) (171) 7835.0000 7835 WINDOWS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 7836.0000 7836 PAINT/DRYWALL (10) 0 (20) 0 0 (20) 0 0 (20) 0 0 (7) (0.45) -0.01% (69) 0 7837.0000 7837 ELECTRICAL (350) (350) (35) (350) (350) (350) (350) (350) (350) (350) (350) (350) (4,20) (27.10) -0.30% (4.138) (380) 7838 0000 7838 SUPPLIES-SHOP STOCK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0.00% 0 0 7839.0000 7839 HARDWARE/DOORS (475) (475) (47) (475) (475) (475) (475) (475) (475) (475) (475) (475) (5,70) (36.77) -0.41% (5,612) (535) 7840.0000 7840 COUNTERTOPS/CABINETS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 7841.0000 7841 UNINSURED LOSSES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 00% 0 0 7842.0000 7842 MASONRY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 00% 0 0 7843.0000 7843 ROOF MAINTENANCE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 7844.0000 7844 GENERAL R&M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 7845.0000 7845 HAND TOOLS&EQUIP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 7846.0000 7846 METAL MAINTENANCE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 7847.0000 7847 ENTRY GATES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 7850.0000 7850 Maintenance Credal Irorn Seller 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0.00% 0 0 7871.0000 7871 VEHICLES/EQUIP.REPAIR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 7898.0000 7898 MISCELLANEOUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 7899.0000 TOTAL MAINT.&REPAIR EXPENSE (1,678) (1,666) (1,76) (1,786) (1,865) (1,565) (1,385) (1,865) (1,465) (1,765) (1,665) (1,665) (21,35) (137.74) -1.54% (20,916) (1,702) 7900.0000 RECREATION FACILITY EXP. 7902.0000 7902 REC/FAC.CONTRACT (75) (75) (47) (75) (75) (75) (75) (75) (75) (75) (200) (75) (1,425) (9.19) -0.10% (1,828) 0 7903.0000 7903 REC FACILITY SUPPLIES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 7904.0000 7904 REC FACILITY EQUIPT 0 0 (4) 0 0 0 (40) 0 0 0 0 (80) (0 52) -0 01% (83) (83) 7911.0000 7911 ACTIVITY EXP. (125) (125) (12) (125) (125) (500) (125) (125) (125) (125) (175) (500) (2,300) (14.84) -0.17% (1,078) (135) 7912.0000 7912 REFRESHMENT SUPPLIE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 7913.0000 7913 NEWSLETTER EXPENSE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 00% 0 0 7914.0000 7914 COPC RENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 00% 0 0 7915.0000 7915 COPC EXPENSE 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 7949.0000 TOTAL RECREATION FAC.EXPENSE (200) (200) (64) (200) (200) (576) (200) (240) (200) (200) (375) (576) (3,805) (24.55) -0.28% (2,988) (218) Page 5 of 9 9/30/2011 BRIDGE PRI II.TY MANAGEMENT I 2012 Op . _Ing Budget q t 033 Citifront - 155 Units 118,469 SgFt 2012 %of Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Per Apt Gross Trailing 12 Jul-11 GL Account/Descnption TOTAL Srhen 7950.0000 SWIMMING POOL EXPENSE 7952.0000 7952 POOL CONTRACTS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 7953.0000 7953 POOL SUPPLIES (150) (200) (200) (250) (400) (550) (550) (550) (400) (200) (150) (150) (3,750) (24.19) -0.27% (3,745) (537) 7954.0000 7954 POOL EQUIPMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 7955.0000 TOTAL SWIMMING POOL EXPENSE (150) (200) (200) (250) (400) (550) (550) (550) (400) (200) (160) (150) (3,750) (24.19) -0.27% (3,745) (537) 5000,0000 REPLACEMENT EXPENDITURES 8001.0000 8001 CARPET/TILE REPLACE (1,25) (1,25) (1,25) (1,25) (2,50) (2,500) (2,500) (2,500) (1,250) (1,250) (1,250 ) (129.03) -1.45% (20,480) (2,015) 8002.0000 8002 TILE/LINOLEUM ) (1,250) (20,00 8003.0000 8003 COMMON AREA CARPET0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 (2,50) 39) (3,950 (780) 8003.0000 8004 EXTERIOR EN (2,500) 0 0 (2,500) 0 0 0 (7,50 ) (48 -0.54 8005.0000 8005 DOORS/HARDWARE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% p 0 8006,0000 8006 INTERIOR IMPROVEMEN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 8007.0000 8007 WINDOW COVERINGS (13) (13) (13) (13) (13) (135) (135) (135) (135) (135) (135) (135) (1,62 ) (10.45) -0.12% (1,820) (210) 8008.0000 8008 BALCONIES/DECKS 8009.0000 8009 WATER HEATERS D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7007 0.00% 0 0 8010.0000 8010 POOL FURNITURE/EQUIP 0 (430) 0 0 0 0 0 (43) (2. ) -0.03% 0 0 8011.0000 8011 HVAC (1,00) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (1,00 ) (645) -0.07% (807) 0 8012.0000 8012 LANDSCAPE UPGRADES (85) 0 0 (850) 0 0 0 0 (1,70 ) (10.97) -0 12%% (1,217) 0 (1,00) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8013 0000 8013 DISHWASHERS (25) (1,00) (3.23) -0.04 0 0 (25) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ) (3.23) -0.04% 0 0 8014.0000 8014 LAUNDRY EQUIPMENT (50 8015.0000 8015 REFRIGERATORS (45) (50) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (90 ) (5.01) -0.07% (795) 0 8017.0000 8017 DISPOSALS 0 (450) 0 0 0 0 0 (90 ) (5 ) -0 07% 0 0 8019.0000 8019 TUB REGLAZING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 8020.0000 8020 BOILER REPLACE/REPR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 00% 0 0 8021,0000 8021 SWIMMING POOL EQUIPMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0.00% 0 0 8022.0000 8022 ASPHALT REPAIR (3,20) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8025.0000 8025 RANGES (3,20) (20.65) -0.23% 0 0 (25) 0 0 (250) 0 0 0 0 (50 ) (3.23) -0.04% 0 0 8026.0000 8026 COUNTER TOPS (25) 0 (250) 0 0 0 0 0 (50) (3.23) -0 04% (170) 0 8027.0000 8027 Office Furniture/Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 00% (1,098) p 8029.0000 8029 EQUIPMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% p p 8030.0000 8030 EXERCISE EQUIPMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% p 0 8031.0000 8031 MAIN7.EQUIPMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0.00% p p 8033.0000 8033 FURNITURE 8 EQUIPMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 8034.0000 8034 SIGNAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 8035.0000 8035 LANDSCAPE IMP/EQUIPMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 8036.0000 8036 TENNIS COURT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 8037.0000 8037 CONCRETE IMPROVEMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% p p 8039.0000 803E SIDING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 8039.0000 8039 ENTRY/EXIT GATE (1,50) (35) 0 (350) 0 0 0 (450) 0 (2,65 ) (17.10) -0.19% 8040.0000 8040 BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS (1,80) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (4 (150) 8041.0000 8041 OFFICE REMODEUEQUIP (1,60) (11.61) -0.13% (4.845)45) 0 8043.0000 8043 LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% (427) 0 8044.0000 8044 CEILING FANS �) (22) (22) (22) (22) (225) (225) (225) (225) (225) (225) (225) (2,70) (17.42) -0.20% 0 0 8045.0000 8045 CONTRACTORS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% p p 8047.0000 8047 ASPHALT REPAIR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 • 8049.0000 8049 CARPORT REPAIR UPGRADE 0 0 0 0 D 0 D 0.00 0.00% 0 0 8050.0000 8050 GARAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0.00 0.00% 0 0 8051 0000 8051 STUCCO 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 8052.0000 8052 TRASH ENCLOSURES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 p 8053.0000 8053 FIREPLACES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 p 8054.0000 8054 ROOFING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 p 8055.0000 8055 HVACNENTING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 Op% 0 p 8060.0000 8060 SEWER LIFT STATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 0.00% p p °. 0 8070.0000 8070 PAINTING. 0 00 0.00% 0 p 8080 0000 8080 COMMUNITY CENTER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 8084.0000 8084 MISCELLANEOUS IMPROVMENTS D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 0 8099.0000 TOTAL REPLACEMENT EXPENSE (6,360.00 0.00%6% 0 0 0 0 D o 0 p (1,86) (6,27 ) (5,61 ) (6,21 ) (6,760) (4,340) (3,960) (4,110) (1,610) (2,060) (1,610) (46,60) (300.00) -7.J6% (33,759) (3,966) 9/30/2011 Page 6 of BRIDGE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 2012 Operating Budget 033 Citifront - oI 155 Units 118,469 SqFt 2012 PcrADI crow Trailing a Jul-n Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep OU Nov Dec TOTAL `cos _ �__. GL AccOunl/Description 8099.9000 TAXES/INSURANCE EXPENSE 8100.0000 8100 REAL ESTATE TAXES (7,317) (7,317) (7,317) (7,317) (7,317) (7,317) (7,317) (7,317) (7.317) (7,317) (7,317) (7,3177) (87,80) (566.48) 6 35 (82,4266) (6,7130 ) 8105.0000 8105 PERSONAL PROP.TAX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4) 0 8106.0000 8106 LICENSES 8 FEES (2,395) 0 (650) (398) 0 (2,500) 0 0 0 0 00 0 8 34 0.00%0 (5,94) (]8 34) -0 43% (5,924) 0 0 8110.0000 8110 OTHER PROPERTY TAXES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 00% 0 0 8111.0000 8111 SALES 8 USE TAX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Boo o.6B% 0 0 8130.0000 8130 VEHICLE INSURANCE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8135 0000 8135 OTHER VEHICLE INSURANCE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00% 0 0 8140,0000 8140 PROPERTY INSURANCE (2,308) (2,308) (2,308) (2,308) (2,308) (2,308) (2,308) (2,308) (2.308) (2,300) (2,308) (2,308)0 (27,69) (17060 0.00% (26.006a (2,174) 8141.0000 8141 OTHER PROPERTY INSURANCE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00% 0 0 8142.0000 8142 EARTHQUAKE INSURANC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00% 0 0 8145.0000 8143 INCOME TAX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0.00% 0 0 8149 0000 814 BUSINESS TAXES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00% 0 0 8159 0000 8149 OTHER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8150.0000 TOTAL TAXES/INSURANCE (12,020) (8,815) (10,275) (10,023) (9,625) (12,125) (9,625) (9,625) (9,625) (9,625) (9,625) (9,625) (121,44) (783.50) �.78% (114,436) (8,887) 8190.0000 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSE I (61,573) (54,395) (57,787) (60,499) (57 684) (60,181) (57 304) (58.819) (56 964) (54,478) (55 138) (56,309) (691,131)1 (4,458.91) -49.95% (670,542) (55,766) 8199.0000 NET OPERATING INCOME I 61,621 69,081 65,972 63,392 66,639 64,425 67,540 66,113 68,354 71,079 70,656 69,722 804,594 I 5,190.93 58.15% 769,571 67,251 8200.0001 CAPITAL REHAB 8200.0010 INTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS 0.00 0.00% 0 0 8200.0400 820004 KITCHEN UPGRADES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 8200.0500 820005 ELECTRICAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 00% 0 0 8200.0600 820006 BATHROOM UPGRADES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200.0700 820007 CONFERENCE ROOM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0.00% 0 0 8200.0800 820008 INTERIOR LIGHTING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 8200.1000 820010 SMOKE ALARM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 8200.1200 820012 CEILING FANS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0.00% 0 0 8200.1400 820014 INTERIOR DOOR/HARDWARE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0.00% 0 0 8200.1500 820016 ELEVATOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 8200.1600 820016 SHEET ROCK REPAIR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 8200.1800 82001E GLASS/BLINDS/SCREENS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 8200.2000 820020 FLOOR COVERINGS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 8200.2100 820021 CABINET REFINISH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 00% 0 0 8200.2200 820022 INTERIOR PLUMBING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 8200.2300 820023 WATER HEATERS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 8200.2400 820024 REFRIGERATORS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 00% 0 0 8200.2800 820028 RANGES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 00% 0 0 8200.2800 820028 DISHWASHERS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 00% 0 0 8200.300 820031 DISPOSALS 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 8200.3100 820031 SUUBB 0 METERS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0.00% 0 0 8200.3200 820032 WASHER/DRYER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200.3300 820033 BASE BOARDS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 8200.3400 820034 COUNTERTOP REPAIR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00% 0 0 8200.3500 820035 SUB-FLOORING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 8200.3600 820036 CABINET REFINISHING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 8200.3700 820037 ELECTRONICS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0.00% 0 0 8200.3800 820038 PAINTING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 8200.3900 820039 CABINET/COUNTERTOP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0.00% 0 0 8200.4100 820041 HVAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SO 0.00% 0 0 8200.4100 820041 MOLDINGS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 8200.4200 820042 High Speed Internet 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 8200.4400 820044 CITY INSPECTION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 00% 0 0 8200.4800 820048 MISCELLANEOUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 8200.4900 TOTAL INTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0,00% 0 0 Page 7 of 9 9/30/201' BRIDGE PRV 'RTY MANAGEMENT 2012 OA ing Budget 033 Citifront _ 155 Units 118,469 SgFt 2012 %of Jan Feb Mal Apr May Jun Jul AugSep OctNov DecPer Apt Gross Tra0iny 12 Jul-11 GL Account/Descnplion TOTAL Sched 6200.4990 EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS 8200.5200 820052 FASCIA&DRY ROT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 00% 0 0 8200,5400 820054 TRASH ENCLOSURES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 8200.5500 820055 Patios and Balconies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 B200.5600 820056 SHEET ROCK 0 8200.5800 820058 FENCING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0.00% 0 8200.6000 820060 PAINT 0 0 0 0 0 00 0.00% 0 0 8200.6200 820062 WOOD REPAIR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0.00% 0 0 8200.6400 820064 ASPHALT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 8200.6600 820066 LIGHTING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 8200,6700 820067 ELECTRICAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0.00% 0 0 8200.6800 820068 ROOFS&RAINGUTTERS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 8200.7000 820070 CARPORTS/STORAGE 0 0 0 8200.7200 820072 RAILING/GATING/STAIRS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 8200,7400 820074 PLUMBING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0,00% 0 0 8200.7600 820076 DOOR&DOOR HARDWARE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,00 0.00% 0 0 8200.7700 820077 ENTRY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 8200.7800 820078 CONCRETE WALKS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 00% 0 0 8200,8000 820080 FIRE EXTINGUISHERS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 8200.8200 820082 HVAC 8200.8300 820083 HVAC CONTINGENCY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 00% 0 0 0 0 8200.8400 820084 SPRINKLER SYSTEM 8200.8500 820085 DRAINAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 8200.8600 820086 LANDSCAPING 0 0 0 8200.8800 820088 SIGNAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 8200.8900 820089 SIDING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% p 8200.9000 820090 TRELLIS&AWNING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200.9100 8213091 DRAINAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 8200 9200 820092 POOUDECW oFURNITURE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% p 8200.9400 820094 PEST CONTROL/TERMITE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8200,9500 820095 HALLWAY PAINTING/CARPETING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 8200.9800 820098 SEWER LIFT STATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% p 8200.9900 820099 MISCELLANEOUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3200.9990 TOTAL EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 8201.0000 OTHER COMMON AREA 8201.0200 820102 OFFICE EQUIPMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201.0400 820104 ACTIVITY CENTER D 0 0 0 0 00 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 8201.0500 820105 RECREATION CENTER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201.0600 820106 COMMUNITY/LEASING 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 8201.0800 820108 TENNIS COURT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3S 0 0 0 8201.1000 820110 ADA 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% p 0 7 8201.1100 820111 SIGNAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 8201.1200 820112 LAUNDRY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 0 0 8201.1400 820114 MAIL BOXES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201.1600 820116 FIREWALLS 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 i 0 0 8201.1800 820118 PICNIC/BOO/TOT LOT AREA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 1 8201.1900 820119 TOOLS/EQUIPMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8201.2000 820120 DRAINAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 k 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 8201.2100 820121 SECURITY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p t 0201.2200 820122 EXERCISE ROOM 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 8201.2300 820123 ELEVATOR 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 13201.2400 TOTAL OTHER COMMON AREA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00% 0 0 f 1 P i b i il • 4 9/30/2011 Page 8 of 9 BRIDGE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 2012 Operating Budget 033 Citifront • 155 Unl(s 118.469 WI 012 Jan Too Mar p y 2M A. P CFI nor COc 3 00 An r,a 0 ]�I II TOTAL 8201 00 OTHER 3200 820132 REHAB MNCMNT FEE 0 6201..00 820134 CONTINGENCY//OTHR 0 0 0 0 0 0 000% 0 8201.3500 820135 CONSTRUCTION MANAGER 0 0 0 0 000 0 .35 020100 820136 CONSTRUCTION FEE 0 00 0 00 0 0 009, 0 8201.1700 020111 MOLD CONTINGENCY 0 0 0 D0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 000°% 0 0P o20oPINa8201.3900 21. o 8 CLOSING NG ENGWEERINc 6201.9900 TOTAL OTHER INSPECTIONS 0 0 0 a o 0 0 0 0 a o 0 .00 .oa,. o 8202.0000 TOTAL REHAB COsr I o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0.00 0.00% 0 .04.1004 TICITIFRONT 0 0 0 0.2651 0 0 0 0 0 10.24I 0 0 112.4901 60.38 o.9oe (1,000/ .05. 30 FINANCIAL EXPENSE ACE MTREST W6m71n6 (30949) (30,89) (06,33 I (3e,11) (37.46) (3806) (31p5) pe,5311 (3e,481) 132,164) (ULM)) (36,350 (15155 1 Gasp 06) 050.0M (]9,2]1) 8206 0100 20602 Lease Payment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 820002 INTEREST-GE 0 0 8206.0200 (5,443) (+,91 I (5,+21 (5.24) (5,41) (5..0) (5.394) (5.367) (9.205) 0,370) )5,001 (5,161) (0338I (400,96) - (65.1721 1+490) DO 820907 MORTGAGE INSURANCE INTEREST 82064200820.2 INTEREST-OTHER 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 Sr 08210 OTHER FINANCIAL EXP (301) (31) (30) (3TT) (36) (31T) (38) (361) (311) (001) (012) (381) (a8s) f29 -30) (7.410) (3011) 8299.0000 TOTAL FINANCIAL EXPENSE (u,nl) (4%177) 0204) (44,390) 1u,260) Iu,X4). (u,13) 124.3o5) (24.29n (429091 (44,922) (4?903) (525,29 I (?36e.91) -31.01A (548.03a1 (+6,031) 8335.0000...ASSET MGT FEEL 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (1,600) (3,60 1 (2323) - (3,890) 8336.00 6336 ASSET MGT.FEE-2 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0CI 8337.0000 e337 ASSET MGT.FEE-3 000k INCENTIVE PARTNER MGT 8333.0000 0330 8349.0000 NOWNE GUARANTEE FEE 0 000 0 OWNERSHIP COSTS 0 0 (901 (8,000) (1,DW) (500) (10,00 I 154.S0) (3615) (1]1 6350.0000 TOTAL CAPITAL ENHANCEMENT 0 0 (500) 19..0) (IAA 0 - 0 0 0 0 (4,1001 (13,60( 187.74) -0.96F (0.5651 03I 6350.9993 HER INCOME/EXPENSE SERVICE 0355.0000 8355 PRIOR YEAR EXPENSES 0 0 0 0 0 0 sURED LOSRIOR S ESTATE 0.00 BJ65000000 9359)a,.Reserve (5?331 (63.334)I [344.09) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (52,01) MAIN I]13.091 4.65/. 0 0 8095.0000 NET mcaME ELT DEPR. I ,66n :+90+ i llsl :2 0 20,16+ 2.10 2150. 24 1 2159 26,723 (31.625�0- 1,289.54 )4.45, 216,781 13,13 8400.0000 DEPRECIATION 8 AMORTIZATION 52?1001 AMORTIZATIONEEXPENSE 553) al200000 TOTALORREcuTIONrpmORT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0.00 0.03/. I5]035]1 9998.0000 NET PROFIT&LOSS/CASH FLOW I 16,947 24,904 23,331 4104 223. 20,16+ I.1,410 21,3011 22,291 21596 29,726 (31535) 199s151 1,209.54 14.451, (319 4231 0.177 39911.000 CASH FLOW RBUDGET PRINCIPAL PLAT Wac7C4,a (12,130) (13,1841 (11,145) (12308) 113,611) (12.720) (13.125) (12.551) (1;556) (13.005) (12,116) IIZT161 (15s594) (100]83) - 3998.1100 tt BUDGET PRINCIPAL POT GE (1610) (2,180) (1 68+) (1646) (1600) (1.862) (1,896) (1)03) 0585) 1t)20) 000) (1,909) 7aLa8a) (100,0 9 .300099963 RESERVE DEPOSIT (256]) 1256]) (2.563) (2,583) (2.993) 03) 12,303) (2,903) (2.580) (1.050) (2.58 ,00 4 10 ( 0 ,E 39..3000 0.RESERVE 20.000 0 200 0.000 256 6 211,1 9998.4000 4 REHAB INC OWNERSHIP CONTRIBUTION 9996.9300 TOTAL OTHER CAST FLOW (16,3591 (16,6411 (16,992) 116,135) (11,e12) 2,202 (te,003) (16,806) (17.005) OM.) (11,2011 0760 (165,279) (1.265.61) -12.16/. 0 0 9995.9500 NET CASH FLOW I An 7,956 4,339 (11,9e1) 4.501 23,291 6,601 4660 1,22E 3.101 9527 12e54e1 316001 203.87 2.ee„ ()10.41 0; 19,1, 9(]0N23 Pa20 9 of 9 BRIDGE INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC 5295 South Commerce Drive Suite 175 Salt Lake City,UT 84107 801.284.5960 Commercial Real Estate investment firm specializing in added value and distressed acquisitions. With a full service asset management and accounting service of large multifamily projects and other real estate properties located primarily throughout the western and southwestern United States. Multifamily Properties Units Villages at Gateway Apartments-Denver,CO 764 One Dartmouth Place Apartments- Denver,CO 418 Briarwood Apartments-Denver, CO 322 Arvada Village Apartments-Arvada,CO 264 Arvada Green Apartments-Arvada, CO 108 Sandpiper Apartments—Westminster,CO 360 Windmill Apartments—Colorado Springs, CO 304 Cheyenne Crest Apartments—Colorado Springs,CO 208 Indigo on Forest Apartments—Dallas,TX * 1217 Providence Apartments—Dallas,TX * 244 Whispering Oaks—San Antonio,TX 346 Oak Creek Apartments—Arlington,TX * 336 Park at Lakeside—Houston,TX * 592 Evergreen Pointe—Houston,TX * 197 Villa Sierra Apartments-El Paso,TX 243 Wyndchase Apartments- El Paso,TX 150 Maple Hills Apartments—Kansas City,MO 455 Barclay Club Apartments—Kansas City,MO 400 Chestnut Hills—Kansas City,MO 388 Kings Manor Apartments—Kansas City, MO 207 King's Quarters Apartments—Kansas City,MO 707 Park Meadows Apartments—Kansas City,MO 170 Oakbrook Apartments—Topeka, KS * 170 Monterra Apartments—Albuquerque,NM 312 Suncreek Village Apartments—Albuquerque,NM 267 La Entrada Apartments—Albuquerque,NM 216 Sungate Apartments—Albuquerque,NM 94 Rancho Verde Apartments—Albuquerque,NM 65 Warwick Square Apartments - Santa Ana,CA Section 42 Tax Credit 500 Torrey Ridge Apartments—Fresno, CA * 41 S Bridges at Citi front Apartments—Salt Lake City,UT 204 CitiFront Apartments- Salt Lake City, UT Section 42 Tax Credit I55 Axis 739 Condominiums—Salt Lake City, UT * 60 Tuscany Cove Apartments - West Valley City,UT Section 42 Tax Credit 252 Sun Ridge Apartments-St.George,UT Section 42 Tax Credit 52 Villa Antigua Apartments—Tucson,AZ* 410 Santa Luz Apartments—Tucson,AZ* 176 Acacia Lofts Condominiums—Casa Grande,AZ* 28 Tudor Heights Apartments—Omaha,NE 418 I learthside Apartments—Omaha,NE 180 The Arbors at Eastland Apartments-Bloomington,IL 448 Total Units 12,008 Commercial Cherry Creek—Denver,CO * 594,044 sq ft --, Promenade Center dba Compass Building—Richardson,TX* 221,404 sq ft Radisson Carlisle Hotel—Albuquerque,NM* 310 rooms 57,249 sq ft. amenities Attic Storage—Shawnee,KS* 298 self-storage 170 parking Total square footage 872,697 sq ft. Current Developments Rainmakers Golf and Recreational Community-Ruidoso,NM 1,000+acres Stoneridge Resort and Recreational Community--Blanchard,ID 500+acres LVilla de Paz Golf Course-Phoenix,AZ 130+acres recognizes properties invested in with the`ROC Fund,LP' ..rti Central Community 11 Zoning Map 1�� ,r i „K, tom, ,t31 rim!Now mom .. Map Legend �;�r Y ■'■_�r+G2a 5` am ,i,AIRE ,fl itill al IR I I 1-r ��'■ ®�,I'�' •�•!.�.fit:®F9, OS Open S.. , }� INE Bsiig L Da O 1^x R z '\ ,_ m , , ,.... , ..., .. :414 aTA ®cc, oo, ® c w D n I , E .:mum ,t} � "a + y �Ecc c c am Rue.s , ( 'rI i `Qy"®fiY u4.1=`NM- �dt r, ('l gT1*MT f LI 1l , ,,NEIN®®®s Ali S Tk E"�. 6tt��.tts Egla 1' Ism$"� ti w, _.I p�U3 c°8 �1 Q2 D o (le vet SR,so- r<M R dent., ,.1 I1I. J gi Elm!®®�. 4 . ie ..'�",F' -. Mil GJ. a SRJ S, e ro Res Cent 3 I�ggsimal �p . 'J nealrilin am o-. t, E.T»'c rs True,c I�If • 7 iv 1 .� EEfffi67J0®DI®191� �� z sip, s —rismam,,mplivosesenli L,R EV=E IP E1 I -- ®I.::= i �.IstalE�EEE�� _�r'S'1�Enil�v�an E; " .aiflFt .... @S1 I 1 E 3om® gm i( t e ri---. , ,. L 4 y ISIONMSEallinlIM m. ®E8ii71 1 ► A ) ) i - i Creating a11Urban N.. . e•ighborhoodGateway ,S 'lace ... . . . in the City • "Creating nn urban neighbor- " with an international " grounded in a Salt Lake hood"describes the vision and distinction" because it is our City tradition" that is rich in acknowledges the challenge and place of welcoming— to each history,style,culture,urban opportunity present in the Gateway other when we come home or form, and attitude. These District. An urban neighborhood visit the City, to travelers as forms and textures, tastes and evokes images of a broad mix of they are introduced to our smells, colors and materials are experiences,activities and uses. culture and history, to the all a vital part of the City, and The strongest,most important, people of the world during the they are uniquely ours. They diverse and enriching element in Olympic Games of 2002 and to are the building blocks of a the mix must be homes for people those who will follow. An civic tradition that enlighten and of all incomes,backgrounds,ages international distinction is also inspire and remain timeless, and and interests. Creating an urban reflected in the cultural history they are familiar patterns that • neighborhood requires commitment of the Gateway District and the have served us well in the past to the vision by Salt Lake City rich diversity of peoples who and will give strength 10 Gate- elected officials and administration, have been a part of the Gate- way as it develops. developers,property owners, way. business owners,community interests and residents. • �6�y r-Y /.::; ,J' _,mod= .?, uC'�i w' • . . ' `S %La '. • 0,.- 1; iz1'T�` fs.1;tn--�C3 ..+r^.. ,..,.....� .«.v -j:[:r..1e `{:.•:.,. Imo.. *. .:.i:t.,....�,.. �,)Set i'$,...-i '-j.,,yy..;6�� 1:•�..�, • �: .i'+ in 0, •.rrgt-lrr(_r' •=.r. .e - ....• -.:_�-ram•:- * 'ty. • y!i'+_ ,�..�'. ro �1.. }LI� C al:?Z „ �+ •.`:R ,t •r�.f•71;3r f..Lr�,t •sI- je �r :Y. �'t�.a :�, *i - �",sj r ' 1t•? '•• •c v {1�..1t�.� •-•'a,+.. :3 .��; -1=i.•,: �r IyEni ti,,,,,,-4 t•".Li S•r ';l'r tt:e..- cAr v-••rij-,, 1..•.% '1i• 3.• �r••�, ? .e 7f .• - �. , A,,. '40•h:*f� WiC Mt2::fs Via:ri ls" 4.11.*. ?lj.R-•';'t r! •',.: ," • ::lc'+F(r.�•va r. •-•• .!1!3: -• •.. +•iZ•V ti, ;1•. •! .. .,..a`'yk:•'':.... ... ... 1.4, 7Z�v 'Try • �.. w••� 1i.M .•4•t•••�•'A.� M , • ••� . !:ft."•• bra • ..•.. •W-w•rtiw. . •I•.w w.• Vi1 . ram "`vim••."":. 1t1••.:_. '~•. ' •`a c ... •s.•. - The opportunities are endless. There is much to work with ... and much that has already begun. 2 ..... Purpose of the Plan The Gateway District is centrally and ideally located. Completion of the Ysionary t ,, - �'r - •I as .. '•41. g.■_ _ -a s,r —Linos•w - - GatewayPlan in 1994 and the Rail - �c'� .� ■ - Consolidation Plan in 1997 laid the r�r;.,•ma. 1 svw, ai1Olill il groundwork for the current plan, e o •i '` `l -rr - CO.iCi n ',Q and created the momentum neces- ,I:r— 4 e sary to make the ideas a reality. Ilf This Gateway District Land Use ,.--; _ ".•.fEq"�,- a :':'it' .' 1 and Development Master Plan is the ' ,•_.e .°� 5 co own • culmination of a year-long public 4x ' ° process which included a 50- , r J V • 1 member steering committee,ten • �^ 1,•,. ` s ArLlpublic meetings with property � ' `. .--r.teowners,businesses and residents nig�� ,i II dil who commented on elements of the %f smn ! plan,several briefings with Planing _t, __i'od a 11• `"'r. Commission and City Council �, + —$ members,and three design Guiding Principles charette;focused on specific issues , Maintain,enhance,and create • in the Gateway District. Early in the planning process,ten connections to neighborhoods guiding principles were identified. surrounding the Gateway District, neighborhood-'i/hin the Gateway The purpose of the plats is to • Create a positive and clear identity District,and don Jmun Salt Lake ^,..., establish policy and give guidance to for Salt Lake City and Oa Gateway Ciot the development of what is known District. • Maintain and encourage diversity as the Gateway District. 91;c • Create a seine of place for the through retention of existing district's significance is derived front Disrrice flue celebrates and business and residents,retention of its location at Memos!important supports "neighborhoods,"each existing structures and uses, entrance to downtown Salt Lake with a distinct character mu! development of a broad range of City,its nearness to the Central personality. hawing types which can fit into Business District and several • Create a hierarchy and ncnrerd.of ri;lually airy area of Garetr�'and neighborhoods,unit its incredible streets and open spaces that integration of social service development and redevelopment provide a stnenrre owlfrann ork providers oml their clients into the for the developmentneighbor- hoods, fabric of the community. potential. The plan defines the ' f 1 u f character of the area and a vision • Require excellence in design for its fixture development;it Encourage antic of uses with through,oleo design guidelines diversity in abs,residents and that preserve owns and vistas, integrates existing uses and busi- ry' 1 create pedestrian-friendly and nesses while acknowledging that visitors Otat balances neighbor- attractive s$t itreets,establish a hoolneeds,1:ar a vital sheet life is inevitable and welcome; and character;andresults in a distinct character,and create and it recommends certain policy landmarks and signature structures thriving local economy. 1 and administrative measures in architecture and infrastrucnee necessaryideas. Take ad wvrtage ofpublic infra- to im Plement the .structure opportunities like the 1-15 Leave an"OI}orgnic Legacy"in 7l_ reconstruction,public manspona- design ofintporlant infrastructure document reviews the develop- /tor systems,and sheetscr s to dements such as tin 400.South meet of the plan and nett ines the create art elegant system/,,,fining a Street Bridge and the new viaducts, most inxporlant findings and recom- Datenny the establishment afar"address" essence of die street with distinction, and a mendatinns. It is the esse • Look to n rrdilianol pattenu of public open sµ-'-e system Mot , planning process and synthesizes the development in Salt take City as brings City Creek back to the information generated in five interim ernrnples of the din of blacks nail sulfa:e and integrates it into the Aft., reports,a blight study,and work on a streets that encourage eel support ,,,,,ighborl,aod -••" Brownfield Pilot Program- urban neighborhood deTelopntent. 3 MEMORANDUM DATE: DECEMBER 6,2011 SUBJECT: Resolution-HOME Grant of$100,000- Volunteers of America-Transitional Housing for Homeless Men ages 18-24 STAFF REPORT BY: KAREN HALLADAY,BUDGET AND POLICY ANALYST AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: ALL Council Action The Council is requested to consider adopting a resolution authorizing the Mayor to grant$100,000 of HOME funds for a Volunteers of America,Utah transitional home project which would serve homeless young men ages 18-24. Information Volunteers of America,Utah(VOA)wants to purchase and renovate a group home located at 556 South 500 East into a 12 unit/14 bed facility which will serve as a transitional home for homeless men ages 18-24. According to paperwork submitted by the Administration,the housing need for this group of homeless individuals has risen from 393 in 2006-07 to over 1,000 in 2010-11. The VOA organization has operated human service programs in Salt Lake County for 25 years,including providing homeless youth services for the past 14 years. Currently,one VOA program is a transitional home;a seven bedroom facility staffed 24/7 for young women ages 16-19. The matter before the Council is to approve a HOME grant of$100,000,which will be used to help fund a similar transitional home for young men. In the minutes of the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board,Ms Kathy Bray, CEO and President of Volunteers of America,Utah,stated that programs for participants in the transitional home will focus on education,employment,permanent housing,and providing supervision. The Administration's transmittal contains detailed information that may be of interest to the Council: • Attachment B-Staff Project Evaluation-Summary of the Project,including project funding sources and uses. • Attachment C-Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board Meeting Minutes-November 3,2011-VOA project discussed. • Attachment D-Loan Application-Additional project details,including project scope,5-year projected operating budget,purchase agreement,and most recent audit report from 2009-10. Recommendations • Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board's Recommendation-On November 3,2011,the Board unanimously voted to recommend approval of the HOME grant request of$100,000. • Mayor's Recommendation-On November 7,2011,the Mayor reviewed and recommended approval of the HOME grant of$100,000. It Related Land Use Information The property is currently zoned RMP-45,which requires a conditional use for large group homes(As defined in 21A.62.040-7 or more individuals). On October 26,2011,the Planning Commission approved conditional use permit for this project subject to the following conditions: Condition#1 a. Work with the City Engineering Division to replace the deteriorated curb and gutter sections. 1 b. The structure shall be provided with automatic fire sprinklers,detection and remote inter connection to an approved station. The fire department connections shall be located on the address side of the building. A minimum 2A10BC rated fire extinguisher shall be installed on each level of the structure. Condition#2 The applicant takes steps to mitigate the impact of smoking outside on the neighbors and neighboring properties to the extent possible. oats • FRANK B.GRAY R_II1 ` OMMD IM SCANN V- °iaccr°a GEPARTMENr.O OFF CM NIITH Ede E ONOOMI DEVELOPMENT SCANNED.B 1. F Y DE uLA DIRECTORMARE HAE FER DATE: fibs v// ROBERT FARRINGTON,JR. `I/ NYjte1NCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received: 1 ,1 •i_ I avid Ev ri , ie f Staff 111 • Date Sent to City Council: a TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: November 9,2011 Jill Remington Love,Chair FROM: Frank Gray,Community&Economic Development Department Director / SUBJECT: Volunteers of America,Utah is requesting a HOME grant in the amount of $100,000 to acquire and renovate a group home located at 556 South 500 East, SLC UT. The project consists of renovating 12 units/14 beds of transitional housing for men ages 18-24 who are homeless. STAFF CONTACT: LuAnn Clark,Housing&Neighborhood Development Director,at 535-6136 or luann.clark@slcgov.com ACTION REQUIRED: Adopt the attached resolution authorizing the Mayor to grant HOME funds to Volunteers of America. DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: Volunteers of America,Utah(VOA)wants to purchase and renovate the group home located at 556 South 500 East into a 12 unit/14 bed facility to serve as a transitional home for men ages 18- 24 who are homeless. To complete this project they are requesting a$100,000 HOME grant from Salt Lake City. Because this project serves homeless young men at 30%AMI or below,a grant or cashflow loan at 0%for 30 years is needed.The number of unduplicated homeless youth has risen from 393 in 2006-07 to over 1,000 in 2010-2011. The HOME match program was funded to assist these 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 404 P.O.BOX 1454B6,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH B4114.5455 TELEPHONE:BO1.535-62SD FAX:8O1.535.6OOS W Ww.OLcocv.comicEo types of projects as they are very difficult to cash flow or service any debt. All of the units will ,, be affordable, but only seven of the units will be HOME assisted with Salt Lake City funds. VOA has operated human service programs in Salt Lake County for 25 years, including homeless youth services for the past 14 years. They currently operate a transition home for young girls aged 16-19 that is a seven bed facility. This house will be staffed 24 hours per day/7 days per week and will be based on the current staffing plan at the transition home for females. This program offers intensive case management and will link youth with education and employment opportunities. It will also use the Positive Youth Development model, to provide participants a voice in helping to shape the program and ensure successful transitions from homelessness to housing. Analysis: VOA has received an additional Federal grant in the amount of$833,556. Of those funds, $125,000 will be used for acquisition, $125,000 for rehabilitation, and the remaining $583,556 for one partial and one full year of supportive services and operations. VOA has also received $260,000 from the US Department of HUD, $100,000 from John and Reverend Catherine Putnam Netto, $50,000 from B.W. Bastian Foundation, $50,000 from the Community Foundation of Utah, $10,000 from Discount Tires, $5,000 from Utah Families Foundation and is finalizing their bank loan in the amount of$146,000. They are currently fundraising to receive more funds so that the project can be debt free. Recommendation: Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board's Recommendation - On November 3, 2011, the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board unanimously voted to recommend approval of this HOME grant request. Mayor's Recommendation -Mayor Becker reviewed this issue on November 7, 2011 and recommended approval of the HOME grant as approved by the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board. PUBLIC PROCESS: The Housing Trust Fund Advisory Committee held a public meeting and reviewed this request on November 3, 2011. RELEVANT ORDINANCES: Chapter 2.80 of the Salt Lake City Code: Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board Resolution#47 of 2005: Housing Trust Fund Appropriations and Loan Criteria RE: VOA HOME Grant Request Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. OF 2011 AUTHORIZING A GRANT FROM SALT LAKE CITY'S HOME MATCH FUNDS TO VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA, UTAH FOR THE VOA YOUNG MENS TRANSITION HOME PROJECT WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Corporation (the City) has a Housing Trust Fund Board to encourage affordable and special needs housing development within the City; and WHEREAS, Volunteers of America, Utah has applied to the City for a grant from the City's HOME Match Funds in order to acquire and renovate the property located at 556 South 500 East in Salt Lake City that will consist of a large group home of 12 units/14 beds of transitional housing for young men ages 18-24 who are homeless; and WHEREAS, the City Council has studied the matter and has decided that this resolution is in the best interest of the City. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah as follows: 1. The City Council does hereby authorize the City to enter into a grant agreement with Volunteers of America, Utah ("VOA"), to provide VOA with $100,000.00 from Salt Lake City's HOME Match Funds with the understanding that such grant funds will be used to acquire and renovate a certain property located at 556 South 500 East, Salt Lake City, Utah. 2. Ralph Becker, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, following approval of the City Attorney, is hereby authorized to execute the requisite HOME grant agreement documents on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation and to act in accordance with their terms. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2011. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: CHAIR ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM SALT LA CITY ATTORN `j' FFICE , BY: 1 C' DATE: / /14J l l CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER SALT LAKE CITY HOME PROGRAM PROJECT EVALUATION Name of Organization: Volunteers of America Name of Project: Transition Home for Homeless Young Men Location of Project: 556 South 500 East Project Description: 12 units/14 beds of transitional housing for young men ages 18-24 who are homeless Amount and terms requested: $100,000. No financial terms--this is a grant. Total Number of Units: 12 Units Number of HOME Assisted Units: All of the units will be affordable, but only seven of the units will be HOME assisted with Salt Lake City funds. Source of Matching Contribution: HOME—Because this project serves homeless young men at 30% AMI or below, a grant or cash flow loan at 0% for 30 years is needed. The number of unduplicated homeless youth has risen from 393 in 2006-07 to over 1,000 in 2010-2011. The HOME match program was funded to assist these types of projects as they are very difficult to cash flow or service any debt. Are the funds leveraged with non-government dollars? Yes SOURCES OF FUNDS - Permanent Financing: US Department of HUD—Acquisition and Rehabilitation $250,000 Bank Loan—Pending $146,000 Salt Lake City HOME Match Funds--Pending $100,000 Volunteers of America, Utah $100,000 John Netto and Reverend Catherine Putnam-Netto $100,000 B.W. Bastian Foundation $50,000 Community Foundation of Utah $50,000 US Department of HUD—Operating $10,000 Discount Tires $10,000 Utah Families Foundation $5,000 TOTAL $821,000 USES OF FUNDS Acquisition of Camelot House $499,000 Rehabilitation/Construction Costs 8250,000 Overhead/Insurance $47,000 A/E, Permit and Other Fees 810,000 Project Management $10,000 1 Amok Legal Fees $5,000 TOTAL $821,000 VOA did receive an additional Federal grant in the amount of $833,556. Of those funds, $125,000 will be used for acquisition, $125,000 for rehabilitation, and the remaining $583,556 for one partial and one full year of supportive services and operations. Zoning: Property is currently zoned RMP-45. This project would require a conditional use permit which is pending by the Salt Lake City planning commission. Minimum/Maximum Per Unit Costs: Income Determinations: All units will be utilized by individuals below 50% AMI 99% are below 30% AMI Use of HOME Funds: Acquisition and Rehabilitation of the property. Period of Affordability: 99 Years 1 • Project Strengths: This project offers housing to an underserved growing population in the city. Helps fulfill the city's housing goals of providing diverse housing for all income ranges. VOA has operated human service programs fin Salt Lake County for 25 years, including homeless youth services for the past 14 years. They currently operate a transition home for young girls aged 16-19 that is a seven bed facility. Project Weaknesses: VOA does not currently own the property—it is under contract. Project does require a conditional use permit. Board Options: Approve as recommended Deny the request • HOUSING TRUST FUND ADVISORY BOARD Meeting of November 3, 2011 The following board members were in attendance: Michael Brough, Stephanie Jensen, Rick Knuth, Elly Muth, Faina Raik, and Shawn Teigen. Staff members in attendance were LuAnn Clark, Director of Housing and Neighborhood Development, Michael Akerlow, Deputy Director of Housing and Neighborhood Development, Sandi Marler, CD Programs Administrator, Steven Akerlow, Housing Development Programs Specialist, and Jan Davis, Administrative Secretary. Chairperson Shawn Teigen called the meeting to order at 12:15 p.m. The Board unanimously motioned to approve the June 2, 2011 minutes. Shawn Teigen welcomed the Board members to the meeting. New Board member, Ms. Stephanie Jensen introduced herself and briefed the Board on her work experience. Consider a request from Volunteers of America, Utah for a HOME grant in the amount of$100,000 to acquire and renovate the group home located at 556 South 500 East. The project consists of renovating 12 units/14 beds of transitional housing for men ages 18-24 who are homeless. Ms. Kathy Bray, President & CEO of Volunteers of America, Utah was present to provide details and answer questions pertaining to the request. Ms. Bray said that the requested funds would assist their organization to develop a new transitional home for young homeless men. Ms. Bray said that the Salt Lake City Planning Commission approved the zoning conditional use permit and that they have secured a HUD grant for $833,000 to purchase and rehab the property. Ms. Bray said that the HTF funds will be used to help purchase and remodel the property. Ms. Bray stated that they have acquired funding from private foundations and individuals and that additional funding is being solicited. Ms. Bray said that the transitional home will consist of 12 units/14 beds and will be based on the transitional home for females currently being operated by VOA. Ms. Bray said that the VOA served over 1,000 homeless youth at their drop-in center in fiscal year 2010- 2011. Ms. Bray said that the transitional home will be staffed 24-hours per day/7 days a week focusing on education, employment, permanent housing and providing supervision, as many of them have no parental support. The Board inquired about the length of stay for the transitional housing. Ms. Bray said that based on the transitional home for females, lengths of stay vary. Some of the youth are in a better position to move forward toward self sufficiency in a few months and others stay closer to the two year maximum stay. The Board asked about the rehab of the property. Ms. Bray described the rehab that will consist of the property being handicap accessible by building a ramp on the front of the house and renovating the bathroom on the first floor to handicap accessible standards. The kitchen will be remodeled creating an open space into the dining area in the back of the house. A new air conditioning system will be installed. The Board asked why the VOA selected this house. Ms. Bray said that the house already exists as a boarding house with bedrooms and multiple bathrooms so there limited remodeling will be required for the transition. Ms. Bray said that the location is a plus as the TRAX station is two blocks north and there are bus lines available. The Board asked about the structure of the request as a grant and if the HTF Board is allowed to consider this as a grant. Ms. LuAnn Clark said that the HTF is allowed to consider approving a grant for the project. She pointed out that funding for this project will come from the City's HOME allocation. Ms. Clark said that most of the requests that are presented to the Board are for HTF dollars which are Non- Federal dollars. Ms. Clark reminded the Board that the annual review of HOME funds falls under their purview, and that based on the criteria of the request, the funds could be approved as a grant. Ms. Clark stated that they had recommended funding for affordable housing match funds from the City's HOME """ funds last December, to be set aside for special needs housing, like this project, throughout Salt Lake City. Ms. Clark indicated that the project will never cash flow and to be able to repay the loan but the project will be monitored with a restriction that if the VOA discontinues transitional housing at this site, the money would have to be repaid to the City. Ms. Clark stated that since this project has other HUD monies invested in it, funding the project with HOME dollars will not place additional federal restrictions on the project. The Board inquired about the homeless youth and their special needs. Ms. Bray briefed the Board on the needs of the homeless youth and how the transitional housing will provide the youth with long term stability and help prevent them from becoming part of the chronic homeless population. Ms. Bray said that the youth will be screened for housing at their Homeless Youth Resource Center and that they will be looking for youth who are ready to engage in education and employment. Rick Knuth motioned to approve the request as submitted for$100,000 in the form as a grant. Michael Brough seconded the motion. All voted "Aye." The motion passed. Consider a request from City Front Partners, LLC, for a loan in the amount of$300,000 at 2% over 15 years to convert retail space at the Citifront Apartments located at 600 West North Temple. The project consists of converting approximately 3,500 SF of existing retail space into six(6) apartment units ranging in size from 518 SF to 768 SF. Mr. David Galvan, from NeighborWorks Salt, one of the partners of City Front Partners, LLC, and Mr. Bernardo Flores, Architect, were present to provide details and answer questions pertaining to the request. „oak Mr. Galvan stated that the Citifront apartments is a 155 unit mixed- income project on the corner of 600 West and North Temple. Mr. Galvan said that 87 units are 60% AMI, 9 units are 50% AMI, and the remaining units are market rate units. Mr. Galvan said that the property is located by the freeway, fronts North Temple, and is not favorable for retail use making it very difficult to lease. Mr. Galvan said that the retail space consists of 13,000 sq. ft. and City Front Partners is requesting to convert approximately 3,500 sq. ft. into residential housing at 80% AMI, leaving 9,500 square feet of retail space fully functional. The Board asked if the retail tenants agreed to be relocated. Mr. Galvan said that the tenants have agreed to be relocated. A discussion followed regarding the terms of the loan and that the loan would be in fifth position. The Board expressed concern regarding the fifth mortgage but agreed that the purpose of the loan is to provide the necessary funding for affordable housing. When the property was initially built, it was designed to have mixed-use with retail and residential space working together. Members of the Board asked if the conversion of retail space into residential space might be premature considering the development of the extended TRAX line and the significant upgrades toNorth Temple. Mr. Galvan said that the issue for retail has been and will continue to be no parking, particularly the retail units on North Temple. Mr. Galvan said this is a constant challenge for retail businesses. Mr. Galvan said that the residential component of the Citifront Apartments is very successful, but the retail has not worked. The Board inquired about the occupancy of the current 155 apartments. Ms. Sandi Marler stated that the apartments are currently 95% occupied. Mr. Galvan replied that the occupancy rate is consistent at the 95% level. The Board asked if the request could compromise the original intent of the plan. Mr. Galvan said that the property is zoned for mixed-use and that there is no on-going agreement stating that a specific percentage of retail use is required. Mr. Galvan indicated that there will still be retail space in the project. 2 Mr. Galvan said that the project meets the housing policies established by the City. The Board agreed that there is a strong rental market for people that cannot afford market rate rents. . Ms. Clark stated that there is the need for rental units for those with incomes between 60% and 80% of area median income in the community. The Board recognized that a cost of $44,000 per unit is very reasonable.. Ms. Marler stated that based on their proforma, City Front Partners does have the capability to pay back the loan regardless of the fact that this loan would be placed in the fifth position and reminded that Board that they are an affordable housing board and need to consider the needs of affordable housing, not just the loan position. Ms. Marler said that NeighborWorks, one of the City Front LLC partners, is one of the City's strongest partners and has done business with the City for 35 years. Mr. Galvan stated that he did not feel the added TRAX line would change the viability of retail projects when completed. Rick Knuth motioned to approve the request as presented for $265,000 at 2% over 15 years. The motion died due to lack of a second to the motion. The Board asked for an explanation pertaining to how the loan will be monitored. Ms. Clark said that the project is a tax credit project and will be monitored by the Utah Housing Corporation for 99 years. Board member Mr. Rick Knuth asked the Board if they would be willing to approve the project with a cross- collateralization of all the City obligations which currently hold third and fourth positions on the property title. This would mean that a default under one loan would create a default under all three City loans. Mr. Knuth said this would consolidate the three liens into one priority and if there was a default on any one, it would default under all. Ms. Clark said that the City's and RDA's loan is a deferred loan until 2014. The City deferred the loan because it was a new mixed-use project and a new type of project for the City.. Ms. Clark said that the City had believed in the project and that the additional rental income from the new project will provide more available cash flow to repay the $1.9 million loan. Ms. Clark explained that the original idea had been that the retail portion of the project would help the project cash flow but that had not been the case with this portion of the retail for the past 11 years. Ms. Clark asked the Board to look at the request as a tool for the applicant to repay the $1.9 million. Mr. Galvan said that NeighborWorks Salt Lake wanted available housing for the neighborhood and the community on that corner of North Temple by creating 155 affordable units. The Board agreed that the additional loan to convert the retail space to apartments would provide cash flow that the retail currently does not provided. Michael Brough motioned to approve a loan in the amount of $265,000 at 2% interest per annum over 15 years as presented with the condition that the loan be cross-defaulted to the City's and RDA's mortgages identified as the third and fourth mortgages with equal rights to default. Elly Muth seconded the motion. All voted "Aye." The motion passed. Update by LuAnn Clark LuAnn Clark said that Congress has not made a decision on the HOME and HOPWA funds so the Board will not meet in December. Ms. Clark said there will be a meeting scheduled probably the end of January to discuss HOME and HOPWA funding. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 1:31 p.m. 3 Volunteers vrf of America,. Change One. Change Many.,, U T A H \V\V\�,.voaut.org July 22, 2011 Luann Clark Salt Lake City Corporation 451 S. State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84115 Dear Luann: Enclosed you will find Volunteers of America, Utah's application for HOME match funds to assist our organization to develop a supportive housing program for homeless young men. As you know, there has been a rapid growth in the homeless youth population in Salt Lake County over the last few years creating a serious need for expansion of community services to meet their needs. In FY '06-'07,Volunteers of America served 393 unduplicated homeless youth, and four years later in FY '10-'11, we served over 1,000 unduplicated homeless youth. The majority of the homeless youth suffer from verbal, physical and sexual trauma by those who are supposed to love and protect them. Youth get kicked out of their homes, run away from the hurt, and/or find themselves alone without resources. As economic conditions have worsened, there has been an increase in stress, violence and substance use in families resulting in more youth fleeing their homes. Volunteers of America's Homeless Youth Drop-In Center provides a safety net for these youth. The Drop-In Center is the primary facility in Salt Lake County and the state of Utah to address the critical needs of homeless street youth 15— 22. The goal is to help homeless youth become self-sufficient by assisting them in meeting their basic needs, obtaining education and/or employment, shelter/housing and providing referrals for medical, mental health and substance abuse programs. Staff supervision, case management, meals, clothes, showers, laundry and transportation assistance are available. There is no emergency shelter specific to homeless youth, and there are very few supportive transitional and permanent housing options. In addition to the Drop-In Center and Street Outreach programs, Volunteers of America operates a transition home for homeless females ages 16-19, and has been interested in offering the same service for males. To that end,Volunteers of America was able to secure a HUD grant for$833,556 for acquisition, rehabilitation and two years of supportive housing operations. The opportunity to make a difference in lives of many who now live on the streets is before us. We would greatly appreciate the financial support of Salt Lake City. Enclosed you will find many details related to making this project a reality. Thank you very much. Sincerely, 9 Kathy Bray President & CEO Volunteers of America, Utah Crated 51 1 West 200 South, Suite=160 rH� C • T l I n/ n i! Volunteers of America ( uih Transition Home for Young Men Project Description Part I 1. Describe the scope of the project (how many total units, how many affordable units, type of project, etc.). Please address how your project will be accessible/visit-able. Please attach site plan, floor plan, and elevation of your project, if available. The project located at 556 South and 500 East will be a large group home consisting of 12 units/14 beds of transitional housing for young men ages 18-24 who are homeless. It will be licensed by the state as a Residential Support Program. The programming and staffing of the youth transition home for males will be structured similar to the female transition home currently being operated by our agency. The program will provide transitional housing for up to two years. Based on the population served in the transition home for females and turnover trends, the anticipated total served per year will be 28. The house will be staffed 24 hours per day/7 days per week and will be based on the current staffing oink plan at the transition home for females. This plan includes a program manager, case manager, education/employment specialist and youth advocates. The program will offer intensive case management and will link youth with education and employment opportunities. It will also use the Positive Youth Development model, to provide participants a voice in helping to shape the program and ensure successful transitions from homelessness to housing. The program will recruit residents in a number of ways including, but not limited to: contacting current clients accessing services at the Homeless Youth Drop-in Center, referrals from DCFS, TALnet, Salt Lake County Youth Services and the Salt Lake School District. Many of these community contacts are currently in place, and have reinforced the need for male transitional housing in the Salt Lake community. The site is accessible to the young men who will live there. There is a City bus route on 500 East which travels to the intermodal hub as well as the 45'1' South Trax station. The site is also two and a half blocks from the closest Trax station, which is located on 400 South and 600 East. There is a Smith's Marketplace two blocks away with groceries, clothes and other personal products. Attached you will find an exterior photo of the property and basic floor plans. 2. Does the project conform to the City's Master Plans for the area? Please indicate which master plan(s). Briefly restate the master plan objectives the project will meet. • Volunteers of America's transitional Housing for Young Men Project Funding Part II 1. Please list the sources of all funds as of the date of the application. This is not a Tax Credit project. Sources of Funding/Acquisition and Rehab ($750.000): $250,000 US Dept of Housing and Urban Development $ 50,000 B. V. Bastian Foundation $ 10,000 Driven to Care Regional Philanthropy Program, Discount Tires $ 50,000 Community Foundation of Utah $100,000 John Netto And Reverend Catherine Putnam-Netto $460,000 Total Committed Sources Additional Sources are being applied for. Sources of FundincOperations for first 2 years ($764,253): $583,556 US Dept of Housing and Urban Development $583,556 Total Committed Sources Additional Sources are being solicited. 2. Ratio of Salt Lake City HOME funds to total funding: S100,000 (13.3% of acquisition & rehab) 3. What will be the value of the project at the time of completion? $661,500 ( based on purchase price of$499,000 and current rehab estimate) 4. Please attach sales or operating projections for the project for the first five years after completion. Please list below the assumptions made to prepare the operating projection. Please show• revenue and expense categories in as much detail as possible. It is assumed that HUD will continue to provide operational support at a consistent level into the future. It is also assumed that Volunteers of America, Utah will successfully raise the required operational Individual known as: Social Security Number of Individual: Other (explain): 2. If the Applicant is not an individual or a government agency, give date of organization: 1986 3. Please provide a list of the officers, director or trustees, board of trustees or board of directors, or partners of the applicant's organization. Attached is the list of Board of Directors. 4. Who will manage the property once it has been acquired? Volunteers of America, Utah 5. Please provide a brief description of your organization. Volunteers of America is a national, nonprofit, faith-based organization with a 116 year history. The Utah affiliate has operated human service programs in Salt Lake County for 25 years, including ,.w, homeless youth services for 14 years. The Board and Staff of Volunteers of America, Utah (VOA) annually manage $7 million in revenue. Last fiscal year, the organization served approximately 11,000 unduplicated individuals in multiple programs, including two detoxification centers, homeless services, outpatient substance abuse treatment, domestic violence counseling, prevention of substance use for children in schools, housing case management, drop-in center for youth and coordination of volunteer placements for senior citizens. 6. Who will be responsible for this project? Volunteers of America, Utah will be the sole proprietor and operator of the project. 7. Please provide examples of experience your organization has with this type of project. Volunteers of America, Utah has operated a transition home for youth for twelve years. The current facility is a seven bed facility for girls, ages 16— 19. Our agency also has experience operating two 24/7 social model detoxification programs, the Adult Detoxification Center since 1986 as well as our Center for Women and Children since 1999. All three of the existing residential programs have staff on duty 24 hours a day with constant access to supervisory personnel. Programs are structured for safety and promote stability as well as personal '"omo"' progress through case management and motivational interviewing. "° Volunteers of America, Utah Transition Home for Young Men As of August 25, 2011 Sources of Funds: Committed Funds: US Department of Housing and Urban Development-Acquisition and Rehabilitation 250,000 US Department of Housing and Urban Development-Operating 10,000 John Netto and Reverend Catherine Putnam-Netto 100,000 B.W. Bastian Foundation 50,000 Community Foundation of Utah 50,000 Discount Tires 10,000 Utah Families Foundation 5,000 Volunteers of America, Utah 100,000 Total Committed Funds 575,000 Pending Funds: Salt Lake City HOME funds 100,000 Note Payable or Line of Credit with local bank 146,000 Total Pending Funds 246,000 Total Sources of Funds 821,000 004414 Uses of Funds: Acquisition of Camelot House 499,000 Rehabilitation costs 250,000 Fees, Permits, Due Diligence Costs 10,000 Overhead/ Insurance 47,000 Legal Fees 5,000 Project Management 10,000 Total Uses of Funds 821,000 Wasatch Front Regional MLS - Client Full Report - Multi Unit MLS# 954646 Investment Realty Advisors Your A.gent.... Michael Brown 8O-557-978B List Price: $460,000 Tour/Open:Tour l: 1 CDOM: 136 Status:Active -• ./f 01, DOM: 13 List Date: 04/06/2010 4-.` ,... Address: 556 S 500E '' '""77';- ""�"' f NS!EW:556 S/500E Area: Salt Lake City; yy.. },4.6.;,. 'I So. Salt Lake _: � 's- - '- 'i 1 City: Salt Lake City, UT 84102 ,- e `� ''r _ County: Salt Lake Restrictions: No -' " , �. •�wry x Proj/Subdiv: z.- _t ,:�:..'• u•La 1`,'�' f. X ! Tax ID: 16-06-455-025 Taxes:$2,944 3.1.... 71 i.'.�� .i - : �` s s Zoning: RMF-45 HOA Fee:$0 "• a ` . , , :::-'4 HOA Contact: HOA Phone: ti" .i ' ` s - " HOA Remarks: Pre-Market: School Dist: Salt Lake �- '' "y3 '' -17 Elem:Whittier Jr High: Clayton Sr High: East Priv Schl: Other Schl: Type: >4 Units Style: Other/See Remarks Const Status: Bit./Standing Year Built: 1902 Effect Yr BR:2000 Possession:Arrange Tot Units: 15 Tot Sq Ft:4,384 Tot Beds/Baths: 15/5 Acres: 0.28 Frontage: Side: Back: Irregular: No Yearly Occup: 0% Water Shares: 0 Gross Op Income:$0.00 Gross Sched$0.00 Income: Garage: Carport:4 Prkg Sp: 12 Gas: $0.00 Elec:$0.00 Water: $0.00 Garbage:$0.00 Maintain:$0.00 Insurance: $0.00 Other: $0.00 Access Feat: Additional Info: Amenities: Cable Tv Available;Cable Tv Wired; Electric Dryer Hookup; Laundry; Hookups Animals: Driveway/Access:Asphalt; Concrete Exterior: Stucco Exterior Feat: Bay Box Windows; Double Pane Windows;Outdoor Lighting;Secured Building Floor Coy: Hardwood;Tile;Vinyl Garage/Park: Parking: Covered;Parking: Uncovered Heating: Gas: Radiant;Hot Water Utilities: Gas:Connected; Power: Connected; Sewer: Connected;Water:Connected Inclusions: Microwave; Range;Range Hood;Refrigerator Exclusions: Dryer;Washer Interior Feat: French Doors;Great Room;Kitchen: Second; Range/Oven: Free Stdng. Landscape: Landscaping: Full Lot Facts: Curb& Gutter; Road: Paved;Sidewalks;Terrain, Flat Pool Feat: Roof:Asphalt Shingles Storage: Tel Comm: Terms: Cash; Commercial Fin. Req.;Conventional Water: Culinary Window Coy: Full Zoning: Multi-Family Driving Dir: Remarks: Highly profitable Boarding House,Keyless Entry(very safe&secure), Security Cameras (negotiable), 15 Rooms/5 Bathrms/2 Kitchens, plus laundry area and a lounge."Camelot Guest House" beautiful renovated Victorian home with all the state of the art technology,full automated and modern, it provides a clean, comfortable home away from home. budget lodging,an alternative from hotels or motels.3 minute walk to TRAX, 2 minute walk to Downtown!Amazing Investment opportunity! Gutted and fully remodeled in 2000. Please Do Not Disturb tenants! Unit Configuration 1 Total Number Values Air Conditioning Number of Units: Deck: Patio: Gas: Elec: Furnished: Unfurnished: Gas Meters: 1 Elec(win): Evap: 1 Flec Meters: 1 Disposals:2 Dishwashers: Evap (win): Pump: 'en-Ranges:2 Refrigerators: 2 Solar: €= ; f ;01;-,; ;rr:. State is Utah • List Number is'954646' Paoe 1 '27?MI 1 gm 1n 11.r ..m SKETCHFile No 0506004 ADDENDUM Borrower Arthur Morals Property Address 556 South 500 East Crly Salt Lake City County Salt Lake State Utah Zip Code84105 .4044,4. Lender/Crent'LibertV Bank of Utah Address 326 South 500 East Salt Lake City_Utah 84102 Ir------- ------ ------------ --'- - 2nd Floor 26.0' Deck 17.0' Bed Kitchen 11.0' 12.0' 7.0' Bed 12.0' Bed Dining 2 0 1 0' 1 0' E8SS' Bath 5 5' Bath ./ 1st Floor 7.0' Bed Bed 7.0' Bed Bed \ Bath 37.0' 7.0' is 37.0' immim Bed IIIIIIIIIII.......� C Bed Bath 17.0' 17.0' I! Bed Foyer Bed Bed li II —i 1 ,.3 70' 130' 7.0' 7.0' 13.0' li 7 0' • Porch tit 12 5' ;.edroo._. „7.• . 1 . I �137 9C i Beth 'i L Bed 1 I � Furnace �; A" Finished Bed i1 Attic I 35.0' Bed Bed 22 0' Bed 37.0' Bed 37.0' F. 16.0' Kitchen Bed 1.3' I I I.0 7.0' 7.0' 13.0' Basement SKETCH CALCULATIONS Living Area First Floor 1436 4 ,ncw,,, Second Floor 1229.5 Basement 1210.0 Third Floor 508 0 Total Living Area 4383.9 C'i_k=CR IS Real Carafe Apprrsal Soe,,'e bs 6,a±ro,d Te_hneiog es(900)E22-8727 SA ' 1tH. EaY(WIT D�• IIOjWILFORD H. SOMMERKORN ••E��a wcs. R A L P H B E C K E R PLANNING DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR PLANNING DIVISION CHERI COFFEY FRANK B. GRAY ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR July 12, 2011 • Kathy Bray President and CEO Volunteers of American Utah 252 Brooklyn Avenue Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Re: Zoning of property at 556 South 500 East for the purpose of operating a group home Dear Ms. Bray, This letter is to summarize the presubmittal meeting held on June 16, 2011. The property referenced above is located in the RMF-45 Moderate/High Density Multi-family residential zoning district, This zoning district lists large group homes (group homes with 7 or more individuals, as defined in section 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance) as a conditional use. The Planning Commission is the approval authority for conditional uses in residential zoning districts. Conditional Use approval, along with all other necessary approvals, is required prior to utilizing the property as a group home. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Thank you. i 7 mac/ /C/ Nick Norris AICP Planning Manager Salt Lake City Planning Division 801-535-6173 Nick.norris@slceov.com 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH S41 1 1 P.O. BOX 145480, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 1341 14.5480 TELEPHONE: 601-53S-7757 FAX: RO1-N-aS-f,1'74 rnn can 1.AVC.ano Volunteers of America, Utah Young Men's Transition Home Five Year Projected Operating Budget ro. , FY11-12 FY12-13 FY13-14 FY14-15 FY15-16 (partial year operations) REVENUE U.S.Dept of Housing and Urban Development $ 155,303 $ 428,253 $ 428,253 $ 428,253 $ 428,253 Foundations,Corporations,and Individual Donations $ 64,268 $ 116,429 $ 132,769 $ 149,600 $ - 166,936 Total Revenue Budget $ 219,571 $ 544,682 $ 561,022 $ 577,853 $ 595,188 EXPENSES Personnel Payroll Expense $ 128,741 $ 351,316 $ 361,855 $ 372,711 $ 383,892 Payroll Taxes $ 9,849 $ 29,967 $ 30,866 $ 31,792 $ 32,746 Employee Benefits $ 16,225 $ 35,132 $ 36,186 $ 37,271 $ 38,389 Temporary Help $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Total Personnel $ 154,816 $ 416,415 $ 428,907 $ 441,774 $ 455,028 Professional Fees and Insurance Professional and Contractual Fees $ 1,500 $ 6,000 $ 6,180 $ 6,365 $ 6,556 Worker's Compensation Insurance $ 1,287 $ 1,831 $ 1,886 $ 1,943 $ 2,001 General and Liability Insurance $ 8,965 $ 10,086 $ 10,388 $ 10,700 $ 11,021 Total Professional Fees and Insurance $ 11,752 $ 17,917 $ 18,455 $ 19,008 $ 19,578 Facility Rent&Utilities $ 11,544 $ 15,000 $ 15,450 $ 15,914 $ 16,391 Telephone $ 2,499 $ 6,396 $ 6,587 $ 6,785 $ 6,989 ' Ilik Building and Grounds Maintenance $ 3,000 $ 12,000 $ 12,360 $ 12,731 $ 13,113 ,40.00 Equipment rental and Maintenance $ 1,200 $ 4,104 $ 4,227 $ 4,354 $ 4,485 Total Facility $ 18,243 $ 37,500 $ 38,625 $ 39,784 $ 40,977 Supplies and Other Expenses Food Supplies $ 2,864 $ 16,863 $ 17,369 S 17,890 $ 18,427 Laundry and Housekeeping Supplies $ 3,574 $ 8,000 $ 8,240 $ 8,487 $ 8,742 Office Supplies and Postage $ 7,320 $ 3,000 $ 3,090 $ 3,183 $ 3,278 Other Supplies $ 3,707 $ 3,000 $ 3,090 $ 3,183 $ 3,278 Printing $ 1,000 $ 500 $ 515 $ 530 $ 546 Direct Client Expenses $ 1,000 $ 4,000 $ 4,120 $ 4,244 $ 4,371 Other Expenses $ 1,500 $ 3,085 $ 3,178 $ 3,273 $ 3,371 Total Supplies and Other Expenses $ 20,965 $ 38,448 $ 39,602 $ 40,790 $ 42,013 Travel and Vehicle Conferences and Meetings $ 2,000 $ 4,000 $ 4,120 $ 4,244 $ 4,371 Vehicle Operation and Maintenance $ 748 $ 2,994 $ 3,083 $ 3,176 $ 3,271 Mileage $ 67 $ 500 $ 515 $ 530 $ 546 Total Travel and Vehicle $ 2,816 $ 7,494 $ , 7,718 $ 7,950 S 8,188 Administrative Expense $ 10,980 $ 26,908 $ 27,716 5 28,547 $ 29,403 Total Expense Budget $ 219,571 $ 544,682 $ 561,022 $ 577,853 $ 595,188 Ra..1,05 ie ruts Perchn5e end Sale A9reannenl far Cerofere,Real Eslele(Ire"FSA)may e9.ce,in rvnlin9,In 311er or Jelete Dfnv.slons of tn,s r'S,, ..ee,viatica faun.yvur atfer:ley or Ira advisor belore elIcring Into a hind'ng eorllracl. PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT FOR COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE FUNDAMENTAL TERMS OF OFFER TO PURCHASE -liI-,I'LRF,,NCE DATE'": Ma:I_C 201I "SI:LI.k'.It":Anhllr Moria; "HOVE/Id:Vel0111,1.%ol'Arorrica and/or As9iyns ..I'll0PE0'1'1"':Win/General Description:The Camelot Boarding lions/ Address:556 South 5011 East City:Seltl-Eke,County:Salt lake.State.Utah.Zip:8.1102 Coot.),Cox Parcel G-16.06-455-025 Source of legal description(check appliorblc box): X.TI I Lb:COMMITMENT(Sec Section 7.1).,_,SURVEY(Sec Survey Addendum.i f upplieabtol '!he Property also includes certain rights and ialerests described in Section 2. '.1/1.17 D":10004 box) Special Yarrnny Deed .x.General Worrllnly Prod -P1.RC:111Sf:PRICE";S499,lh011.f1U. E,010.51a7 MONEY BEPOSrI':s a,250.00 together a dl ham,en'ned merenl,.i f any. •1,SCl/OW,UIF;N"I":"1'n be Detconined Prone:To he lhlo-mined "I'frl.E ISSCR ER":'I o be Determined 'SI.1.,L0R DISCLOSURE DEADLINE":5R7111 UCI;DILI GI:NCF:DRADLINE": 92211._I,_'r_cxlgIL')a;provided Ion uncicr II_c ti_clion�.of 111P.OI)flht\DU0 to I'nh __1ps..I'Ic Agamen)_ •'5r:1 Tl,EMfA7 DEADLINE": 10/:A'I o= lyjy IS dnv iof(/oyE_s:c_ec;pl'ir.wrjtilil'or Ile S'en,_'..n,V Par I it Acing tdree_c,l i10 tiro'EIN!6yC1yQ CSN9IVGENC'Y ADD1_NDWS to the PSA_unless e_mn� os provide"!!fnr nnde.-�b=sticgliyl,_nf II-AUI)I NI11V.!o Ills F licrIl Sol Al' roc,F 3Y7 L.�GNfr o'rf�ti✓ -I• rr c 1 I I v I kLlur� IS'tc� �,47e✓ 44-0R tlOvt O'1 the— l2.ae U ,c�c-t'. �) rvltl Cjul< 0'1k✓(sTool Iicre+0!.�y "SURVEY DEADLINE hnIA61L_l, 'P!NAM 7NG UP.ADI 4000 0nort,elZ_c Ogobcr;0,211U). -I.A1.7I,CG LOAN ASSUMPTION DEADLINE":ho1 rt/pSIi4211 -SI 1.1.,1:1tAS AGENT":Micheal Ura,vn SELLER'S RIl0KER.ACE":Y,ellc!William,. "III:YEWS AGENT":Vic(inlnnis end Hatben,loluuun -EL V ER'S BROKERA00":CO Richard Chit "II I.D!ATION":Solid and Buyer.X U0_DO NOT elm ne medialci:I.tc5olfl:m_c with the pro,Woos of Seeing..IS. ADDITIONAL TERMS.Thera S ARE ARE NOT addenda to this l'SA co:nn:'i'ItI,aticlilimnl rcnns.ll'rhne arc,the tern,of the en-.Addendum'or en IIcetively,the"A(Iticndu")arc inenrpurnlul into Ens PSA by FIRS I defile:'. Co nnmrci:d thhildiug _`C Finn using Contingency At:TA Surrey X aLdfi-Pain lip A.aaniption of Pinnnciug .OlheI Addendum ScllcrFinnncing Seller's Inil�a's�t Dote e./ .�''i)J Buyer's Indiaf, � Dote �' �;!t) f ')'I • 3 7.2 t)ced.Seller will convey title to Buyer at Closing by statutory form of Deed 7.3 Title Policy. At Settlement, Seller agrees to pay for the Title Policy in the amount of the Purchase Price insuring omit*, title to the Property to Buyer subject only to the Permitted Exceptions(the"Title Policy").Buyer,at its sole option,cost and expense, may elect to obtain an Extended Coverage ALTA Policy of Title insurance or additional specific endorsements. 3. SELLER DISCLOSURES. No later than the Seller Disclosure Deadline, Seller shall provide to Buyer the following (the "Seller Disclosures"); (a)a Seller property condition disclosure fur the Property signed and dated by Seller; (h)any copies in Seller's possession or control of studies and/or reports which have previously been performed in conncetion with or for the Property, including without limitation, environmental reports, soils studies, seismic studies, site plans and surveys; (c)any copies of written notices relating to a violation of Applicable Law including,without limitation, Environmental Law and laws relating to land use,zoning or compliance with building codes;and (d)all other documents described as Seller's Disclosures in any Addenda or Counteroffers to this PSA. 9. BUYER'S DUE DILIGENCE AND RIGHT TO CANCEL. No later than the Due Diligence Deadline Buyer at its sole cost and expense shall: (a)conduct such Due Diligence as it deems necessary and appropriate; and(b)determine if the results of its Due Diligence are acceptable. Due Diligence does not include approval of title, which is governed by Section 7 and uny applicable Survey Addendum. 9.1 Inspection. In conducting its Due Diligence prior to the Due Diligence Deadline, and if and to the extent required by its lender,at any time thereafter until Settlement,Buyer may,upon reasonable notice and at reasonable times,conduct inspections of and tests on the Property. Guyer shall eater to conduct such inspections and tests on the Property only during reasonable hours and with reasonable prior notice to Seller.Seller shall have the right to accompany Buyer and any of its agents on the Property at all times.All inspections and tests shall be conducted in a manner that does not unreasonably disrupt the activities and business of Seller and its tenants. and Buyer shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend Seller,its tenants and their employees, invitees and guests from and against any and all liabilities, claims,actions or damages(including reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs)which arise from,are caused by, or arc in any manner connected with Buyer's Due Diligence including, without limitation, claims for payment for inspection services,claims for mechanic's liens,claims for physical damage to the Property and claims for personal injury. 9.2 Right to Cancel or Object.If Buyer,in Buyer's sole discretion,determines that the results of the Buyer's Due Diligence are not,receptable then,not later Rhin the Due Diligence Deadline,Buyer shall either:(a)cancel this PSA by providing written notice to Seller, in which event the Earnest Money Deposit shall be released to Buyer;or(b)provide to Seller a written notice setting forth buyer's objections in reasonable detail(the"Objections"). 9.3 Failure to Respond. If Buyer does not timely take either of the actions described in Section 9.2, then the results of the Buyer's Due Diligence shall be deemed approved by Buyer,all Objections which Buyer could have asserted shall be deemed waived be Buyer and, unless another condition or contingency set forth in an Addendum or Counteroffer remains unsatisfied, the Earnest Money Deposit shall become nonrefundable except in the event of Seller's default. 9.4 Response by Seller. If Buyer timely provides Objections to Seller, Buyer and Seller shall have five(5) days after Seller's receipt of the Objections(the"Response Period") in which to agree in writing upon the manner of resolving the Objections. Seller may,but shall not be required to,resolve the Objections, If Buyer and Seller have not agreed in writing upon the minter of resolving the Objections prior to the expiration of the Response Period, Buyer may cancel this PSA by delivering written notice to Seller trot later than fifteen(15)clays alter the end of the Response Period;whereupon the Earnest Money Deposit shall be released to Buyer and neither Party shall have any further rights,obligations or liabilities under this PSA except as expressly set forth.If this Purchase is not canceled by Buyer under this Section,the Objections shall he deemed waived by Buyer and the Earnest Money Deposit shall become nonrefundable except upon Seller's default. I U. SELLER REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES. Seller represents and warnints that the following statements arc true and complete as of the Effective Date and shall he true and complete as of the Settlement and Closing. The following teprescntations and warranties shall survive the date of Closing for one(I)year,and shall terminate and be mull and void if or to the extent it legal action has not been filed in a court of competent jurisdiction prior to the expiration of such one(I)year period: (a)there is no action,suit,administrative proceeding or other proceeding pending in any court or before any arbitrator of any kind or before or by any governmental body or, to Seller's Knowledge, threatened against Seller and/or the Property which may adversely affect the transactions contemplated by this PSA; (b)all work which will be performed in,on or about the Property or materials furnished to the Property which might in airy ciacumstanccs give rise to a mechanic's or ntaterialntan's lien, will be paid and all necessary waivers of rights to a mechanic's or matcriahnan's lien for such work will be obtained; (c) Seller has not received any written notice or citation indicating that the Property is in material violation of Applicable Law: (Ili itl /ii Seller's Initials/I I • Date `)/�)`i 1 ( t Buyer's Initials� Date 5/( 5 17. ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS. In the event of litigation or binding arbitration to enforce this PSA, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to costs and reasonable attorneys'fees.Attorneys'fees shall not be awarded for participation in mediation tinder Section 15. 18. NOTICES. All notices required under this PSA must be: (a) in writing; (b) signed by the Party giving notice; and (c) received by the other Party,the other Party's Agent or the other Party's Brokerage no later than the applicable date referenced in this PSA. Notices may be hand delivered,faxed,mailed or delivered by certified mail,return receipt requested or by a national overnight courier service such as,but not limited to,Federal Express. 19. ABROGATION. Except for the provisions of Sections 9,1, 14 and 16 and any other provisions of this PSA which expressly survive the termination of this PSA,the provisions of this PSA shall not be enforceable after Closing. 20. RISK OF LOSS; EMINENT DOMAIN, All risk of loss to the Property, including physical damage or destruction to the Property or its improvements due to any cause except ordinary wear and tear and loss caused by a taking in eminent domain,shall be borne by Seller until Closing. In the event of any destruction exceeding-five percent (5%)of the Purchase Price or any taking or commencement of a taking by any governmental agency of a material portion of the Property,Buyer may,at Buyer's sole option and discretion, terminate this PSA by written notice to Seller, in which event all the Earnest Money Deposit, together with any interest accrued thereon,shall be promptly refunded to Buyer.If Buyer does not terminate this PSA,the insurance or condemnation proceeds, or right to collect the seine,shall be paid or assigned to Buyer,and further,Seller shall at its option pay or credit to Buyer at Closing tray deductible required under any applicable insurance policy. 21. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE, Time is of the essence regarding the dates set forth in this PSA, and any extension of the time for performance of any obligation or satisfaction of any condition must be agreed to in writing by all Parties. Unless otherwise explicitly stated in this PSA: (a) performance under this PSA which references a date shall absolutely be required by 5:00 I',M. Mountain Time on the stated date; and (b) the term "days"shall mean calendar days and shall be counted beginning on the day following the event which triggers the timing requirement(i,e„delivery of e specified notice,etc.). If the date for performance falls,or the deadline expires, on a day which is not a Business Day,performance shall he required or the deadline shall expire on the next Business Day thereafter.Performance dates and times referenced herein shall not be binding upon title companies,lenders,appraisers and other Persons which are not Parties,except as otherwise agreed to in writing by such Persons. 22, ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION AND COUNTERPARTS. Facsimile (fax)or Email transmission of a signed copy of this PSA,any Addenda and Counteroffers thereto,and the retransmission of arty signed fax or Email shall be the same as delivery of an original.'this PSA and any Addenda and Counteroffers thereto may be executed in counterparts. 23, ACCEPTANCE,"Acceptance"occurs when Seller or Buyer, responding to an offer or counteroffer of the other:(a) signs the offer or counteroffer where noted to indicate acceptance;and(b)communicates to the other Patty or to the other Party's Agent or other Party's Brokerage that the offer or counteroffer has been signed as required. 24. DEADLINES, Buyer and Seller agree that Seller Disclosure Deadline, the Due Diligence Deadline and Settlement Deadline arc as set forth in Fundamental Terms. 25. 1031 EXCHANGE. Each Party shall cooperate with the other Party in effecting an exchange under Code Section 1031; provided however, that the other Party's cooperation shall be conditioned on the following; (a)the exchange will be at no additional liability and cost to the other Party;(b)the exchange will not delay Settlement or Closing;and(c)the other Party shall not be required to acquire title to any proposed exchange properties to accommodate an exchange,The exchanging Party shall indemnify,defend and hold the other Parry hrumless from and against any and all claims,demands,costs and expenses which the other Party may sustain or incur resulting from the attempt by the exchanging Party to consummate the sale or acquisition of the Properly as a Section 103I exchange. 26. JOINT PREPARATION.The provisions of this PSA have been negotiated by all Parties hereto and should therefore not be interpreted or construed in favor of or with prejudice against any particular Party, but in accordance with the general tenor o1'the language used. 77. DEFINITIONS. Certain capitalized terms previously used in this PSA are defined above. in addition to those capitalized terms,the following capitalized terms shall have the meanings set forth: "Agent"means Buyer's Agent or Seller's Agent,as applicable. "Applicable Lair"shall mean and include: any and all laws, statutes, rules, regulations or ordinances of any governmental authority having jurisdiction over a specified matter,as the same may be in effect from time to time, including,without limitation,any l;nvironruental Law. Seller's Initials'• •v i Date :3! )Ll I ( Buyer's Initials �> 1 Date /6, �� _ 1-��1 rr ,)111 /ll 7 OFFER AND TIME 1f0R ACCEPTANCE.Buyer offers to purchase the Property on the above terms and conditions. tfSetler does not accept this offer by 5:00 P.M.Mountain Time on: May 19,2011,this offer shall lapse,and the Buyer's Brokerage or Escrow 41.11 Agent,as applicable,shall return the Earnest Money Deposit to Buyer. If Buyer is an individual or individuals: (Buyer's Signature) (Buyer's Name)(PLEASE PRINT) • --- (Buyer's Signature) (Buyer's Name)(PLEASE PRINT) II Buyer is an entity: yin o(Zrn.e-vi(ic - [Name of Buyer') (/6.174. ••••( 6,--gaii.) .7 [State of forma1ion and ypc of entity] ij By [Signature') Name: 1<a:-1-2t4 [Printed name of signor] Its: Fre..5) 4-• (Position of signer within entity] Address of Buyer for this Agreement: I Wes-t.. 2 0 o cotzi- Sc,(,(1-e I 6o (Street Address) CI gt-( ( [ • f--(City,State,Zip Code) ( () 3(0•3 t( ( (Phone) (OL')I) .3 (Fax) (Email) [1] Acceptance of Offer to Purchase: Seller accepts the foregoing offer on the terms and conditions specified above. Li Rejection. Seller Rejects the foregoing offer. (Sellers initials) (Dale) (Time) 13 Counter Offer: Seller presents for Buyers Acceptance the terms of Buyer's offer subject to the exceptions or modifications as specified in the attached Counter Offer J. I /1, / I ; I I'Sel ler is an individual or individuals: y.;•'1.1,/- 10k_ --- (Seller's Signature) 1\rt If (Seller's Name)(PLEASE PRINT). Lc c( (Seller's Signature) 1.r.{/ P..' •r Seller's Initials /-I Date Di 1-)'// I I Buyer's Initials 7--g Dale s7C7// 0.11‘ • ADDENDUM TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT 1'IIIS 1S AN ADDENDUM (the "Addendum") to that PURCHASE AND SALE ACRE MEN't Fog COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE Is(the''PSA")with n Reference Date of May 16,201 I,including all other Addenda and Counteroffers thereto,between!toyer and Seller(as dcsct'bed in the Fundamental Terms)pertaining to the following Property: 556 South 500 East The fellow ing terms constitute tin addendum(the"Addendum")to the specified terms in the PSA or identified Addendum. I. Section 7,1 of the I'SA shall be Modified to include that the Seller shall deliver or cruse In be delivered at('liming to Ilrrycr,at Seller's sole cost and expense, the Title Commitment which only has listed as an exception to title(a; tire Permitted Exceptions:(b)any disclosed leases:and(c)any title exception arising by,through or under Buyer. 2 1 he FINANCING CONTINGENCY ADDENDUM attached hereto. :1. I Ile MULTI-FAMILY ADDENDUM attached hereto. Ti,LL-\l "DJ; %6 j d. Duyet shall have die right to extend the"DUE DILIGENCE DEADLINE"and the'`SETTI.EMEN' DEA1)ijhI:"noel all references within the PSA,by no additional period ofThirty(3(1)days subject to delivering by.; l A r / written notice Us the Seller of the Buyer's intention to exercise this right together with depositing 4,250.00 as an additional EARNEST MONEY DEPOSIT with the Escrow Agent. 5/ i/I Io the extent the ptavisions of this Addendtntt modify or conflict with any provisions of the PSA and all other Addenda and r.onntr.offers, tire provisions of this Addendum shall control. All other provisions of the PSA and all other Addenda and t'nt,otcrufiers not modified by Iris Addendum shall remain in full force and effect. Itrnet or Seher shall have until 5.00 P.M.Mountain time on May 19,201 I to accept or reject this Addendum. (S,:;nature ut Uu' • Authorized d S said))1) _'-- (Dale) ---- : f 7 jl'ri ne,l name t fsigner) cSi,;naurr:uf'eller'S Authorized Signatory) (Dt.re) Illrinted)tattle Ufsigrter) Acceptance: Seller accepts the foregoing on the terms and conditions specified above _)Rejection.Seller rejects the foregoing terms and eonditioits speediest above...... (Seller's ini'.ials) _.(Datc)__ (1 he) 1' Counter Offer: Seller presents far Buyer's Acceptance the terms noel eonditiuns specified abuse subject to tl:e exceptions or n;sdificatioi;s as specified in the attached Counter Offer k f i J i. I- ,. t ‘' i r ,/ /.1 r 5I;t:t:l;urc of Seller's Authorized Stg,n'rttory) (Date)' ' 'Printed name of signer) Acceptanee. Buyer accepts the foregoing on the terms and cemditiuus specified above ltrjc:tine.Buyer rejects the foregoing terms and conditions specified above. .(Buyer's initials) (Dine) _(i'inic) Counter Offer: LI.iycr presents fot Seller's Acceptance tic urns red conditions specified above sa;bjrct to the CccpiICnc or rn,,.Lf.catlo:r,ns specified ill the attached Counter Offer ft ,1•igrt nett of il'.iycr's Audio ized Signatory-) (Date) . .. .. ..,--------- ---•.. t':!I Itfd m Cite of Slb net) - ----'_--- ----- 1; • I Seller's Irs:hafs .1 Dale ) .)e1/(/ Buyer's In:;iais1� Dale `) r.,7'r l 13 Buyer or Seller shall have until 5:00 I'.M. Mountain Time on May 19,2011 to accept or reject this Addendum. G-2±47// _ (Signature of BuyFys Authorized atoty) (Date' [Printed name fsignei] 1 (Signature of Seller's Authorized Signatory) (Date) [Printed name of signer] I] Acceptance: Seller accepts the foregoing on the terms and conditions specified above. ❑ Rejection.Seller rejects the foregoing terms and conditions specified above. .(Seller's initials) (Date) (Time) Ut Counter Offer: Seller presents for Buyer's Acceptance the terms and conditions specified above subject to the exceptions or modifications as specified in the attached Counter Offer tP I , t:;;.t, /j /'I rr dt A/W V Uc/( w_�. '0. I j ,!e i l .• t// // _ (Signature of Seller's Authorized Signatory) (Date) / — _ _ - l E::_1 I f l:.f. x-'(./J t-fl• C 1`_I%I /CI ). 1 10 t t t 1Irinicd'nan e of signer] — — /I_ Acceptance: Buyer accepts the foregoing on the terms and conditions specified above. 1 i ❑ Rejection. Buyer rejects the foregoing terms and conditions specified above, __(Buyer's initials)5 2-/ (Date)q'�?/�,l(rime) ❑ Counter Offer: Buyer presents for Seller's Acceptance the terms and conditions specified above subject to the exceptions or modifications as specified in the attached Counter Otter if ,5-17//f (Signature of Buy Authorized natory) (Date) Printed name of y igner] a f J r ; Seller's Initials Date J, •.- r c i 1 Buyer's Initials A-. ) Date '/��/ f/ 1 1-' rtIcs to Ittc.Purchase and Sale Agreement for Commeroa!Real Estate(the'PSA)may agree,in writing.l.a alter or delete prov.siods of ibis I'SA Se.:k zuytce two:your uttoruoy or trtx advisor ber3ro enlerog Lola a binding contract. rriakits PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT FOR COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE FUNDAMENTAL TERMS OF OFFER TO PURCHASE -It111 ERENCE DATE": Mite IC, 2011. Sl EU- r:Arthur Morias LYER": Volunizeis or America and/or Assigns "PROPERTY":Name/General Description: The Camelot Boarding House Addresa:•556 Smith 500 East City:SaltLakc,County:Salt Lake,State:Utah.Zip:8,1102 County i'ax Parcel S. 16-06-155-025 Source of legal description(check applicable box): LE COMMITMENT(Sec Section 7.1) SURVEY,See Survey Addendlon,if applicAkilc) The Property also includes eertaintights end interests described in Section 2. "DEED":feleek boo) Special Warranty Deed JC.,General Warranty Deed 'PLR ClIASE PRICE,":5499,000.00. R.\E.ST IC)IN EY DTPOSIT":S 4,250.00 together aide interest earned thereon,it any. ROW AGENT": o be Determined Phone: To be Determined " tssuRER": n be Determined -s11.1.,E14 DISC:LC/SLUM DEADLINE": 5/27/11 ••1/121, DILIGENCE DEADLINE": 9/30:11 unless emended as pr(,vided.for under the Section.4_QL-IJIF A I)DENDLIM to this. 1)in e hpse nistl Sale Agrs9rnesii, "SIT!TI,EMEN 1' DEADLINE": 10/30'11 or within 15 day; n(13,pyer's receipt its wrikg of the. conimituicot For Financing rt:12rt:nceditt lit:._1-'_IN4111c_INCI CONTINGENCY ADDENDUM to the PSA unless extended as provided for under the.Section 4 of 1!II:A 1)1)1.\a?liNet toilliSV4rFlwe.attic.,Sitk..441cte,tnetthi r),4_ .k ase_,v1i— 1`,•cv- .414t10tc a; at_tt occ.ci 'iv/L• (1,1{-‹. iv ;'ei 4-SUR 'T,Y DEADLINE": ND!APplicable * I INA N lING DEADLINE":.c./.9. hciore.Osiober 30,2011 " 7.;VI 1 I \ITING LOAN ASSUMPTION DEADLINE":lotpplicable K. . ELER's AGENT":N.lit..hcal Brown "SELLER'S BROKERAGE": Keller\Villianb. \TICS AC;ENIT":Vic(Wallis Barbara.1olint,o1i ER'S BROKERAGE":CI)Richard Ellis Selici and buyer_ X DO__, DO Nur dcc1 to mediate in accencIsive with the provisions of Section 15. MA!,TERMS,ThereX ARE ARE NOT addenda to this PSA containing additional terms,If Oleic arc,the tcites of the (co:!.an"Ad:len:him"or collectively.the"Addenda")are incorporated into this PSA by this telerciicc. Commercial[Wilding X Financing Contingency Al TA SnSurvey X Multi-Family Assumption of.Finniteing Olhet Addendum Land • .i ; SellerFinaneing -1 • • •i Seilers t Date •.)t, / Buyer's)n.lias 7.4‘,/:. Date :-1/1(01 I! oak* 1 ADDENDUM TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT THIS 1S AN ADDENDUM (the "Addendum") to that PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT FOR COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE(the"PSA")with a Reference Dale of May 16,2011,including all other Addenda and Counteroffers thereto,between Buyer and Seller(as described in the Fundamental Terms)pertaining to the following Property: 556 South 500 East The following terms constitute an addendum(the"Addendum")to the specified terms in the PSA or identified Addendum I. The"DUE DILIGENCE DEADLINE"and all references within PSA shall be October 30,201 l 2. The"SETTLEMENT DEADLINE'and all references within PSA shall be no later than November 30,2011./ 3. Buyer shall provide and deliver to the Escrow Agent S4,250.00 as additional EARNEST MONEY DEPOSIT. To the extent the provisions of this Addendum modify or conflict with any provisions of the PSA and all other Addenda and Counteroffers, the provisions of this Addendum shall control. All other provisions of the PSA and all other Addenda and Counteroffers not modified by this Addendum shall remain in full force and effect. Seller shall have until 5:00 P.M.Mountain Time on July, 11,2011 to accept or reject this Addendum, 7/6/,1 (Sign lure of Buy '•Authoriz¢ Signatory) (Date) [Printed name otlsigner) I (Signature of Sellers Authorized Signatory) (Date) [Printed name of signer] Acceptance: Seller accepts the foregoing on the terms and conditions specified above. ❑Rejection.Seller rejects the foregoing terms and conditions specified above. (Seller's initials) _(Date) (Time) ❑ Counter Offer: Seller presents for Buyer's Acceptance the terms and conditions specified above subject to the exceptions or modifcations i6.,mr__6ut; as specified in the attached Counter O er# . _ A 1 5 K q Jfl r 4 7 _ (Signature of Sellers Authorized Signatory) (Dale) 0R KOR4(S A r(0 1110f n 1S' .7/0/ Printed name of signer] ❑ Acceptance: Buyer accepts the foregoing on the terms and conditions specified above. ❑Rejection.Buyer rejects the foregoing terms and conditions specified above. (Buyer's initials) (Dale) _(Time) ❑ Counter Offer: Buyer presents for Seller's Acceptance the terms and conditions specified above subject to the exceptions or modifications as specified in the attached Counter Offer tf_ (Signature of Buyer's Authorized Signatory) (Date) [Printed name of signer) Seller's Initials �1 _Date r(I/t/ Buyer's Initials 7 Date /, / 'V'i'7/) 7/i(/i( l',Volunteers of Americas U T A H w«v.voaut.org July 13, 2010 Dear Community Partner, This letter is intended to clarify the tax exempt status of Volunteers of America, Utah. Volunteers of America, Utah has tax exempt status through a group exemption which is clarified on the last three pages of this document. Attached please find a letter from the IRS that was received on February 1, 1999. The letter affirmed Volunteers of America Inc.'s exempt status under section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code. The letter also documents the national office, Volunteers of America Inc.'s Federal Identification Number: 13-1692595. The second attached letter dated April 30, 2002 pertains to Volunteers of America, Inc.'s 2002 Annual Group Exemption Report and lists Volunteers of America, Utah as a subordinate organization. The attachment to the letter indicates that Volunteers of America, Utah's Federal Identification Number is 94-3008720. If you have any questions, please contact me at 801-363-9414 Ext. 2, Sincerely, Kathy Bray President & CEO �/n�nnr�arcnFAmPriro TTr-F - 2 - volunteers of America, Inc. 13-1692595 2. A list showing the names, mailing addresses (including Postal ZIP Codes), actual addresses if different, and employer identification numbers of subordinates that: a. Changed names or addresses; b. Were deleted from the roster; or c. Were added to the roster. 3. For those subordinates added, attach: a. A statement that the information on which your organization's present group exemption letter is based applies to the new subordinates; b. A statement that each has given your organization written authorization to add its-name to the roster; c. A list of those to which the Service previously issued exemption rulings or determination letters; d. A statement that none of the subordinates is a private foundation as defined in section 509(a) of the Code if the group exemption letter covers organizations described in section 501(c)(3); e. The street address of subordinates where the mailing address is a P.O. Box. 4. If applicable, a statement that your organization's group exemption roster did not change since the previous report. The above information should be sent to the following address: . Internal Revenue Service Center Attn: Entity Control Unit Ogden, UT 84409 Your organization's Group Exemption Number is 1736. :f you have any questions, please call us at the telephone number shown in the heading of this letter. Sincer'Uy, /7 • C. Ashley Bullard District Director Ms.Jolene Thomas April 30, 2002 Page 2 3. (a)-(d) The information submitted in these categories upon which the group exemption is based is applicable in all material respects to all subordinates being added to the group exemption letter by means of this submission. (e)Each subordinate to be included in the group exemption letter has furnished written authorization to the central organization. (f) None of the new subordinates being added to the group exemption letter has obtained a separate ruling or determination letter relating to exemption. (g) To the best of our knowledge and belief,no subordinate included in this group exemption is a private foundation as defined in section 509(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. (h) No subordinate included in this group exemption is a school. All newly-listed entities request that the exemption to be granted to them as a result of this amok filing be granted retroactive to their respective dates of incorporation. .,,,, Volunteers of America would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have concerning this filing. Please feel free to contact our General Counsel,Cynthia Lewin, if we can be of assistance. Very truly yours, 1 CnJ,1L . \.�JV r v � l Charles W. Gould, President Enclosures .mow (j Tifiter Volunteers of.America,. UTAH Board of Directors )ard Member Organization Name E-mail Address Phone Volunteers of America, Utah 511 West 200 South Ste 160 ay, Kathy President& CEO kbray@voaut.org Salt Lake City, UT 84101 801-363-9414 Ext.2 University of Utah, Assistant 1705 Campus Center Drive, Rm 327, irrow-Sanchez, Jason Professor Ed. Psych Dept. Jason.Burrow-Sanchez@Utah.edu Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 801-581-6212 2755 E. Cottonwood Pkwy, Suite 520 •eyfous, Jim Pelion Venture Partners, President Jim@pelionvp.com Salt Lake City, UT 84121 801-365-0262 Ext.227 American Express, Regulatory 4315 South 2700 West nes, Lorraine Manager lorraine.j.jones@aexp.com aexp.com West Valley City, UT 84184 801-945-5325 Intermountain Healthcare, Outcomes 3612 Golden Oaks Drive •antz Hsieh, Linsey Analyst linseykh@gmail.com Cottonwood Heights, UT 84121 801-455-5556 6695 South 1300 East ke, Robert Lake, 1-Iill & Myers, Owner rlake@Ihmutah.com Salt Lake City, UT 84121 801-947-7500 2133 E. 9400 South #135 iy, Timothy May &Associates LLC., Owner yammit@earthlink.net Sandy, UT 84093 801-232-3204 6510 Millrock Drive, Ste 200 Hard, Rob GE Capital Finance, Inc. Rob.Millard@gecapital.com Salt Lake City, UT 84121 801-733-3023 Intermountain Healthcare, 138 S Fairway Drive kopoulos, George Medical Director george.nikopoulos@imail.org North Salt Lake, UT 84143 801-233-4100 Utah Addiction Center at the 410 Chipeta Way, Suite 280 :man, Abbie University of Utah, Manager abbie.paxman@hsc.utah.edu Salt Lake City, UT 84108 801-870-4672 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day 15 E. South Temple Street ssell, Donald Saints, PR russelldg@ldschurch.org Salt Lake City, UT 84150 801-240-4397 Investor; 6322 S. Contoy Circle irgason, Robert Family Foundation Exec. Director robertyorgason@gmail.com Salt Lake City, UT 84123 801-755-8237 Board Emeritus American Express, Enterprise 4315 S.2700 W. shing, Nicole Compliance Risk Management nicole.cushing@aexp.com Salt Lake City, UT 84184 801-945-6326 Utah Addiction Center, Associate 410 Chipeta Way, Suite 280 livan, Barbara Director barbara.sullivan@hsc.utah.edu Salt Lake City, UT 84108 801-581-3646 updated: 5/2/2011 — „x r...-..-..-:,"g•:,:"--'!:,,..3...f,i:''''.."--:...;,:7";• ',--?•'1•t''..1.4.. ,,,,,„,.. • ,,,..,i„,,,,,,:%r-,.:F.0".4'.'4f7,-5.4-1''. .-'-'3...Y''''7:-.-'1::4'..'••••''•':'(..., 'i-'.. '',--' - ^''' . ' -•:'''',--•'` .,,,,s,,. . .a.,...,:.,,,,21.0.i'-.... -':::-.1".',.:PW;r3-4,37,.,X.;..--‘t.1.•-•!;:,,;---',f I;:'1:4--:-?•,':-"•-'-''.' -'. ' ' ' -...--.•-: •-•-• - ' ,•-r'• ; :- : ,1 '-:- `.' ':,'-?,", - .-------.....1:4-..q... -_,t•y:7.P=i'-‘-r.1,-:V*7.''..:'•-•,'''...il`.,...:•'•-:',•.••••••':"... ..'_',.,It:,:,', ,,..•_:.-- ',., ,z -,.:--,-_,:.!•-... .• -,,._;.• •,_ . ,. •. .., . ,.... : • ., ..,, ,;iiI'::;1.,,4?-•°-•--,'''..''' ..-=,:---.:7'....:-.'_';:'1...,l'i.•'-'3-'': ,'--'''..... f•.,' :----.2'• : . :.'''!•.:7';"•'-.;"'f'.' ..•:::-.-;--'.-'; : • - ' ''' -- '• -1 '-,''; ---.". ' ', ' '• r; '.r-'-, ' ._:'. ',•-• •: •-•':.•' ..."'",','-.., -: . '--..•.,"•'-- .'.'s . ...- ' '•-'-•-•.'"-•,'---;-..-'f'-',:$.;.1=-''' '. ' -'''.." ' •••:':- '•''-!--,- '.'• • ' .. ' -' ' - i -- -' •:- ' ' .• ' --- '"- -1:;"-.','- ".;..•::`';'•1'.•'-.--- •-•---....-1.-.--:' ' -;: '...;-:."---,• - -'-•- ','-';'-'-,-*-:-•-''',,.:;.'- - • ,' . -.' .' - - . ' ' ' .- _' '. - ., '• ' ' 'it. ..,--..----:•••'••• -„,' •-• • '',--•-:''' ''..r. -," '--; -'''.' : ./...''''.- ' „,'',: .-•,-;:',-: ;:.,-. - :'''.. " '' "-,'''.' ,-; • „. - ', • ' - .` '•'' • ', ,- -.-.:1,-.-1 i-,1-',.• '.• ' -• .- '' , :-. • ."' s'''' ---,:i.. :•'' ....••• , S.'..,- '', ..*::::;"'-.C.I. '' '_- '.....'-• ' --.' ' - - -'' ' •,' " •.- - • • . ' '' ',-i- ...:'•':;••.: -. -.2‘:- : ,'•• : "•-••-"..-.:• .:'' • 'i.' ---`:, .::-,,,,-.'-:',..':..2- ._It •-',.... - ' ';'-'.' r-- -'. ; -' : ' - :-' '-- ': ‘, - •'-' ' ' ' - ' ' - '''-'''''''' • „ _ . . -• .• , .. . , •, .t.,.....,,. :).'.,•-- ,_,1, . '---- :- . - .•z-,....1-: ....-,-,:,'-'•••,-,Z:.„-1:',.-,:::::-,-_,-;---,,:r',-.;', ..,:f:'•''••;".r• ,;.'-,.';,--',4 : .' : ;.. ' ,.'., ''._ - : ' . ' -. ' '' ' - . ' - ''" ::'-'.:-..7 j'...:2,.....-',... -.- - - - - : ",..'-'•-•;:.,..-';.;-''' ::.",.--,'.''-'-'•'• -;•-.', ..-.....--,,=',;, `..,.:•,-,:1•'.,'''1', . ' . ,'. f. ,_ :, .,, •_',. , 1, ..' _ • ' 1 •:- - -r • ,.•: _:,',,,..‘,,...:t-,-,‘' .t•-_":"-'"..,-,;:. .,„..'. . , ':r: ''-",',',`,.. ;.':,;-...: -...•.--,',•:..-0,1 ;-''''.''. ,-,'''::..:2---.'•;;::,''.1'.::-:,:'.....-:•'•• ..' ' - 'L-:-:':.„l'....... ',- ••, • ''•'-; - ':. • ', '.•',', " '.,'., '''," '.. . .•'••-•:.,'','...1:•:, .''':','''.'''j..--,-•,,...- -- ': .`.• -., -,?:. ';.':,':::-;;:";:.-- ::...."1.-.1..-.1-.:.-;',,;:1-•_-_,-•:•'.,..,. ..,-....--,..:.-;.•._.'. --.--, -...::-:.,-.,',:',.-,-- —--- --,.:,-., -..,;_:. ..', ...- . . . - : 2 . :',..2. -.1.-,.; :-,,,,. -..=.:::-....,...-,:.'-; '. ', t' .:---•..,•••:.-..:.je,-s.,-.-:--;,:;-:-,•:,-:-:::,',,.....,.1,1--.'.:.-:.:-s-•''s'.•.'.'.t.,-•-;'.•-'•-.:'.--:''..'-..''-•-'".':•T'..-.••'••-,;"..A,7'•%.-:;.,t.-.f,-.'--.-- - •.-.•.-i..-,'.:-.z..',.t2..1.:--:=-4•?-..," 0, =-:•--,:- ' _ e1 ..)=., t 4,..-' :.-..,-.,,-0..:--',,.•:-*.:.-,-,!'.... P--..i,-...--..2.:.,-.';--,;'y•,•Z•.,P•-`•----4--,•.':,1--4"-,4•-.•.,.-,•-.;.s':.i`,,.-:.'-:•-,...`...::...-,.,,-,:,;,r=.:••--..'..:•-,,:,---;,--,:'-'-:-,.-•,r,-_.-,.-_..:'...'';'.•'-•'.•....'.id , 44 ,.,-..-..'.'':-`-'.•,,,,':":::'_-'•,-',-,,'''.,.,i',.'..-VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA, UTAH .f.:•'-.''-:-:•' -,- ' ::--:-/•'-:,,-.-‘•Y---._-•-•'-----'...---,":---_---4i_i ...--:.;•-..•.--. , -,...- • -•.•-...,-.--•.',::.-•2: -_.• .•-r--.----'..-,..-:,_;,,4.''.':.` '.7..2- • ' -' ' ' .'' '-'.. . ••.; : '1,:,-' '' ..•-•••.-..",','- ',..: • ,..•‘ ..,-...-;:''' •:-•- :;•.:•:.,',. .i.,',::--,-..'1,.•; ..•.• , ., ., , •-:. - - ,•••-- CONSOLIDATED FIN\vAitNh CIA1,STATEMENTS .,-:•.. .. ; : . - .1•- -;-:'' •; ',.1.; 1'-',, % . '' .••-- -' ' -'..':.-- ''..::;."',• INDEPENDENT AUDITORS REPORTS • JUN'E 3 0 201 0 t1,---4-::-.:', `..••.r. ,.• . . ., ••,-.- .,..It.1,V:.::_.i•,•,--,U,;•:,,-7.-2.-2..‘•,-'!•?-;,:..::•_,:4: _,,-;,‘;-`•:,2:`7-r,-.',,.-:,Y;•;.;,.-.:,-2.::..:-:::::_;,-,--.;;-;-..f-,1-::','-,:;,•-•-c,-T,,...,---2:-.,`,.!.;._-.-.2 3' .:4,.;.;_-...4-.., 3 1 .,...':7',''41-.11,,,..!,I-._..q.-±,;".,._.,,t,g.:1,.?-,.,:1.2,,-,.:F.a7:-,-,,-g,.•.&t--•g-•-g•,a,kfi,l.4.f-:,:{i'-1,.-,';i-;:--f,..i-i.r,t:x4t'-1.:0-?).:•.-11--.--.-::,:-,.`-.,;:;-1t.c;-7.'.-i,.'..".,:-,-;r.-;..•-:.-..„...8,-.,:.:.,;0-E_--,--,1:-,.-.7!q:,.:.;.`,,,---,-.-.-'••,•.A.•.1•1.-4,•.:,--•'.-.-,.:i:.,f,'7.t.1',t*:.-l.:'fr',-.,:.::r--.,.--:'::-::•,-:-L..!,,.::,.....-t%„-'::'•;:•-.,%.:;*-.•.,3--'...•.,...',.:-:,.--:-,:-:2.-..:2-....-,-":,:',-,1.:.--.A::?..-,-'-•s,-..-',-.----:.•,•.':.:-'::7';•,i--'',.'.-'.•..=,-;'--,V-:/,:'--A-,--...•-.,•-.`1•:.-='•:-;•-,.-*.'.-__..,..-;,'-.,-,.'...,7,-•-Z•:,',..:---,•-',..i,-‘,.'i-...-L,•:.:.,..,-•,,:4;.---i,..-:-it1-;l..,- t '„,-;:,s,.:T.;Z:.=:tit1-11,1:7:7;:1-,',ii-.:?;<:?: ::::t-'7.:-:.R. ..5:-:A-1,7?e',1;:?_41F-,%:...-':3;-3-:,f1:;',.f;:,-,'-';'•7-::,.,:-!,•-:,7:-:.-: _. ._-':.',-, ,;.•-•. . , -0.7,-_ ,,---:=:,..,"-":-. ;': 1f.:•:.',.';',-_,.‘1,_-;.-,;-;-::..A.7_,-;_-.1'.',,:s.: :-it"-.. - ':'. .- '',1f..: .-.: ,i':::f•! :--..-',-: :::" -:-' •''•?--;' ',1,.•:17.-?:•:,.....":-17-2-t,;.-'-:-f-•-T.t=-2-::'.--1'-.-.fr-':-•-_-''--'.:'ii.-:'-:.'.*••••''..:i.X••• 1 f:•4;i:•-,:'..k•%.;':'- ;, .'i':'-- -?,, - .i' :'•:•-.,---• :i%'1-':•.:_.'--::-g `1 ' -j.-;•;Z'-"F.L:f ..-, - • 7.,-i•,2;1-•;•f:,,.-'.--_.f'---.J.1.t=''.;,T :1,•.:"'.;--: ."---, ....C.',-- -.-'" -:•-?..-; -1,-:-.11:-,I%!:.;',..:--,'--,...1.1%,,-NL.. 'i-.-,- :, 7,...,4,-:-..----,::;--,•-----,-2J:i ...,-.4-------ITA-.--.. ..,R=.,-,:-.-:--„....,, ,IT...a..,-:,..-- -...,,, --:---..:-.... ...,I.-_-,.:.-,,.- .'-,,..------ -- •1--! -,--.,,..-;,_,..:-,::,.,,..,, .,.,,,,--._,--,,,,.• ...„-,,v--:,-.,:-_-.7,,, ,,,-..,_, ...-,.,..,,,,...-,...,z,:l.,..7„,..,...., ..-4.-..:,-,:,..--.71 il,---,•,--••",-‘.-„,._...„--..--•• , -.-_-•„'•:•:! ,-:,...--...,„•--,,,..--2„...„. •,-,•••',.-•„;-:•.-•,!,..;••: •-.•.,....;•-,..-•:. ,,'• .',--.....-',..r...----7,"-- s•-....,--,1"."..---,,...'-- ':-.-i. .....;i-•. •-•••-•-•;-- ..,...',..f ''...-;::,„,--. ,--1:.:',..3"...-::f,•;..‘f....t.k -11‘1-1,---....-,..3•-_,_,-„-_,,,,-„,„•,:-.,.,-)..;,-....•..••,••.--:1.7;-,"•,.....•-::•7 `,:,-...,...:.14'.,... ''•'',_''.' !",::.,..,-:.-',."-• ,'_.:.-;-'....-..,--:-.„-:3„, `,-,;".•-••:--..`,',`',.2- ':••-•,, ..',.1".;•t----•-- '•••••71'7-",..-:10:'1;',',- -2,F.'j...,', -; ,',:',_.,'':: -,•._,.!,-; -',,r••• .•,,,,',••,..-,!--..'1,'::._'.•- '.--'l';:',....--:.."''':'T''•!.'': - ,,t,- ..,:•'4. ',,,,..".•,::.,3:`:,,i',..i,,7-::„.,_,,-_,.2....;:,•,-,r,..-_.•.•,_-_,-„,,,,-t._._•.-,4.7.-_,,..:11,7 • ,-..f -.F.•:,,,--;:•:::.:;:-.•;,•:,,.',-.--'''.-._.`'.,‘--;." .-'...,':i--.':::,1;!‘,....',t-At,::,.;:,V,!...:1-..'::::::.-.-'-•:;.';l'::: .:."- --..-.•;2.`-;_--•:•-•,:'-‘':---",:"47..1'-';,- r,.,:r'i 1 ls,'1"c1;,1„f.....;:! •,--is 1 2... .1: .-4:-:',--',1' •'-";"-. ',,,'-77:;':".j.',-.,:',.."-,;•"'•:''E-'2• ..it,Z'-'•'..'i Z--.i.. .1: .-- .-',',:.•-.•"•:.'''''fr.-.,-1,----_--Z•.',,•.4-......C., ..,,N.,'!.. ::. .'•'-:'',x'', '.-1;4.,'•.._. ...7`.,-,:t'._=:-.",,:-.-:,,r,,Y- F,' -`''''-'-'-2.:''''''''=7"•'''7,-''''"‘; .4.-:7;:'-K.--.''-:A:' •::•-•7;-='•--•---,t,z-,='-'-' ' ' _'...i."_;;V.--;.=•.--- ,-- ,., --;••••••'-',..,-,'i:s,t.'''•:_'.'-'-',-,'`,..•.'•--.',-;•'',:.''-•,•••••,•-'-'.r.,'-..•:',..1:4•L.--',-.1-,' ';'1.-.--:7.,'-•':'7.''''-:-(:-:_•- ,-711.... ..i'ri.r_7.i: ..=-........-,•-.:J.-.7--,--....:-:- ...i2-1.-~.z,--,,--.-,:-. .,---,z-;,..--1..;-.,;.,i,--.-:•...,',-......-----,,..-.:- .-:--t--,..-,-. -,-,,-,.p....-..-_,,....,--;.1!-:-.;,.f...:.!......-,.-,--., :,-; :-f.....-z-i...:2.,',.L.:'.'...:l'.--.:.,'•;•,-,,,.-•y`...,EA, 3',....- ''.-• •;Irl-':.:t;'..2--...•‘::-..:.-'.&'- ' r-::•-..;,3-.1.i i"-:••• "'':.t.,,z-c...";'-`i.P,:::•;:e--"T-4_,',,:_i,F.-‘-•'...,-'''.,;-f.,...";,- .74,1-",•--,"-;,..-f'.--'''.-i-'',,-.:'4'''-,...1...-1';'•':;:'--.-.. .:'-1,-I-',;;;;-,.•:s!i•'.-'-;_„..?•1, • ..'s,.7.11- w• ''''Zrc,'...7.-;:•'4'•,1 ,:.;:;;::'•-^,•,"..cf•_-,t--,4.,:,_-,. .,"-7.-,t-,-;:,.-!..vr-;•-•::::,:!-,:"::•.1',,c,--,•?:,;41:",'f.,.7.7,9-fr.?,1-:::-',-z;.:•/.3:t.-„;I:P.:;;''-:f.-,;.i'.7:=:;:,--:_r_.f,..-_.-r,•---.,:, _,5. . :. ,::.: !::-..:::: -- ,, ---:.., -:;--- •-;,:_:',.:':-'-,!,Y.;,1:z 14,;'--,:-;','(1,i''..,,!•.--',-.8: ?1,;;;;,.-e,-,.;',T-..i.:,;.;',,,':i..:4, f ,. ..„,:_:,„-..:-.,-..?..r.f.:::,-::::-`,:-z-z,-,.l';•_:._:,.--'=L---;-qr-i-.!_-_-_,:,:t•-.:-.',:..-•,v:i.-;.:•-,;:-..i.,.--,..:.'-'%•::_-_-i,:i.).,'...-,‘_,c,,7-...,....,-;!-•.t•"•-•`-;:"-.1--'7--'_:;:::%.-F,--,',..--i. •'• :-.:3 r•.1.7.'•:*! ''.-1:,..-''-k'::'-ijr''''•-'1:-.;:-.5::6';'''''''1.4.t. ''''-;'..-;:4:.•'i4"&''''''''''''.;-.1',--;7=7 -'•-:';'A%'''' 'r-! 1 • ,2..c.'•.:7.V-1':;-;',.;%''''':!F..-••_S•C.'..`• -. _;'..'-'*:.; ,,,_ -%;.::,:i.,!. .,,t',_:i•el ---':-'!".':.7-, '7=',:,''E,..''7 '.,"l'i•-a;.1-.. .-,4•L:,,-,.. •'„,T4,;,";.-;,-;•.-171:-, "I',--"-'.:2-:.-'''-'"Y.!:-:-.:;i`.=15:•:_':'•-:."4,-,,,-..-,:,..,_;:-„J?•-•-•:-.tf...-t--:`,3-..,-;--'4;;-:!;z1,....t:3".14?-f-'7,-z:-..;!fr;::--;"''•::,',. ::-.;:t:''Z.7.7.-Z '.-,:.-i-c! ..,....1.1:::-:•:.,:.,: _'',:-i%.-;..;vVf-,..!*;...-;_. , .•;`,$':., .,V.,,,...,---i, ;:, , ,-.v'''..41. .f!.f7,,-Q,-1e:.\-:-ISE,t, ..f..Z.3:Wtka"*':?:',5.-L''':...'-':- i :::::: 1--7-"';'- ,..'...- -- .,,r 1c;''';-:::;':r1'.; 1 . . - .-S111.rs.'r''_-'';'',2.--.'--7:•-•-• ...:-.1.--''::5,---:.•'i q=',i4-- z'.•;S.I,7•,;J"--yl•-,-7.-',5=':ZY....--.24',-^,z1. _:-',,t-c;„:„-•:--,r,•-•;-:-Z•'-;2,1'•-•-e,..--... ._,1:-...-,:tditt-:;`t.,t7,•::' '--5-‘4•1,-,.:..-,..,:-.';•-;,-•,z--1".---i:':--.42-7.:•=- -.P.,:-..',':',...4,•••.•.•.---.1-',1--J.•;;;17,,r,;i:•f..t,--:-..--.--...-:.,: -V?,)::.,- .:--.....4_.11,-.E17,•-...1t3-Z-, .--.1:.-;v:V4i-&--:-. ....-,.-.-.--.!=t--tt-ft•-1',--'--::.4z....-.1.....e•t:-;:-,•.N.11.41,.,:s'f.---i,,:-.--,;."),_::r..4-5--,,,..7.,4:--.1%;-.7-,k-At--.-2_,--i.--,-;:::4,_..;1 . ,,-..,;:,. .-=;•;....; , ,,•-..„‘-:ii'-'_.4,-;-...." -;17.t.,1.=,',-..-.',...,..`,,..:1•••"•----1.--„,.7.-!"."4,, --c-.7.`,..",.,..-;:,•.',,s-, •;•:•1"....--..,..4'4*-...,'., --'-'• •-r=g,-'-'•-.4 1:-c••',. . -,,--15- --7:•.",•'''41'.-:.:-Z-!'el-:`' "A'.•,-.'•.f.'1-'.1-..`i- .--1'.,,L',..--'%-':".".'.::•.'1'-'--7.--'-',7.,5,•-•:,--"'---2 .t.t.- -'`,',.-4--..-.1,•!-2.-4.-.,t.....,11.,•••,,,--;..2,,-,1-...,•;,,,,,„.,",,,:...:-•,..,•-,',2'..-',:-.1:1r$314 •;;;•1--,r-;,.',._-;,."`. .Z:-,.J.:4,2,-,,-,::: ;.;-,,Z f.11:,-4--t---:rt.;7r...,..,.•:.-•:--,.._•••'-:q.,„„'...,-,-,.---i--24`..,.-_-..•.-1.: .----..,-,..:;;--,.,:z'."%'.7.;1*.t',..._.,,,;...:,"- t:,'.-,i...;•,-,...:,i;-;;•111,....,•:+,.,4.rn,r,-;:-.17.-ii••:':. .t,-l'"..'r..,•:•`Z':.i.t-'.-''l.L...-''''',:'..4',.P ‘, '. •-•41(.*=.1.,,,,Y%-•'..„;'..„-:,.-..';'„;,.,4-•,5t.t.•-.,,,...,>,,:-Lf.-...:7:,Y,..-)i',.,..::.r-.3,-,,•;-'4'7•L'I...:•fi '',.,.-1. ...-.•,,,,,--.3.•-•...ck'--•74.1%..;•.".•••:-/.,,,•,,•fr4.--',i,'..-,-,.,----;;,..,.._;,..-it-.43-1-:::-,:•:,_:';/.1;: i.`..',/".=;-"i'''..k.-'•,:'-'-•••1.-;A:Yi!!::,;-_-';;-..:_'•,,,,.....-•;:....?.•:.3.4....-,,,-,1-;.,;:•-_,..*:— ci-,.1•••::::_`:1-4-7";;T,:r.:!•;i4I-- --!-:,, -:;=-4.,.--'4".';f','.:•'.;.-1-S:1*-'r1-.,•.',.:-.7_•:,'"'_;',....--!.3.-zi_ A---,:'-,:‘-''....::_,";•• ••-_-.-'11.-f:',!"1.,,,„ N&•'-':-if:,.`,-41A":1".,-tt:gil...:k-741-.2;..-- •=1.:';';'Z,214.:Iiiitf';T?..;.t... .i .'7'i'•:;:"11:-=:17.3C3',..II:l'i2".4 .';',.'f':•. •!,;-';'.1`7;-.5'..t4ti34.:;Li---.7...%:;'''.:1-',;.g-'--;.'''.;,-::_::1;2.5. -.1 , ''.i'Y'''...;;';:z--,-V-.:;t. '.---'Vi-f4.1ilst'fi."54 `;---i-:AF-'4.‘t.'-"'`,3'..,:ligi:r.,lif.";:,;,:j''.:; •-',:-.;1::-.1: ->i':',77-j1,:-Z.If .:-.!-•+..i;;-=‘,7.7';1, -.-.!,=„if-il-','.-];WZ'f•:'....!'El:--irr,.).'', ..jg'44'.2.,:.--. ..-;',-,7-'.‘,t,.:,:-;'-}Zil:-.17-":-t_;1-14 - 7.'iek ;::'Z'-';'': -C.1.17.1;:t.!-fr-:i:.*:;z:-.'-f?-'5'..g':P..5.-Cfr•it,4`.-:.''.:1-f.gc.V;;,1- 4ti'2?t14.1:,'S1-4'•*;1.14.F.2'-:•-',fl'N:i,,.1`,'S-'04:kR'-,Mif..-=''V,,,,.'4-3_,..`.;t-f.'-ig.---4..;-;!:;'11.''.,.....:-4-3.1.',,-1,:;7;,,T:i....;•',-).-:, Iii. -`.110..,!'.=•::,,t_.1- , .,:,...4,;_,..t45.--- -.1.-.... -•,,,?.i5,•:,-.,,,,,:.,..._,,,:1,-..,f„oec„....,• ;-,..y.:4.. ../w,;...,ini,,,i..,r,i1.4,-.0,...iii ,•, ...3,i'7, 4,-a.::,-,-.;-.;tI.:,-,p,i,,::.'ii .,,,ri,-,,•, ..i.,-.1-• ••,;i4., --,..s.:41';';$%-.. -.1.:',:IV.•:`,."-.-_,;.,„,-,,o).",,,„--::-..,:,,,:-,%,•"; `,...", -'•-_,_, `•!...1-1,!...:,-,-.;--,7e.-.:"-- ilr.4.s:ri':;Z:".f;.A.;-.;•%4::•-...;?4,-&.-It4iMi•;Vrg'Ir.f.r,l':t'Y'-ili/iV?:L.1.1.4;•%1',•;`ii :,.. ..i;':-.-Az-7-144:%;:i•::_Z:•-.4:14".:•::•$;-",'''''.Z13-4-- -:..-;!"..;%4••;13:'.•%tY-.-1-44-!_•.?-'..f:41.',.":4qii':1-='"-7.."-it;;•''L-!."':*: '-'..--;;'-f."'-'-;'-'..`;;4•7'/!. --,...?';'•:::f-:1-'4.-4 11-,i7-1".e,N, s.-..--'''1. . ..:(-Z-q-l.i45$:`,..-P*I417.4.--Md,44.fr",-;=`,...:„Iti, 11-,,,•••A,C,•.)•;-.-:;•,-,,t'i,.7.-;'.-X.,i-i1FAI...',-,-;,-.2",1-'-.3'!Y,;,';;;.1.:.'jp-;;;i•?7;;;-•,,,•07..k,;:!Ati--e;',:ei;ir•-•;irf...:',4,.:;;".--'1'fiir'!'Z.L.i'l-';!•''','-;!-I"';'',1';'-1.1---r:',-.2;•';''':----'-2;.'4.-t-T....r*.V,; 6. \-•,2*.I.z,ci-I:„--,,,:;,:•1,,S:.. .ti.12.,•,,Ts.5:4,,t??_,,t4i,,i2;:::ieift:•,24:;.A-4:-,-421-4•V2.1..4,A;,,-.', :,,•11,...7..3-,;-,y;;-_,:;:-1-.,2,..„. .ligt:f'a,-; !,-;71--1,•:'-gl,:if,1:1-`._';'-`3:--.:'-f-=.44'...-:T;!:",q4,:-;'741'}',--tlal,: f3,-.q.:• -•::`_;f...?;:iz'i.1.'.-;" :4,t•-•:';:•,',,•Cirl'•'- ''.:1-,-,it;;.".47. '4Y7trA4'-f`l'-T.?-1411'.:'-i':'V4rIft-''' ''.1-ilr..-4- '-'Sli '.7N4'-',1.---14:441--1.1-•-c't'"-'!1$'1',;'%;-.7c-i-•;t4.1.;-5: 4'k!"'"T'''i'•s;''''' ''Ll.';5:•:'•t-r--I'iigc.-4...',:-:-':::--,1%-. .-.1'.4-.'-- -1:'`';'-t-L7 '-',:::''''-'4-77,?.`!`,;',=`•:C:.,;-';:':;.,','_•-.7,--'i:;:i-..'5-.! ...,.' -.1'!l'W•4 !,1_-,;,-;;;;;;',P-1;4.1,,b'''- 1.-,141?'-:,',;-51.;.?i 'l.;.-.1';',,*4-1-';:'•_.3-•.". ",".1.4'37,'F..:Ik4',-, *•..;-4i•-•'-i-i'•-k.1.5.71:•:qP.-V-f.,•:--':'•IZ:;';": 7::: Cl.'-':.:-i.-.4-. 51`il'Y'''..-:• •=';'1.2k;; t:/).;•7j-:;'''',',:;f-g--''.f-,...-: .-'•''''-'-'1,7•'i:*-11:::•11.1iPy ..,_,..Slif,t'.1.1 ,‘,Fr5i11.-.;'-3"::4":s•,i;:_ ;',> -).•'Ztf7'--`..3_4'1,;Rt.:',.1_3;'‘rS:14,1g,-.4-.4W,S.':,‘Z-;. .a,,-ti-t.:.,rl''.i:'-'•It'-';7•••!.;r:;-7*k.%";i t':-ZajcV'Zt.'.f.i .1-,i•-•'-i•-+,'1,1Z.'tii. i:e.i.0.7•!1? ''''''''i?-5.,,•----'17',".t.'4'-'.-27::;,"Pl-,`'-','",1-41-•13- . !i`-P".741f,:r;13:'•5'1^;t,'''.'3Wii.'44- :4-V(i.^.'''''-7:•*'4.:---ii''''Z',.i:F.!;-:,';t',"1,:,.i::'/.1:Tt.,*'''?r'''.Y1-P.,',---.1.1,F,f'-7).1...:1_1' .','%..q,,,:_g:14',ST.4'1.!;,',Iili_ii,‘.,:;,'3I.;-"i"..1.:4.:,....',.,.„._Ii;.:-:•.7c..,,,-:.,11-7,.i-__::',.!;.-:_tz',..,...'''.,'..,;,•',Z-7),..-',..;,t S.',-,`.;-•-:-_'''S,.. "'',.';.-',..r,i-.Z e'r-ttk.'7'2:?,4,...iFi‘,1,t):4!,:=1:""'-;:,7-.,,;;$7•,_,:.f?-2-14§.4-'ii+4'..,_P-‘:4i;.:;41:.i14Vt-f.:il':; f;iF.'::;.;isk-f:::.-V- I'lis-',.. 1::;;`&1;-_,'-•f'j'i.14t'S'fii't.:i'Ffir;'314-.1til:'''..k:A'.'f:':'t:k.'•.(P_ff:?-:::5'"I'Ir.'11-::'-':It.7'-',It';: ::''';',"'i:',.fr''''::: ::.'-D'-`;-!`-k,-, -.,f. -i-i.i.:',i---11-.:1:',-..',.--:,''YA'AavqR41-,--A-e4,-,-.-if-.:F.tli-,-4§,1!---4Ax-:-,,,i,,;::4---1.-: i_t.,.5,--,,,,.-,,,:::.:--p.:,: i:: ::-,f0-?,•<7..-§,,V,,,,;,--,g,1-ci-,:f..,4.z,,P.:',:i.,,if,?4,--372 -, }f., -1--ir:17. ;cif!.t4:;•7V.....::.4:'.i.='-..i..",i":-. ..:;''''.q..V,' ,.‘i,r.'Q--i--:.--a:41'...t i'.6.it.•,.!:t:.:YT-.Y4.,-y;z1-4:-,•?--1,•i-i,ke.'4,,-.1-,-.f.zix-- 1'.51.X:- .4qA--,V-.:.*.4.1ii-1::-:1:':,1-:-:':.--'4..'kzv.'.1, .->:':••;•3:-..;'.i--!,he• -- '''',-kVi.-•t,:f.-4-1.,. .--•.1-',•."- f--cir‘",".:2,-`•1.'•-!,--,::;.;:.-',5'-,`.;:•;:."...-E'#-?-,1; Vz.liPg-IX-';49-:1-''';',- '-141"-',.-',.:4...!t-Y--1,4...r,,i'-'75,7iVr:i-'}-„,•''''*•Z-.4.','-:`I 'A-','=--,-Ii-Y.:-•-7,;:i•Vi-'i:• :;.:,,e;.!-?:.'„'".;--&;:ij-11.-Q..1-.1-.-1.=J--41:::,,c.-",_ 1--5i44.;-'-',!-,.t;,..,f;.•;'.:iLt: k.1`,1!..:`,:is,,..;-:,?,,.:•,-,-;.--,:-..%-;:..1 -,',-,VI''.4' filii:4-;-Icir's.rif,'-',3;-:3•'?:-..4,wr:-cAl-,.-4,..t:17:::.4.1.i .-4:-. ..-4;;Fils:: :_,,- -..i..!,4.7-0....--z.F.;i: ;=_, S.`•:;=;-4;4:-).,:- .t.f.,.-41z,--,:-.P.;',..4t44.v,,-,-,'.),;,.`,a'-,,i "...=;::-.;:i.",;..,! •17-,:;-,-t.,-,. :•,..v',;.-.:,:,.:- ,'fz.V1-;;41= oak l','!,i3;--vt,i,e4-.;1**-:61-.1-.,-,=4.-,----5,t,:_z_v;49k-i--,4,47s...-;-,,,,,3e. 4,.•-;af-ifis-i-- ,-.•::.-:,"-c-A5'.,-.=•--,-';.A.--::;*;••:;'.--t :Y-t-11;;,•-il:'•-•,4j,t-tr'' ---.,------'4"--4,"-*;-i.i',i--.%`..7;;.-',11:i,-/-!,.-.1"4;.-..-;;T:.,-;.-,,1,-...;.;--r.3.;-,: ,:-.,.. .,,--e.,It.-t=4,,,.-..I.t.-.-„I.-t..f,:t.!-!..f,..11-1%?_,--_-*?--,:;.•-4-..$:;..!..--,cy,-..,..- -.1.:vk....67,;...:It-rziA.7-4*•-V-4t.-.I--,-'1P-1.,:i34:5:-.0:ex .7'4.--..-r...„: :Y-1-,,,?.--?;-;,---,.1-7-i:,'.!,.','„c.:•;-,`',...::71-Z.1•-!_- -,-'-,..',.. '401 ;-iF:',.-.3--$..,-,;1''.:4•,v-.,40.1"-.titit;ki-;-T14:1-"..,.. Z-;!•414-', !`f,f,..:'•9.=-3 -%-tz•it-',-- --;-,1•4--;:?,'4;. --..- t''--,.ti,',.it:3-:.:-4-'.-gi.51! .-7`1- --.„4,--,,L2-:„F.;:i.,;',;.3.,i-kii. :,.:.f,,=.1.4.1.',-,1-?r,..-!;---,:.-„,.:.?;.`;,.--....i.--„,-;,,L•y,,,,:-T,..1i.:-.'- -9-0;-Kt4.-?4,--'$--.4.,-:.11,A2.,.11-,,,,-,,,_,.2- 1-,t-t.-'.4.1.-.gkil-t.‘.-.t.,..-:.rsql.e.:-::11411knir-..-,,,it,;$11-4-43..-,-kx,,,t,-........ 4...e.1.sz.:;,.";--,-..i-vz,.,...v.-,----.:,-",--.fl,,,IT-$1.7-.4..e.1•.:•.r...t..•'; ...:s.--,, ,;.-!:A:--,:..-i•-•2i:,:.?-:-tr.•:-',-'-''.'.:,.-el,.---;-,...,:.-..=,..1.1..;•, kr5.4,?.::..t..-„v1.-rj..?..:.-;',•1111Xtrity-4,:rk.,,_,.'4'- ir-..;e*,e,-.,`,.1,:.-74 .1-..-::''A:32."-50;f."1-:.,-, :;--Y-I..t ''...Irzl•-•'-," '-i'-:-1-.:-.:f 7.-,.. ...,...1.- 7.7-,1-0..4i..-.v:i.,;:4A-.,zi. ..n..,,It-,.;,.:,,,,...,‘.1.,...i,.,.,:.,-:.-,-..:„.L.r...:,-.:.•„,,_-.., -_-.,:;,,:i. ,i,r4tir-,-I'ZI,',X--4.,-i`i',6.,:::•-4W.:;,•;14,--tzt..,Wi-1'.,,Z.,7.ifittY:::'-,g4'.?;:•4.--':,-.-it-4-k:--Z:,-1.-VIli:.;:1:-'.. -14.;Fpria'-:::s.i?.,:4, ;.;114-;:Arl--4,2:t::iti,'-c-.14,-..,,-;,..1—,,-,:•'-irs'.ikot..5.6•:,..,11•-i-1 ;iiiijr:;,\1;c-,:l',:',- 1.•/,.'.1•'e.,;-:----r'Ti.'-1'2;i--1.:P-V.5-Wk.::-,4,::-'i,,-. 5.7-..j-1-- .s. .i..1:1.--1--4:4'.1;4.-Y&,,Iz.li---,4;,•, ,,','-!ke:i;:',, =;;i;g-,•1"-f?';',7,.;iiV-01r7•11.k-TINI.W-11)43VIIi.-)4.;:z`?..f:-!`.0":11.4tiff.r, Ct• -,$'--,'-•:;..,-.. -i ,4.4-a'ir•.:-=.''-,-Y-At3i;:i.3-....k ,c,t*,;•;i_12,N-k.tt-4.;;;:ikt-tr,i,l'i..:=,t:',..:ifi-...5,..Ap110401..04c;•'-ill,,k;S--/i4V,:,125,41,A•.ft.. .,-,?_-?1=4-!-,14-:;"1 -1.k.,-,•.1).ir.,..;.,i-ik.':f5s-,--- --f-'::-:: -. ;>;:?::: ','.5;:'-''; f."Ii:rig?i,t'r--:`,6:;i:71;-k-.K.11Y• Y;''Vi-'5..._. *::'- 'ig.li.`liiiff;',;41-,-i.: -- -1:t .-,;va...17, •,;.tt.i:,tt'.Fii.,./::',-z- ::-4..:44::! •5!,:k.'A-1.-,V.Tir,411-ii`;74. 74,/4-Z41-',1qi-ii`pk-lyar.,.. 2:-fi.1--S.::'?:;i, .' :‘it•-• ?..--;_':-Y•f--e.;j4-4=1-'-'il•t'i:.'a-f4,I-i;-'-'t'."--1'.1;-;'.'•i--',1•:-.: •-.`'ajg.ii---TV-,;1-'-';'-'•'-i'-t.-f:':'7-'ap.:'',-6:1..r_,_';').-:Ptagellii:re:Villt:,>.$k-.Ni°, , ,..,!:-!'-r7-,,7Fv.ri;Y.1- •.,'- ',L'T.,,'..:j1,-f,.. ..1':',,i:!--.',.*:'.. -.,-...:.P.;;;-.,-..,;-,.=,-,,!--(41.1A,Y'..-,,,-r.i.-.1,.,-•i.,-,.-.. ...,,,,I,---..;t.,;-''.-;.--.Ne....s'ir.,,A', .-4.4.,`:.ti7-1-74•-t.t.-.',..,...,I;,--, :,-i!.-.7-,..,‘-:..-,-4-',..:-_,I.A.,?!..;,--e.,=:,,,,,-_,:-:-..,4.--1:-;-,-,;.-4P•f-:,-1,-..`f.--,g,,..-4,,,,,tla.:., -:3..--•-••c,;,-......,,,..--.-,-. ,,,11,.,„4.,,,e1...,t,„:,7%.,...,.„1,,,,...,77,..a.i„t.v.i.,..5„1;_,,.,...,...„_,....„0.......„-,iitc.,:esk...--,74:xt-4,--;,,1:41J--...!--,-,,e•--Zz-it:'-..1--;--Fe---1.....,.z. . -1,4•,,-,•-:-.1...;,-.4,,t,'Al.--.15r.-';'P'-`is'-'i""Y:: '';'•'•':•f'2:,-.'--,',Z-l''''-",':,--'''''. '\'"1-*':.•-'•%."-i'''.1''''''t•-'•'-'-'.`----,T-r.c."--'?"-P:A.-1--'4,--.,M,-••vAl.-,..":`,..,!1",,,,,,,,,,,1!-.t. --.4--.41tea.,--I..,:,-,...---,%,er,•;,,,z,,•,.•,._,24.2•ke.ti-•;-&,-,..-v-,...1...,-.0, .:-..,..4.-2.-„,,,,.....•,--4--,•••:,.----'1-- - - ''''':1•*--"fir.f.'•?2'...'1----1...7t-T'Ir-O-y_LIV.1.-1- -4,- -'•1•,••'-,--i•fr,..:,n.,,,,v,,t...;•,,-,At.,-,-,,-z,:•,,_,,E,..--.....7,F:....-,..-1;s1.-„, c.,;.:_•,,.?..-....-,„..*--,1-7,...,•fg.,.;.,1-,47, -';',-•`..v,,..,•'-'.. •'. . :A.,_!7,-,:,,,..V.:„.!..,tcse,•?•-•..i-,..,1•-"t•if::',A,=:.p.....11:7i4, .;,-,:--e-ri-e"::.......;•.--i-v_•;,•,e-.--,,,r,..},;'.1.,--,iliV.-'41,1Z-,•2,--;',k•-•••,,,, 'A....,-,r•-4..".•- - ;%.'-.-:':'''.;...1-- � £. Bo--Id D. Bobbin-,CI"•. = DrvidT. Pc,c• CPA Jarm.. Beaudoin.PFY,CFP CP.1 PINNOCK, ROBBINS, POSEY & RICHINS RicK. ..lr!:Int,CP.-• Dan'.d T.Barlo CL\ Ce,r/17 c.'Mil lic Accountant, • A Prof;si'rat Curparatinr Grr60:: 0 Hrt PFS,CF( ,Li', INDEPENDENT AUDITORS'REPORT To the Board of Directors Volunteers of America, Utah We have audited the accompanying consolidated statement of financial position of Volunteers of America, Utah (a nonprofit organization) as of June 30, 2010 and the related consolidated statements of activities, functional expenses, and cash flows, for the year then ended. These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Organization's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the consolidated financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management,as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Organization as of June 30, 2010, and the changes in its net assets and cash flows for the year then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated October 25, 2010, on our consideration of the Organization's internal control over financial reporting and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts and grant agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards and should be considered in assessing the results of our audit. Our audit was performed for the purpose of forming an opinion on the consolidated financial statements of the Organization taken as a whole. The accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards is presented for purposes of additional analysis as required by U.S. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133,Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations, and is not a required part of the consolidated financial statements. Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the consolidated financial statements and, in our opinion, is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the consolidated financial statements taken as a whole. PI'mtpc,K,V--61:121‘v15, (pcs P-4 c.,C\jin October 25,2010 VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA,UTAH '"""+ CONSOLIDATED STA 1'EMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION(CONTINUED) DUNE 30,2010 LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS CURRENT LIABILITIES: Accounts payable $ 120,742 Accrued expenses 449,239 Notes payable,current portion 31,319 TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES 601,300 LONG-TERM LIABILITIES: Notes payable 184,861 TOTAL LONG-1bRM LIABILITIES 184,861 TOTAL LIABILITIES 786,161 NET ASSETS: Unrestricted 3,534,688 Temporarily restricted 207,330 TOTAL NET ASSETS 3,742,018 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS $ 4,528,179 See accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA, UTAII CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF FUNCTIONAL EXPENSES FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30,2010 Program Services Supporting Services Encouraging Total Total positive Fostering Promoting Program Management Supporting development independence self-sufficiency Services and general Development Services Totals alaries S 468,454 $ 342,391 5 2,426,909 $ 3,237,754 $ 524,377 $ 206,014 $ 730,391 5 3,968,145 2nsion expense 4,827 2,640 16,233 23,700 11,962 3,005 14,967 38,667 thcr employee benefits 35,262 25,251 229,629 290,142 42,190 13,488 55,678 345,820 ayroll taxes 40,985 28,032 214,274 283,291 41,277 19,004 60,281 343,572 gal fees - - 150 150 1,263 - 1,263 1,413 ccounting fees 2,537 4,745 28,205 35,487 2,804 2,808 5,612 41,099 tiler professional fees 15,158 15,462 179,242 209,862 22,513 26,798 49,311 259,173 ipplies and expenses 31,130 15,957 288,125 335,212 7,621 6,133 13,754 348,966 tlecommunications 8,449 10,791 32,052 51,292 7,230 2,896 10,126 61,418 )stage 284 1,294 1,063 2,641 3,575 3,439 7,014 9,655 ecupancy expense 62,100 58,449 292,301 412,350 64,439 22,405 86,844 499,694 terest expense 146 215 5,081 5,442 33 - 33 5,475 surance 6,980 5,002 43,445 55,427 2,517 4,254 6,771 62,198 luipment rental and maintenance 8,009 4,134 33,957 46,100 9,171 812 9,983 56,083 inting and publications 1,856 1,255 19,228 22,339 2,847 11,303 14,150 36,489 avel and transportation 6,025 19,591 28,277 53,893 2,342 889 3,231 57,124 inference and meetings 1,437 13,332 12,608 27,377 9,512 2,586 12,098 39,475 recific assistance 10 individuals 29,271 193,806 233,523 456,600 - - - 456,600 her 32 658 - 690 _ 4,320 14,874 19,194 I9,884 spreciation expense 32,769 1,390 158,293 192,452 51,255 2,200 53,455 245,907 lm inistrative fees - - - - 128,187 - 128,187 128,187 S 755,711 $ 744,395 $ 4,242,595 5 5,742,701 $ 939,435 $ 342,908 $ 1,282,343 $ 7,025,044 -- See accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements 7 VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA,UTAH .40004 NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DUNE 30,2010 1. DESCRIPTION OF BUSINESS AND SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES The consolidated financial statements of Volunteers of America,Utah include the financial statements of Cornerstone Counseling Center,LLC(a wholly-owned subsidiary), and are collectively referred to as Volunteers of America, Utah, or the Organization. Volunteers of America, Utah is a nonprofit spiritually based human services organization, incorporated in Utah that provides social services within Utah under a charter from Volunteers of America, Inc., a national nonprofit spiritually based organization providing local human service programs, and opportunities for individual and community involvement. Volunteers of America, Utah operates social services programs within the counties of Salt Lake,Davis,Tooele, Carbon,Grand,San Juan, and Emery in the State of Utah. a. Basis of Accounting The accounting policies of the Organization conform to generally accepted accounting principles as applicable to nonprofit voluntary health and welfare organizations. b. Principles of Consolidation The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Volunteers of America, Utah and ,44,000 Cornerstone Counseling Center, LLC. Volunteers of America, Utah is the sole member of Cornerstone Counseling Center, LLC. All significant intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation. c. Cash and Cash Equivalents Cash equivalents are all highly liquid investments with a maturity of three months or less when purchased,unless held for reinvestment as part of the investment portfolio,pledged to secure loan agreements or otherwise restricted or designated. The carrying amount approximates fair value because of the short maturity of those instruments. d. Investments Investments, whether purchased or contributed, are recorded at fair value. Realized and unrealized gains and losses are included in the consolidated statement of activities. e. Use of Estimates The preparation of the consolidated financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes. Actual results could differ from those estimates. f. Concentration of Credit Risks Financial instruments which potentially subject the Organization to concentrations of credit risk ,as,4400 consist of cash and temporary investments, and investment securities. The Organization places its cash and temporary investments with creditworthy, high quality financial institutions. The Organization maintains certain bank accounts with balances in excess of FDIC insured limits. VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA,UTAH NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED) 1. DESCRIPTION OF BUSINESS AND SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (CONTINUED) 1. Restricted and Designated Assets Restricted and designated assets represent the total of all assets that are encumbered by donor restrictions, legal agreements, and board designation or are otherwise unavailable for the general use of the Organization. m. Contributions • Contributions are generally recorded only upon receipt, unless evidence of an unconditional promise to give has been received. Unconditional promises to give that are expected to be collected in future years are recorded at the present value of the amounts expected to be collected. Conditional promises to give are not included as support until such time as the conditions are substantially met. All contributions are considered available for unrestricted use unless specifically restricted by the donor. n. Contributed Services and In-Kind Donations The Organization recognizes contribution revenue for certain services received at the fair value of those services provided those services create or enhance non-financial assets or require specialized skills, which are provided by individuals possessing those skills and would typically need to be purchased if not provided by donation. No amounts have been reflected in the financial statements for donated volunteer services, which do not satisfy the criteria for recognition; however, a substantial number of volunteers donated approximately 6,950 hours of service to the Organization's programs during the year ended June 30, 2010. The Organization receives food and other expendable items for use in their programs. These donations are recorded at their estimated fair market value. o. Allocation of Functional Expenses The costs of providing the various program services and supporting activities have been summarized on a functional basis in the statement of activities. Accordingly, certain costs have been allocated among the various functions. p. Income Taxes Under provision of Section 501(c)(3)of the Internal Revenue Code and the applicable income tax regulations of the State of Utah, Volunteers of America, Utah is exempt from income taxes, except for net income from unrelated business income, as a subordinate unit of Volunteers of America, Inc. Volunteers of America, Inc. is exempt from Federal income taxes under Section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code as a charitable organization described in Section 501(c)(3). There were no unrelated business activities in 2010. Accordingly, no tax expense was incurred during the year ended June 30,2010. Beginning July 1, 2009, the Organization applied the measurement and disclosure provisions for uncertain tax positions as required by FASB Accounting Standards Codification 740-10. This subtopic requires that computations and deferred income tax provisions only consider tax positions that are more likely than not to be sustained if the tax authority examines the positions. Management believes that all tax positions considered for this purpose meet this "more likely than not" threshold. No adjustment was required to the financial statements upon application of this provision. VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA,UTAH NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED) 2. ORGANIZATION(CONTINUED) Fostering Independence Volunteers of America,Utah fosters the health and independence of the elderly and persons with disabilities, mental illness,and HIV/AIDS through program services which provide or link clients to quality affordable housing,health care services,and a wide range of community services. Community Enhancement I Remember Mama is a unique formal dinner celebrated in conjunction with Mother's Day to acknowledge and honor over 200 homeless and low-income women who have made the choice to break the cycle of substance abuse and homelessness. Elderly Services Retired and Senior Volunteer Program invites older adults to put their experience to work solving problems close to home. Foster Grandparent Program engages seniors age 60 and older who meet financial eligibility • requirements in programs serving at-risk youth. Mental Health Domestic Violence Treatment Programs are available in outpatient format options including group, individual and family therapy. Programs provide treatment to victims, the witnesses/victims of domestic violence, as well as the perpetrators,with different focuses for youths and adults. Promoting Self-sufficiency Volunteers of America, Utah promotes self-sufficiency for individuals and families who have experienced homelessness, or other personal crisis, including chemical dependency, involvement with the corrections system and unemployment. The Organization focuses on solution-oriented approaches, using a continuum of services from prevention to intervention to long-term support. Homeless Services Homeless Youth Resource Center Drop-In Center- The overall purpose of this program is to improve the quality of life for homeless youth by meeting basic needs, assisting youth in obtaining employment and/or education, and facilitate entry into affordable housing. When needed, referrals are made to medical, mental health, and substance abuse service providers. On-site case management services are offered to youth in crisis and those youth motivated to resolve issues surrounding homelessness. Street Outreach Program - Each weekday, the program seeks out homeless street youth currently not accessing services. The outreach team provides basic needs items and gives referrals to agencies providing essential human services, including the Homeless Youth Resource Center Drop-In Center and Transition Home. VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA.UTAH NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED) 2. ORGANIZATION(CONTINUED) The Adult Substance Abuse Treatment Program enables the client to pursue therapy with peers, and consists of standard and intensive outpatient treatment for adults who have been referred to treatment. Treatment is provided through individual and group counseling and therapy sessions, and individual treatment plans, while clients have the ability to remain at home, at work and active in their community. 3. UNCONDITIONAL PROMISES TO GIVE Unconditional promises to give at June 30,2010 are as follows: Receivable in less than one year $ 32,710 Less: allowance for uncollectible pledges on current portion (14,720) Unconditional promises to give net of allowance,current portion $ 17,990 Receivable in one to five years $ 26,645 Less: allowance for uncollectible pledges on long-term portion (11,990) Unconditional promises to give, net of allowance, long-term portion $ 14,655 4. GRANTS RECEIVABLE Grants receivable are comprised of the following amounts at June 30,2010: Salt Lake City Housing Authority $ 422 Salt Lake County Division of Substance Abuse 225,515 US Department of Health and Human Services 73,645 State of Utah-Department of Health 20,745 State of Utah-Homeless Trust Fund 44,102 Corporation for National Community Service 75,121 Veterans Administration 1,960 US Department of Housing and Urban Development 40,080 Grants,various 10,947 TOTAL GRANTS RECEIVABLE $ 492,537 VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA,UTAH NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED) 7. RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS(CONTINUED) As explained in Note 10, the Organization has loans due to Volunteers of America,Inc. as of June 30, 20]0 totaling S_100,324. As allowed for under the terms of the loan agreement, the Organization was forgiven the annual debt service payment of $26,686 for meeting certain ratios and financial requirements. This amount is included as public support received indirectly from Volunteers of America,Inc. on the consolidated statement of activities. The Organization participates in the Volunteers of America, Inc. Scholastic Books program. The total value of books received during 2010 was$12,500. The Organization participates in the Volunteers of America, Inc. direct mail program. During 2010, the Organization received $2,816 as gross revenue and had$23 in related expenses. As of June 30, 2010 the Organization did not have any amounts due from Volunteers of America, Inc. 8. LINE-OF-CREDIT The Organization has a line-of-credit from a financial institution for up to$425,000. Borrowings bear interest at the greater of prime rate plus 1.00%, or the floor rate of 5.00% (5.00% at June 30, 2010) ,000140, and are secured by the Organization's assets. Interest payments are due monthly,with all outstanding , principal and accrued unpaid interest due at maturity(April 15, 2011). The Organization did not have any borrowings as of June 30,2010. 9. OPERATING LEASES The Organization has various non-cancelable operating leases, primarily for office facilities and program facilities. Future minimum lease payments under these operating lease commitments are as follows: Years ended June 30, 2011 $ 348,344 2012 202,161 2013 49,216 2014 38,611 2015 27,900 $ 666,232 The Organization received$3 1,325 from a leasing company in connection with a new copier lease entered into during the year ended June 30, 2010, This amount will be used to make the payments on '410* an old copier lease. The $31,325 payment received by the Organization is not reflected in the minimum lease payments above. Rental expense was $342,722 for the year ended June 30,2010. 17 VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA,UTAH NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED) 11. TEMPORARILY RESTRICTED NET ASSETS Temporarily restricted net assets are available for the following purposes as of June 30,2010: Program or Support Service: Promoting Self Sufficiency $ 207,330 • At June 30, 2010, the Organization had cash balances of $207,330, held for these temporarily restricted net assets. As a result, the cash and cash equivalents are temporarily restricted for this amount until the restrictions have been met. Net assets totaling $159,984 were released from donor restrictions by incurring expenses or capital purchases satisfying the purpose of the related program or support service during the year ended June 30,2010. 12. PENSION AND RETIREMENT PLANS The Organization maintains a 403(b) defined contribution retirement plan for its employees, into which the Organization contributes a discretionary match of 4% of eligible employees' earnings during the year for those participants who contribute a minimum of 1% of eligible earnings. Employees are eligible for the match in this plan after one year of service. The Organization's contribution to the 403(b)plan for the year ended June 30,2010 was$24,925. The Organization also maintains a 401(k) plan for employees who are employed in the Cornerstone Counseling Center programs. The Organization contributes a discretionary match of up to 3% of eligible employees' earnings during the year for employees eligible to participate in the plan. Employees are eligible for the match in this plan after one year of service, The Organization's contribution to the 401(k)plan for the year ended June 30,2010 was$13,742. In March, 2010, the Organization suspended the matching contributions to the 403(b) and 401(k) plans. Subsequent to June 30, 2010, the Board of Directors approved a match to be reinstated effective October 1,2010(see also Note 13). 13. SUBSEQUENT EVENTS The Organization has evaluated subsequent events through October 25, 2010, which is the date the financial statements were available to be issued. Effective July 1, 2010, Cornerstone Counseling Center, LLC has been dissolved and all accounts have been merged with Volunteers of America, Utah. In addition, a new 403(b) plan has been formed. The Organization will contribute a discretionary match of 3% of participating benefit eligible employees' earnings. Employees are eligible to participate in this plan upon hire and eligible to receive the discretionary match after one year of service. io R,Wald D. Robbins,CPA D .idT.Po:. CP.'. J:,.,r R. nc niduin.PFS,CFr' PIN \JOCK, ROBBINS. POSEY & RICHINS adeK.'„-tkH,CP.. D:ni<IT.ado Coo fled Puhlr:Accct:;.tants • AProf ssion✓l Cory oration Gregoir O.Hide, PFS, CF: .CP., INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO EACH MAJOR PROGRAM AND ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER COMPLIANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH OMB CIRCULAR A-133 To the Board of Directors Volunteers of America,Utah Compliance We have audited the compliance of Volunteers of America, Utah (the Organization), with the types of compliance requirements described in the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement that are applicable to each of its major federal programs for the year ended June 30, 2010. The Organization's major federal programs are identified in the summary of auditors' results section of the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs. Compliance with the requirements of laws, regulations, contracts and grants applicable to each of its major federal programs is the responsibility of the Organization's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the A/4k Organization's compliance based on our audit. We conducted our audit of compliance in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America; the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; and OMB Circular A-]33, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations. Those standards and OMB Circular A-133 require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether noncompliance with the types of compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on a major federal program occurred. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Organization's compliance with those requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our audit does not provide a legal determination of the Organization's compliance with those requirem ents. In our opinion the Organization complied, in all material respects,with the requirements referred to above that are applicable to each of its major federal programs for the year ended June 30, 2010. Internal Control Over Compliance The management of the Organization is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over compliance with requirements of laws, regulations, contracts, and grants applicable to federal programs. In planning and performing our audit, we considered the Organization's internal control over compliance with the requirements that could have a direct and material effect on a major federal program in order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on compliance, „err, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the Organization's internal control over compliance. 1 ;(, Foci ce,,,rh 77cn c,ir I r•; , i i, h cxi i i cni i' Wino r_.. on„co, ni, VOLUNTEERS OFAMERICA,UTAH SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS JUNE 30,2010 A. SUMMARY OF AUDIT RESULTS 1. The auditors' report expresses an unqualified opinion on the consolidated financial statements of Volunteers of America,Utah. 2. No significant deficiencies relating to the audit of the consolidated financial statements are reported in the INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MATTERS BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS. 3. No instances of noncompliance material to the consolidated financial statements of Volunteers of America, Utah were disclosed during the audit. 4. No significant deficiencies relating to the audit of the major federal award programs are reported in INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO EACH MAJOR PROGRAM AND ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER COMPLIANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH OMB CIRCULAR A-133. 5. The auditors' report on compliance for the major federal award programs for Volunteers of America, Utah expresses an unqualified opinion on all major federal programs. 6. There were no audit findings disclosed by the audit that the auditor is required to report in accordance with Section 510(a)of OMB Circular A-133. 7. The program tested as a major program was: Supportive Housing Program, CFDA number 14.235 8. The threshold for distinguishing between Type A and B programs was $300,000. 9. Volunteers of America,Utah qualified as a low-risk auditee. 13. FINDINGS—FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AUDIT None. C. FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS—MAJOR FEDERAL AWARD PROGRAMS AUDIT No findings or questioned costs were noted related to our audit of the major federal award programs. VOLUN PEERS OF AMERICA,UTAH ,. SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS (CONTINUED) YEAR ENDED JUNE 30,2010 Notes to Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards Note A—Basis of accounting The accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards includes the federal grant activity of Volunteers of America, Utah and is presented on the accrual basis of accounting. The information in this schedule is presented in accordance with the requirements of OMB Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations. Therefore, some amounts presented in this schedule may differ from amounts presented in, or used in the preparation of,the consolidated financial statements. Item A- 5 See C-4 from 11/ 22/ 11 MEMORANDUM DATE: December 1,2011 TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks RE: Briefing:Updates Proposed Interlocal Agreement Pertaining to the Sugar House/South Salt Lake Streetcar Line CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson,David Everitt,Ed Rutan,Neil Lindberg,Rusty Vetter,DJ Baxter,Frank Gray, Tim Harpst,Jennifer Bruno,Gina Chamness,Gordon Hoskins,Robert Farrington,Ed Butterfield, Karen Halladay This memorandum pertains to updates to a proposed interlocal agreement among Salt Lake City, South Salt Lake,and the Utah Transit Authority outlining each party's responsibilities,financial and otherwise,in the construction and operation of a two-mile streetcar line running from McClelland Street (1050 East 2200 South)in Salt Lake City to the Utah Transit Authority's Central Pointe TRAX Station at 221 West 2100 South in the City of South Salt Lake. The City Council has scheduled a December 6 public hearing on the proposed agreement and for a public hearing on Budget Amendment No.4,which is related to the project.The Council heard a briefing about the proposed agreement and the proposed budget amendment from Mayor Ralph Becker's Administration on November 22. Since the briefing,the Administration has forwarded an updated and revised version of the interlocal agreement.The revisions are based largely on conversations the Administration has held with South Salt Lake and UTA representatives. OPTIONS o Adopt the proposed agreement. o Do not adopt the proposed agreement. o Amend the proposed agreement. POTENTIAL MOTIONS Motions will be prepared after the December 6 public hearing. KEY POINTS There appear to be three changes to the agreement that may directly affect Salt Lake City: According to the Administration,Section 6.4.16 was revised to eliminate funding obligations where all three parties agreed to mutually share in any project cost overruns.The section now provides 1 that UTA will not issue a notice to proceed on the project unless the bid from the project is within the $37.18 million project budget.It might be noted that the section still contains language in which all three parties agree to offset unanticipated cost overruns by cutting the scope of the project,"if possible,and with any required FTA approval,before exceeding the Estimated Cost Project." The second proposed revision would eliminate the original agreement's requirement that one method of ending Salt Lake City's and South Salt Lake's obligation to share in the cost of operations and maintenance of the line for two years would be a successful voter referendum awarding UTA another quarter-cent increase in sales tax revenue.The proposed revision would require only that a referendum in Salt Lake County be held.The section in which the proposed revision appears retains the two-year time limit on sharing operations and maintenance costs. The third proposed revision would require all three parties to agree to management policies formulated by a"project integration team"that would"identify how the Parties will operate within the Sugar House Spur,and how the Parties might fund operations and improvements within the Sugar House Spur." ISSUES/QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION o The City Council tentatively is scheduled to formally consider the proposed agreement and a companion budget amendment on December 13.Are other revisions likely to be proposed after the December 6 public hearing?Does the Administration expect to propose amendments to the agreement? o The Council may wish to ask the Administration to give its opinion on addressing project cost overruns by first cutting the scope of the project. o The Council may wish to ask the Administration how the proposed project integration team would work and how the team would address funding operations and improvements along the streetcar line. 2 ' Resolution 33 of 2008 Page 1 of 3 2008 Resolutions Resolution 33 of 2008 Click here to view entire resolution JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 33 OF 2008 A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR ADOPTING A LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FOR THE UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY (UTA) TO EXTEND TRANSIT OPTIONS WITHIN THE SUGAR HOUSE TRANSIT CORRIDOR WHEREAS, the Utah Transit Authority ("UTA") is a public transit district, which presently owns and operates a high capacity rail fixed guideway system serving portions of the Salt Lake Valley; and WHEREAS,this rail fixed guideway system has been a major success with ridership substantially exceeding pre- construction projections and public sentiment strongly supporting rapid expansion of high capacity fixed guideway systems;and WHEREAS,UTA proposes to expand fixed guideway systems to include,among other things,a 3-mile rail fixed guideway system from the Sugar House community of Salt Lake City to the City of South Salt Lake,as more particularly described herein(the"Sugar House Transit Corridor");and WHEREAS, UTA purchased an existing railroad right of way within the Sugar House Transit Corridor from Union Pacific in 2002, anticipating the future need for light rail transit expansion within Salt Lake City; and WHEREAS, Salt Lake City's Sugar House Community Master Plan (adopted December 13, 2005, Ordinance 89 of 2005) explicitly identifies in its 'Business District Goals and Objectives' the theme of"directing development to be transit and pedestrian oriented"; and WHEREAS, the Sugar House Community Master Plan explicitly states in its `Multi- modal Priorities' that future land use patterns in Sugar House should support the implementation of mass transit throughout the community; and WHEREAS, the Sugar House Community Master Plan explicitly states support for the construction of"rail along the Sugar House rail corridor and determine locations for future transit stations and park and ride facilities within the Sugar House Business District"; and WHEREAS, current planning efforts within the Sugar House Transit Corridor such as the Market Station Development (South Salt Lake) and the Granite Block (Salt Lake City) development area have anticipated the extension of rail transit along the existing UTA owned right of way; and WHEREAS, the Sugar House residential and business communities have demonstrated interest and grass roots support for a surface rail alternative to improve mobility and enhance economic opportunities within the area; and WHEREAS, the expansion of transit alternatives via the UTA right of way in the Sugar http://www.slcinfobase.com/Resolutions_1982-2010/WordDocuments/reso... 11/16/2011 Resolution 33 of 2008 Page 2 of 3 1 House Transit Corridor has been reviewed and approved as part of the Wasatch Front Regional Council 2007-2030 Transportation Master Plan, (May 2007); and WHEREAS,construction and operation of a fixed guideway transit system in the Sugar House Transit Corridor will reduce reliance on the private automobile,improve air quality,reduce the growth of vehicle miles traveled, and support the objectives of the Wasatch Front Regional Council's Regional Transportation Plan;and WHEREAS, Salt Lake City and the City of South Salt Lake (the "City Sponsors") along with UTA, commissioned a study of public transportation alternatives within the Sugar House Transit Corridor (the "Alternatives Analysis"); and WHEREAS, prior to conducting the Alternatives Analysis, the City Sponsors agreed upon a list of criteria to be considered to help guide the decision to determine the proper public transportation alternative to operate within the Sugar House Transit Corridor; and WHEREAS, the criteria include: (1) the public transit conveyance operating within the corridor should serve the needs of citizens living and working along the corridor by promoting "walkable neighborhoods" where citizens can conveniently use public transit; (2) it should provide stations or boarding platforms at a maximum spacing of two blocks; (3) it should provide a low-speed system in which vehicles travel at speeds not-to-exceed 25 to 30 miles per hour; (4) it should utilize conventional signals at street and highway crossings that can also accommodate pedestrian crossings; (5) it should use noise reducing technology; (6) it should include a landscaped, multi-use trail at least 15-feet wide throughout the entire corridor to serve as a parkway that increases beauty, enhances socialization and contributes to the walkable nature of the surrounding neighborhoods; and (7) it should make a complete Aew transit-to-transit connection from the 200 West Station on the North-South TRAX line to other mass transit options, including high-frequency buses and future transit modes along the 1100 East/Highland Drive and 1300 East Street traffic corridors. WHEREAS, the federally required Alternatives Analysis is now complete, and Salt Lake City has reviewed the Sugar House Transit Corridor Alternatives Study Final Report, dated January 2008, and finds that it complies with the criteria established by the City Sponsors and accepts its analysis of impacts, costs, environmental constraints, and ridership; and WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan Rail Transit Corridors Map updated in July 2006 identifies the Sugar House area as a potential transit corridor; and WHEREAS, the Sugar House line will be a community level streetcar line and would better serve the transit-friendly Sugar House District, parallel a portion of one of UTA's best performing bus routes, and provide an east-west connection with the West Valley Line and a direct connection to the main north-south light rail line; and WHEREAS, Salt Lake City understands that more specific environmental issues will be reviewed, evaluated, and addressed during subsequent design and engineering phases of the project as well as the final terminus of the line and at that time more specific mitigation measures related to specific impacts will be determined; and WHEREAS, Salt Lake City believes that this proposed project best meets the needs of the City as a whole, and is in the best interest of the public health, safety, and welfare of the City; and WHEREAS, at its meeting on Monday 3 December 2007, the Salt Lake City http://www.slcinfobase.com/Resolutions 1982-2010/WordDocuments/reso... 11/16/2011 • Resolution 33 of 2008 Page 3 of 3 Transportation Advisory Board approved a motion supporting the findings and recommendations of the Sugar House Transit Corridor Alternatives Analysis for a modern rail streetcar along the existing UTA-owned right of way within Salt Lake City and South Salt Lake City, and WHEREAS, at its meeting on Wednesday 13 February 2008, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission approved a motion supporting the findings and recommendations of the Sugar House Transit Corridor Alternatives Analysis for a modern rail streetcar along the existing UTA-owned right of way within Salt Lake City and South Salt Lake City; and WHEREAS, at its meeting on January 23, 2008, the City Council of South Salt Lake City approved a motion supporting the findings and recommendations of the Sugar House Transit Corridor Alternatives Analysis for a modern rail streetcar along the existing UTA owned right of way within Salt Lake City and South Salt Lake City. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Salt Lake City Council and Mayor as follows: 1. Locally Preferred Alternative. That the proposed construction of the rail fixed guideway system for purposes of operating a modern rail streetcar along the existing UTA owned right of way within Salt Lake City and South Salt Lake City, identified in the Sugar House Transit Corridor Alternatives Study Final Report, dated January 2008, is endorsed and approved by the Salt Lake City Council and Mayor as the Locally Preferred Alternative. 2. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage. Passed and Adopted by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this 22nd day of July, 2008. http://www.slcinfobase.com/Resolutions_1982-2010/WordDocuments/reso... 11/16/2011 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. 84 of 2008 (Adopting the "Downtown in Motion"Salt Lake City Downtown Transportation Master Plan) AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE "DOWNTOWN IN MOTION" SALT LAKE CITY DOWNTOWN TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN. WHEREAS, at a June 25, 2008 public hearing on this matter,the Salt Lake City Planning Commission voted in favor of recommending to the Salt Lake City Council ("City Council")that the City Council adopt the proposed "Downtown in Motion"Salt Lake City Downtown Transportation Master Plan; and WHEREAS, after holding a public hearing on this matter, the City Council has determined that the following ordinance adopting the"Downtown in Motion" Salt Lake City Downtown Transportation Master Plan is in the best interest of the City. NOW,THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Adopting the "Downtown in Motion" Salt Lake City Downtown Transportation Master Plan. The"Downtown in Motion"Salt Lake City Downtown Transportation Master Plan is hereby adopted to apply to Salt Lake City's downtown area,as identified in the transportation master plan attached hereto as Exhibit"A", with the following items therein being identified as short-and medium- term items to be accomplished to be revised as follows: 1) The City should make every reasonable effort to pursue funding and develop a streetcar system in the short-term that complements existing and future Utah Transit Authority("UTA") rail lines, including the Sugar House street car spur line; 2) Recommendation number 30 contained in the master plan, which reads: "Complete all designated auto/bike shared travel lanes downtown. Later in term construct additional off-street bike paths," shall be moved to the short-term items to be accomplished instead of the medium-term category; 3) The items listed in the Master Plan under the subhead "City Council Transportation and Mobility Subcommittee" shall be revised in the draft attached hereto as Exhibit"A"to include that: a) the City continue to implement ways to lower the downtown speed limit to a target of 20 miles per hour with flexibility not to exceed 25 mph so that speeds on streets are compatible with pedestrian and bicycle activity and community and economic development; b) walking remain the primary means of travel on sidewalks and that bicycles yield to pedestrians without exception and travel at speeds compatible with pedestrians; c) the City renew its effort to work with the Utah Transit Authority to provide more covered shelters for passengers at bus stops; and d) the City and any other agency or organization studying the implementation of the parking management recommendations in the Downtown in Motion plan work quickly toward implementing the recommendations. 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 11th day of November, 2008. Bill No. 84 of 2008. Published: December 22, 2008. Resolution 44 of 2009 Page 1 of 2 • 2009 Resolutions Resolution 44 of 2009 "" Click here to view entire resolution RESOLUTION NO. 44 of 2009 A Resolution Approving the First Amendment to the Inter-Local Agreement Regarding the Sugar House Transit Corridor Finance Plan, Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Analysis and Authorizing the Mayor to Execute the Same WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City finds that the Utah Transit Authority, Salt Lake City and the City of South Salt Lake ("the Parties") previously entered into the "Inter- Local Agreement Regarding the Sugar House Transit Corridor Finance Plan, Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Analysis Dated January 2009" ("the Agreement"); and WHEREAS, the subject of the Agreement was cooperation in the financing, design and construction of a Sugar House Streetcar System ("the Project"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Agreement, the Parties made initial financial contributions to pay the cost of a creating a finance plan and to complete certain preliminary engineering; and Amok WHEREAS, the Parties are now informed that the Project is eligible to compete for funding pursuant to a federal TIGER Grant program if prompt application'is made and if the required federal environmental clearance process can be expedited; and WHEREAS, the services required to complete the TIGER Grant application and to complete the necessary Environmental Analysis are beyond the scope of work presently budgeted pursuant to the Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Agreement provides for amendment to allow the Parties to change the scope of the work, and to increase the Project budget accordingly, upon mutual consent of the governing bodies for each of the Parties; and WHEREAS, accompanying this resolution and incorporated by this reference are a scope of work and budget for the service of completing a TIGER Grant application and a scope of work and budget for the service of completing an Environmental Analysis that have been approved by the Steering Committee representing the Parties; and WHEREAS, an amendment to the Agreement has been prepared, as permitted pursuant to Utah's Interlocal Cooperation Act (Title 11, Chapter 13 of the Utah Code Annotated), and is attached to this resolution and incorporated by this reference; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that the amendment to the Agreement and the corresponding increase in the budget is in the City's best interest, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: http://www.slcinfobase.com/Resolutions 1982-2010/WordDocuments/reso... 11/15/2011 • Resolution 44 of 2009 Page 2 of 2 1. It does hereby approve the execution and delivery of the following: First Amendment to the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement Among Salt Lake City Corporation, Utah Transit Authority and South Salt Lake City Regarding the Sugar House Transit Corridor Finance Plan, Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Analysis. 2. Ralph E. Becker, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, or his designee, is hereby authorized to approve said agreement on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation, subject to such minor changes which do not materially affect the rights and obligations of the City thereunder and as shall be approved by the Mayor, his execution thereof to constitute conclusive evidence of such approval. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this 18th day of August, 2009. http://www.slcinfobase.com/Resolutions 1982-2010/WordDocuments/reso... 11/15/2011 Resolution 45 of 2009 Page 1 of 2 2009 Resolutions Resolution 45 of 2009 Click here to view entire resolution RESOLUTION NO. 45 of 2009 A Resolution Pledging Support to Contribute One Half of the Required Local Match If Awarded TIGER Grant Funding to Build the Sugar House Streetcar System WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the City and the City of South Salt Lake ("the Cities") have jointly embarked on a venture, in collaboration with the Utah Transit Authority ("UTA"), not just to create a new transit line, but to reintroduce to the Salt Lake Valley the streetcar which was once the mainstay of the Valley's public transportation network; and WHEREAS, the goal of the Cities is not only to provide efficient public transportation between the congested Sugar House business district and the North/South TRAX line, but to reintroduce a system that will produce walkable communities, promote transit-oriented development and accommodate the PRATT trail; and WHEREAS, it is highly likely that federal funding will be necessary to build the streetcar line and that the Cities will be required to provide a local match; and WHEREAS, each of the Cities commit to contribute one half of the required local match; and WHEREAS, the Cities jointly commissioned a study of possible alternatives to raise revenue to fund the local match; and WHEREAS, the Cities are now aware of a promising opportunity to apply for federal TIGER Grant funding to build the streetcar line; and WHEREAS, there is a short window of time within which the Cities and UTA may make application for TIGER Grant funds; and WHEREAS, the Cities and UTA desire to make joint application for these funds; and WHEREAS, in order for the funding application of the Cities and UTA to be competitive it is necessary for the Cities to make a firm commitment that they will provide the local match in the event that their application proves successful, WHEREAS, based upon the estimated project cost ($46,300,000) and the percentage of federal contribution requested in the Cities' proposed joint TIGER Grant application ($35,000,000), the local match for which the Cities would be jointly responsible would be $5,000,000 or $2,500,000 for each of the two Cities; and WHEREAS, in addition to the $5,000,000 contribution from the cities, UTA will commit to contribute real property valued at $6,300,000 for a total local match of $11,300,000; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Salt Lake City Council that it pledges commitment http://www.slcinfobase.com/Resolutions 1982-2O1O/WordDocuments/reso... 11/15/2011 Resolution 45 of 2009 Page 2 of 2 to fund one-half of the local match in an amount not to exceed $2,500,000 in the event that the joint application of the Cities and UTA for TIGER Grant funding proves successful. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this 18th day of August, 2009. http://www.slcinfobase.com/Resolutions 19 82-2010/WordDocuments/reso... 11/15/2011 March 21, 2011 .000148 Secretary La Hood U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, D.C. 20590 Re: Commitment of Local Match for the Sugar House Streetcar Project Dear Secretary LaHood: Salt Lake City and South Salt Lake City, in collaboration with Utah Transit Authority(UTA), have jointly embarked on a venture to reintroduce the streetcar into the Salt Lake valley.The Sugar House streetcar line will provide efficient public transportation as well as promote transit-oriented development and create walkable communities in our cities. We greatly appreciate the award we received last October of$26 million from the TIGER II discretionary fund to showcase the value of the Sugar House Streetcar Project.To assure that this money is spent on its intended purpose, and as an extension of the existing city council resolutions to fund $5 million of the local match,we offer this letter as evidence of our continued support of the project and our determination to do whatever is necessary to see it come to fruition. We understand a $6.18 million capital shortfall of local funds remains to be committed. We,the undersigned, pledge to cover the remaining local match. Because the funding shortfall is close to the unallocated contingency in the project cost estimate, some flexibility exists on ways to narrow the gap. The project team has already drafted an interlocal agreement that outlines the roles, responsibilities, and relationships of the project partners and how the project will be funded.We anticipate the interlocal agreement to be signed later this summer. Private parties—including developers, business owners, and residents—have been engaged and have indicated their willingness to participate. The tenor of the project has always been one of collaboration and cooperation which continues today. Thank you for your continued support of the project. We look forward to working with you to further the grant application process towards award of the funds. Respectfully, Michael Allegra Ralph Becker Cherie Wood General Manager Mayor Mayor Utah Transit Authority Salt lake City South Salt Lake City ..� � "` " ` NOV 30 2011 RALPH BECKER �. �l �� ``� ! By •t-t-tidig a!,,.` MAYOR '�� OFFICE OF THE MAYOR SCANNED TO: Rhufg CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL SCANNE119 By. t DATE: lull rt / Date Received: �� ( 2ü)I Bi. r.►'Shrill/pion behalf of David Eve , ief of Staff Date sent to Council: \ I 3 b I Z0i TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: November 30, 2011 Jill Remington Love, Chair FROM: David Everitt, Chief of Staff SUBJECT: Sugar House Streetcar—Updates to Phase 1 Interlocal Agreement STAFF CONTACT: D.J. Baxter(801)535-7735 or dj.baxter@slcgov.com Gina Chamness (801)535-7766 or gina.chamness@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Updated Interlocal Agreement RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that the City Council set the date for a public hearing for Budget Amendment#4 of FY2011-12, and subsequently approve funding necessary for the City to sign an interlocal agreement to begin construction of the baseline Sugar House streetcar project. The Administration further recommends that a resolution authorizing the approval of an interlocal agreement between the City, Utah Transit Authority, and South Salt Lake City be adopted. BUDGET IMPACT: See original transmittal. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Sugar House Streetcar Interlocal Agreement was submitted to the Council along with the Administration's Transmittal Memorandum on November 8, 2011. Since that time, the UTA Board and South Salt Lake City Council have reviewed and considered the Interlocal Agreement. Certain minor modifications to the Agreement have been agreed upon that are described below. The Administration believes that all the modifications represent improvements to the Agreement. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306 P.O.BOX 145474,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5474 TELEPHONE:801-535-7704 FAX:801-535-6331 www.slcgov.com The South Salt Lake City Council is meeting again today to consider the Agreement and . it is possible that additional minor changes may be proposed. If any other changes are agreed upon, the Administration will immediately inform the Council. Here are the changes to the Agreement: A) Section 6.4.16 has been modified to eliminate the TIER V funding whereby the parties agreed to equally share in any cost overruns. The section has been modified to provide that UTA will not issue a Notice to Proceed unless the bid from the Contractor is within the $37,180,000 project budget. The section now reads: Notice to Proceed. Pursuant to Section 5.2 above, UTA shall not issue a Notice to Proceed to commence construction activities to the Contractor unless UTA is successful in negotiating a contract price for the Baseline Project that, together with other known and reasonably anticipated Project Costs such as right-of-way and professional services, is $37,180,000 or less. The Parties agree to make every effort to construct the Project within the Estimated Project Cost. The Parties agree that they will offset unanticipated cost overruns by cutting scope from the Baseline Project, if possible and with any required FTA approval, before exceeding the Estimated Project Cost. B) Section 13.3 has been modified to eliminate the requirement for there to be a 1/4 cent sale tax increase through a referendum in order to trigger the Cessation of O&M Funding Date. The new section reads: The Cities' obligation hereunder shall terminate on the "Cessation of O&M Funding Date," which shall be the earlier of: (i) December 31 st of a year in which a referendum is held by which Salt Lake County voters approve a sales tax increase dedicated to transit purposes, or (ii) two years after the Revenue Operations Date. Upon the cessation of the Cities' O&M funding obligations hereunder, UTA shall assume full responsibility to fund the O&M Costs. C) Section 16.1 has been modified to provide that the parties will cooperate to consider how additional revenues that have been generated by the project might be allocated fund operation and capital investments in the project. The section now reads: The Project Integration Team will coordinate a process for establishing Sugar House Corridor Management Policies. Such Management Policies, to be completed prior to the Revenue Operations Date, will identify how the Parties will operate within the Sugar House Spur, and how the Parties might fund operations and improvements within the Sugar House Spur. The underlying goals for the Management Policies will include the expectation of the Parties to create an overall integrated area of development that will facilitate the use of the Sugar House Spur by users of the Project, a bike and walking trail, residential areas, and commercial areas, and enhance the overall redevelopment of neighboring areas within each City. Development of the Management Policies will include consideration of new revenues generated by implementation of the Project and by development of adjacent properties, and how such revenues might be allocated in an equitable manner to fund operations and capital investments within the Sugar House Spur on an ongoing basis. D) A new Article 17 has been added to provide for UTA and South Salt Lake to meet and discuss changes in UTA's management of its properties located within the SSL to allow for surplus property to be include in the tax rolls. The new article reads: UTA and SSL recognize and agree that UTA owns a substantial amount of property within the City of South Salt Lake that, by virtue of UTA's status as a quasi-governmental agency, is tax-exempt. UTA and SSL agree to form a task force, promptly following execution of this Agreement, to investigate and implement opportunities for UTA to sell, lease, exchange, or otherwise develop some of its surplus property within the City of South Salt Lake to private owners and thereby bring it onto the tax rolls. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT REGARDING THE SUGAR HOUSE STREETCAR PROJECT THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT REGARDING THE SUGAR HOUSE STREETCAR PROJECT (this "Agreement"), is entered into as of 2011 (the "Effective Date"), by and between SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Utah ("SLC"), the CITY OF SOUTH SALT LAKE, a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Utah ("SSL"), and UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY, a public transit district and political subdivision of the State of Utah ("UTA"). SLC, SSL, and UTA are hereafter sometimes collectively referred to as "Parties" and may be referred to individually as a"Party." RECITALS WHEREAS, UTA owns a discontinued rail corridor known as the "Sugar House Spur," which runs easterly from UTA's North/South TRAX light rail corridor for approximately two miles through SSL and SLC at approximately 2200 South; WHEREAS, the Parties desire to construct and operate a streetcar system along the Sugar House Spur(the "Project"), and have worked together toward that goal for several years; WHEREAS, the Project has been selected for federal assistance under the TIGER II Discretionary Grants program pursuant to Title I (Department of Transportation) of the FY 2010 Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 111-117, Dec. 16, 2009), in an amount not to exceed $26,000,000; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to document herein their mutual goals, and their respective roles and obligations with respect to the Project. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the stated Recitals, which are incorporated herein by reference, and for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth, it is hereby agreed as follows: ARTICLE 1. DEFINITIONS In addition to capitalized terms defined elsewhere in this Agreement,the following terms shall have the following meanings: 1 1.1 "Actual Project Cost" means the actual amount of money expended to design and construct the Baseline Project. 1.2 "Baseline Project" is defined in Article 3, Project Scope. 1.3 "Betterment" means any work that is (i) related to the Project and requires the expenditure of funds or other resources, (ii) not required by this Agreement to be performed as part of the Baseline Project, and (iii) performed at the request of one of the Parties pursuant to Article 12. 1.4 "Cities" means SLC and SSL. 1.5 "Contractor" means the Construction Manager/General Contractor ("CM/GC") to be selected by the Parties and placed under contract to (a) coordinate with the Final Design Consultant during final design; (b) provide preconstruction value engineering and constructability reviews; (c) construct those portions of the Project to be self-performed by the CM/GC; (d) procure, manage and oversee those portions of the Project to be subcontracted; (e) negotiate and establish a lump sum price for the Project as identified in the CM/GC Contract; (f) procure, manage and oversee work that is considered Betterments, and which any Party requests to be performed by the Contractor as provided in Article 12; and (g) perform such other work as agreed by the Parties and incorporated into the terms of the CM/GC Contract. Amok 1.6 "Construction Submittals" means design and construction drawings submitted to UTA by the Contractor, pursuant to the CM/GC Contract. 1.7 "CM/GC Contract"means the construction manager/general contractor contract to be entered into between UTA and the Contractor, pursuant to the terms of Article 5. 1.8 "Design Consultant" means HDR, Inc., the engineering firm selected by the Parties and currently under contract with UTA to perform preliminary design services, and any firm engaged by UTA to perform final design services. 1.9 "Design Services Contract" means that certain Contract for Professional Services between UTA and HDR, Inc., dated August 11, 2011, for preliminary design services, and any contract between UTA and an engineering firm engaged to provide final design services. 1.10 "Design Submittals" means all plans, drawings, or other design documents submitted to UTA by the Design Consultant, pursuant to the Design Services Contract. 1.11 "Final Design Consultant" means HDR, Inc., or such other firm engaged by UTA to provide final design services. 1.12 "Performance Specifications" means those standards, requirements, and criteria set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto. 2 1.13 "Project" means the design and construction of a modern rail streetcar line of approximately two miles in length, running between UTA's Central Pointe TRAX light rail station on the existing north-south light rail corridor, on the west, and McClelland Avenue, or approximately 1050 East. The term "Project" includes the Baseline Project, along with any Betterments desired by a Party and approved pursuant to Article 12. 1.14 "Project Costs" means all costs and expenses heretofore or hereafter incurred by UTA in connection with, and reasonably allocated to, the planning, management, and implementation of the Project in accordance with the Final Design Documents, including by way of example, and not limitation, environmental review costs; preliminary design, final design and construction engineering costs; costs of equipment, materials, supplies and labor; construction costs; and costs of managing construction and enforcing the terms of the CM/GC Contract. Project Costs shall not include legal fees or other expenses incurred in negotiating or drafting this Agreement, or the Parties' financing costs. 1.15 "Project Executive Team" means the SLC Mayor, the SSL Mayor, and the UTA General Manager. 1.16 "Project Footprint" means that portion of the Sugar House Spur physically occupied by facilities and improvements required in the Baseline Project. 1.17 "Project Integration Team" means the SLC Representative, the SSL Representative, and the UTA Representative. 1.18 "SLC Representative" means the SLC City Engineer. As of the Effective Date, the SLC Representative is John Naser. 1.19 "SSL Representative" means the SSL Public Works Director. As of the Effective Date, the SSL Representative is Dennis Pay. 1.20 "UTA Representative"means the UTA Project Manager for the Project. As of the Effective Date, the UTA Representative is Jim Webb. ARTICLE 2. PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT 2.1 The Parties have entered into this Agreement for the following primary purposes: 2.1.1 To identify and document the interests and objectives of each Party with respect to the Project, and to establish Project parameters with respect to design, cost and service requirements. This Agreement shall constitute the guiding document governing the Project. 2.1.2 To provide for the allocation of Project Costs among the Parties. 2.1.3 To describe the respective responsibilities of the Parties and establish cooperative procedures that will achieve the objectives identified herein. 3 2.1.4 To establish a mechanism for achieving critical path milestones (such as obtaining Tiger II Grant funding), and for establishing construction commencement and .... completion dates. 2.1.5 To establish procedures for making decisions in connection with a number of unresolved issues relating to the Project. 2.1.6 To provide for the future operation and maintenance of the Project, and the payment of the costs thereof. 2.1.7 To establish mechanisms for resolving any disputes between the Parties arising in connection with the Project. 2.1.8 To establish procedures for making changes in the Scope of Project, Performance Specifications, and other matters relating to the Project. ARTICLE 3. PROJECT SCOPE 3.1 The scope of the Project includes (i) the Baseline Project, and (ii) optional Betterments that may be included in the Project pursuant to the terms of Article 12. The Baseline Project is more particularly described in the Scope of Work, attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Scope of Work has been drafted and approved by the Parties, and the final design shall be prepared, with the objective of establishing the absolute minimum criteria that will result in a Project (i) physically capable of initially providing a minimally acceptable level of streetcar A mok service within the Project corridor, and (ii) meeting the commitments made by the Parties in the , TIGER II Grant, at the lowest possible cost. An initial list of optional Betterments is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 3.2 The Scope of Work, along with the Performance Specifications, define and establish the "baseline" design and construction requirements for the Project (the "Baseline Project"). All costs and expenses associated with completing the Baseline Project in conformity with the Scope of Work and the Performance Specifications shall be considered Project Costs. 3.3 The Parties may amend the Baseline Project to include additional scope or, with the approval of FTA, exclude existing scope. Any such changes to the Baseline Project shall be made by mutual written agreement of the Parties. 3.4 The total cost to design and construct the Baseline Project is estimated to be $37,180,000. ARTICLE 4. PROJECT DESIGN 4.1 UTA has engaged the firm of HDR, Inc. as the Design Consultant to prepare the preliminary design for the Project, and has the option of extending HDR's contract to include the final design for the Project. In addition, the Parties may enter into other design contracts as recommended by the Project Integration Team. 4 4.2 UTA shall oversee and manage the efforts of the Design Consultant consistent with the Scope of Work, the Performance Specifications and the provisions of this Agreement. The Cities may provide comments to any Design Submittals and UTA will direct the Design Consultant to incorporate appropriate changes into the Design Submittals. UTA shall be the sole point of formal contact with the Design Consultant. 4.3 The Design Consultant has been tasked with the responsibility of meeting the Parties' objectives in connection with preparation of the Scope of Work, as those objectives are described in paragraph 3.1, above. 4.4 Throughout the design process, UTA shall cause the Design Consultant to provide the Cities with the opportunity of reviewing and commenting on all Design Submittals, including the preliminary design documents and the final design documents. The City Representatives shall be available to conduct"over-the-shoulder" reviews of Design Submittals and related work. UTA shall cause the Design Consultant to address all comments on the Design Submittals that are timely offered by the City Representatives. 4.5 UTA shall ensure that the Cities have the opportunity to participate in all formal and informal design meetings and reviews with the Design Consultant. 4.6 Any Party may request changes in the Scope of Work or any of the Performance Specifications, which changes must be approved by the other Parties prior to implementation. Each Party agrees to consider such requests in good faith. 4.7 When completed, the final design documents shall consist of and include (i) the Baseline Project Scope of Work, and (ii) any optional Betterments incorporated into the Project pursuant to Article 12. The preliminary design documents shall not be included in, or form the basis of, the CM/GC RFP or bid documents until the preliminary design documents have been approved by the Project Integration Team. ARTICLE 5. AWARD OF CM/GC CONTRACT; CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT 5.1 The Project shall be undertaken by UTA using the construction manager/general contractor procurement method. The CM/GC shall be selected as provided in this Section 5.15.1, and is hereinafter referred to as the "Contractor". UTA shall, with the assistance of the Project Integration Team, prepare an RFP for the solicitation of proposals by potential CM/GCs. The RFP shall not be released until the same has been approved by the Project Integration Team. Proposals shall be reviewed and evaluated by the Parties, generally as provided in the approved RFP. UTA shall select the winning Proposal only with the consensus of all of the Parties. 5.2 UTA shall negotiate, prepare, and execute the CM/GC Contract in a form acceptable to the Project Integration Team. Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, UTA will not issue a Notice to Proceed to the CM/GC under the CM/GC Contract unless and until UTA and the Contractor have negotiated a contract price for the Baseline Project not to exceed $37,180,000, less a reasonable contingency, to be agreed on by the Parties. UTA shall manage the Contractor and the CM/GC Contract in consultation with the Project Integration Team. The CM/GC Contract shall incorporate and require compliance with all applicable terms and 5 provisions of this Agreement. The CM/GC Contract shall include performance and payment bonds in a form and from a surety acceptable to the Parties. 5.3 UTA shall hold a standing, weekly construction coordination meeting, to which the Design Consultant, the Contractor and the City Representatives shall be invited. 5.4 UTA shall cause the Contractor to provide the City Representatives with the opportunity to review and comment upon all Construction Submittals. The City Representatives shall be available to conduct "over the shoulder" reviews of Construction Submittals and related work. UTA shall cause the Contractor to address all comments on the Construction Submittals that are timely offered by the City Representatives. 5.5 UTA shall oversee and manage the efforts of the Contractor consistent with the CM/GC Contract, the Performance Specifications and the provisions of this Agreement. UTA shall be the sole point of formal contact with the Contractor during the preconstruction and construction phases of the Project. UTA recognizes that the Cities will have considerable interaction with the Contractor, but the Cities agree that they shall not provide formal direction to the Contractor. 5.6 The Cities shall have continuous access to the Project site to monitor all Project construction. If, as a result of a City's observation of construction, a City objects to the manner in which work is being performed, the City Representative shall immediately notify the UTA Representative or his or her designee. UTA shall cause the Contractor to comply with the design documents, the Performance Specifications and the terms and conditions of this Agreement. A "" "" City shall not directly order the Contractor to stop or correct work except as necessary to prevent or mitigate an imminent threat of death, bodily injury, other serious damage to persons or property, or the imminent threat of the disruption of critical utility facilities, as determined by the City in good faith. 5.7 UTA shall oversee the construction-phase services to be performed by the Design Consultant and others including, without limitation, processing all construction submittals, invoices, change orders, requests for clarification and quality control on behalf of the Parties. 5.8 UTA agrees to enforce all terms, conditions, performance requirements and warranties provided under the CM/GC Contract on behalf of the Cities and to cause the Contractor to correct any defective or non-compliant work as required by the CM/GC Contract and as reasonably requested by a City. 5.9 Change orders (which include, but are not limited to, Betterments) may be requested by any Party, or by the Contractor. UTA may approve and execute any requested change order, with the approval of the Project Integration Team. Notwithstanding the foregoing, UTA may approve change orders in an amount less than $25,000 without the prior approval of the Project Integration Team. ARTICLE 6. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS 6 6.1 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST. Design and construction of the Baseline Project is currently estimated to cost a total of$37,180,000 ("Estimated Project Cost"). The Estimated Project Cost includes the cost the cost of design and construction itself, the cost of additional right-of-way acquisitions, professional services, and unallocated contingency. Those cost categories are set forth more fully in the TIGER II Grant. Such figure is only an estimate. The actual cost to design and construct the Baseline Project (the "Actual Project Cost") may turn out to be either more or less than the Estimated Project Cost. 6.2 FEDERAL MATCH. The Parties have been awarded a federal grant for the Project under the TIGER II Department of Transportation grants program, in an amount not to exceed $26,000,000 (the "TIGER II Grant"). The TIGER II Grant, together with local funding in the amount of$11,180,000, will fund the Estimated Project Cost of$37,180,000. 6.3 The TIGER II Grant is based on a 70% federal to 30% local ratio, under which UTA, as the grantee, expends funds on the Project and then submits those expenditures for 70% reimbursement.1 Effectively, this means that 30 cents of local funds spent on the Project "earns" approximately 70 cents of federal funds to be spent on the Project (and every local $1.00 spent on the Project earns approximately $2.325 of federal funds for the Project). Since the Tiger II Grant is capped at $26,000,000, any local funds spent on the Project in excess of approximately $11,180,000 will not receive federal matching dollars. 6.4 LOCAL SHARE. The Parties hereby agree to provide local funding as follows. 6.4.1 TIER I. SLC and SSL shall provide TIER I local funding in equal amounts as follows: Local Contribution Federal Match Total (approximate) SLC $1,700,000 $3,952,500 $5,652,500 SSL $1,700,000 $3,952,500 $5,652,500 TIER I Total $3,400,000 $7,905,000 $11,305,000 While the Actual Project Cost is not known at this time, it is expected to exceed the TIER I budget of$11,305,000. 6.4.2 If the Actual Project Cost exceeds the combined TIER I budget of $11,305,000, SLC and SSL must each provide their entire TIER I commitment of$1,700,000. In no event shall SLC or SSL be required to contribute more than $1,700,000 to the Project under TIER I. 1 The figure 70%is approximate. The Estimated Project Cost of$37,180,000,divided by the Tiger II Grant amount of$26,000,000,means that the federal share is actually 69.993006%. 7 6.4.3 SLC and SSL shall provide their TIER I local funding in the manner set Aft forth in Article 11. 6.4.4 TIER II. If the Actual Project Cost exceeds the TIER I budget of $11,305,000, the Cities agree to provide TIER II local funding in equal amounts as follows: Local Contribution Federal Match Total Funding (approximate) SLC As necessary to Up to $5,812,500 $8,312,500, fund the Actual maximum Project Cost, up to $2,500,000 SSL As necessary to Up to $5,812,500 $8,312,500, fund the Actual maximum Project Cost, up to $2,500,000 TIER II SLC + SSL TIER Up to $11,625,000 $16,625,000, Subtotal II contributions, maximum $5,000,000 maximum Tiers I and II, $8,400,000, $19,530,000, $27,930,000, Total maximum maximum maximum Jaw 6.4.5 Under TIER II, SLC and SSL are only obligated to expend the amount necessary, together with the federal match and the amounts available under the TIER I budget, to fund the Actual Project Cost. If the Actual Project Cost is less than the TIER I and II budget of $27,930,000, SLC and SSL will not be required to fully expend their respective TIER II commitments of$2,500,000. 6.4.6 If the Actual Project Cost exceeds the combined TIER I and II budget of $27,930,000, SLC and SSL must each provide their entire TIER II commitment of$2,500,000. In no event shall SLC or SSL be required to contribute more than $2,500,000 to the Project under TIER II. 6.4.7 TIER II funding shall not be due from SLC or SSL prior to August 1, 2012, but otherwise shall be provided in the manner set forth in Article 11. 6.4.8 TIER III. If the Actual Project Cost exceeds the combined TIER I and TIER II budget of$27,930,000, SLC shall provide TIER III funding as follows: Local Contribution Federal Match Total Funding (approximate) SLC As necessary to Up to $2,743,500 $3,923,500, fund the Actual maximum Project Cost, up 8 to $1,180,000 Total (together $9,580,000, $22,273,500, $31,853,500, with TIER I and maximum local maximum maximum TIER II funding) 6.4.9 Under TIER III, SLC is only obligated to expend the amount necessary, together with the federal match, and the amounts available under the TIER I and II budgets, to fund the Actual Project Cost. If the Actual Project Cost is less than the combined maximum TIER I, II and III budget of$31,853,500, SLC will not be required to expend its entire TIER III commitment of$1,180,000. 6.4.10 If the Actual Project Cost exceeds the TIER III budget of $31,853,500, SLC must provide its entire TIER III commitment of $1,180,000. In no event shall SLC be required to contribute more than$1,180,000 to the Project under TIER III. 6.4.11 TIER III funding shall not be due from SLC prior to August 1, 2012. 6.4.12 TIER IV. In the event that the Actual Project Cost exceeds the combined TIER I, II and III budget of$31,853,500, UTA agrees to provide TIER IV funding as follows: Local Contribution Federal Match Total Funding (approximate) UTA As necessary to Up to $3,726,500 $5,326,500, fund the Actual Project Cost, up maximum to $1,600,000 Total (together $11,180,000, $26,000,000, $37,180,000, with TIER I, II maximum maximum maximum and III funding) 6.4.13 Under TIER IV, UTA is only obligated to expend the amount necessary, together with the federal match, and the amounts available under the TIER I, II and III budgets, to fund the Actual Project Cost. If the Actual Project Cost is less than the Estimated Project Cost/TIER IV budget of $37,180,000, UTA will not be required to expend its entire TIER IV commitment of$1,600,000. 6.4.14 If the Actual Project Cost is equal to or exceeds the TIER IV budget of $37,180,000, UTA must provide its entire TIER III commitment of $1,600,000. In no event shall UTA be required to contribute more than$1,600,000 to the Project under TIER IV. 6.4.15 TIER IV funding shall not be due from UTA prior to January 1, 2013. 9 — 6.4.16 Notice to Proceed. Pursuant to Section 5.2 above, UTA shall not issue , a Notice to Proceed to commence construction activities to the Contractor unless UTA is successful in negotiating a contract price for the Baseline Project that, together with other known and reasonably anticipated Project Costs such as right-of-way and professional services, is $37,180,000 or less. The Parties agree to make every effort to construct the Project within the Estimated Project Cost. The Parties agree that they will offset unanticipated cost overruns by cutting scope from the Baseline Project, if possible and with any required FTA approval, before exceeding the Estimated Project Cost. 6.4.17 In-Kind Contributions. It is anticipated that each of the Parties may make in-kind contributions to the Project, in the form of staff time, right-of-way, etc. Such contributions may be eligible for federal matching dollars. The Project Integration Team shall determine whether to submit such in-kind expenditures for reimbursement under the TIGER II Grant. Such in-kind contributions shall, at the direction of the Project Integration Team, be credited to the Cities' funding obligations under this Article if they are (i) approved by FTA for federal match, and (ii) budgeted as part of the Estimated Project Cost, as determined by the Project Integration Team. Such in-kind contributions made by UTA shall be credited as agreed by the Project Integration Team. 6.4.18 Subject to the provision of this Section 6.4.17, each City shall be responsible for funding its own payment obligations under this Agreement in such manner and utilizing such financing mechanisms as each such City shall deem appropriate. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Cities agree between themselves as follows: Amok 6.4.18.1 The Cities shall in good faith explore the feasibility of creating an interlocal entity pursuant to Title 11, Chapter 13 of the Utah Code, by mutual agreement, for the purpose, among others, of issuing bonds to finance, or otherwise providing financing vehicles for, all or a portion of the funding obligations of the Cities hereunder. The Cities shall immediately begin discussions toward such end, with a view to creating such an entity not later than April 1, 2012. 6.4.18.2 SSL shall make good faith efforts to diligently pursue separate public financing for the portion of its payment obligations it does not intend to meet with cash reserves or by other methods. 6.4.18.3 If, by June 1, 2012, SSL is unable to secure financing for its Tier II payment obligations on commercially reasonable terms, it shall so notify SLC in writing. The Cities shall thereupon, in consultation with UTA, identify the amount of SSL's Tier II payment obligation (the "SSL Tier II Amount"). SLC shall thereafter advance the SSL Tier II Amount to the Project in the same manner as all other payments to the Project are made. SSL shall agree to repay to SLC the SSL Tier II Amount so advanced by SLC, and to pledge as a source of payment and security for such repayment obligation the excise taxes currently pledged to the payment of the $15,000,000 City of South Salt Lake Redevelopment Agency Excise Tax and Tax Increment Revenue Bonds Series, 2010 (the "Existing SSL Bonds"). SSL is planning on refunding the Existing SSL Bonds, which refunding will create an annual debt service savings of$290,000 (the "Debt Service Savings"). SSL agrees to repay the SSL Tier II Amount to SLC in equal semi-annual installments, based on an amortization over a period of not less than ten 10 (10) years, and in some combination of term and interest rate mutually agreeable to the Cities that results in debt service payments that do not exceed the Debt Service Savings; provided that SLC may require SSL to fund a debt service reserve fund in an amount reasonably required by SLC that, together with debt service, does not exceed the Debt Service Savings. If, upon completion of the Project, SLC has not fully advanced the SSL Tier II Amount, the remaining amount shall be credited as a prepayment of principal against SSL's repayment obligation. SLC's agreement to advance the SSL Tier II Amount, and SSL's obligation to repay such amount to SLC, shall be documented with an interlocal agreement between the Cities, or such other documentation as the Cities shall mutually agree. ARTICLE 7. SPENDING PROJECT SAVINGS 7.1 If the Actual Project Cost is below the Estimated Project Cost, the Parties may elect to spend additional local funds on Project Betterments in order to "earn" some or all of the remaining available federal matching dollars. No Party will be required to provide additional funding under this Article. The Parties understand and agree that local funding applied to any such Betterments will only receive federal matching dollars if the FTA deems the Betterments eligible for federal matching. 7.2 Subject to paragraph 7.2.1, each City shall be entitled to spend an amount equal to the remainder, if any, of its TIER I, II, or III commitment to "claim" the corresponding federal match to fund Betterments within each respective City. Any portion of the federal share unclaimed by one City may be claimed by the other City, upon the City's commitment to pay the necessary local share. 7.2.1 Notwithstanding the foregoing, SSL may not use funds advanced by SLC on its behalf under paragraph 6.4.17 to claim a federal match for Betterments. 7.3 UTA shall be entitled to spend the remainder, if any, of its TIER IV commitment to "claim" the federal match to fund Betterments to the Project. Any portion of the TIER IV federal share unclaimed by UTA may be claimed by another Party, upon that Party's commitment to pay the necessary local share. ARTICLE 8. RIGHT OF WAY COSTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS 8.1 UTA acquired the Sugar House Spur rail corridor from Union Pacific Railroad in 2002, as part of a larger transaction in which UTA acquired approximately 75 miles of rail corridor property. The estimated value of the Sugar House Spur is $6,300,000. UTA agrees to allow the use of the Sugar House Spur for the Project. It is anticipated that the Project Footprint will not occupy the entirety of the Sugar House Spur. UTA retains the right to use the remainder of the Sugar House Spur for purposes not inconsistent with the Project, or the Sugar House Corridor Management Policies described in Article 16. 8.2 SSL has jurisdiction over the following local streets that must be crossed by the Project: West Temple, Main, 200 East, 300 East, 400 East. SSL agrees to allow the use of these streets for the Project. The value of this contribution may be treated as an in-kind contribution pursuant to paragraph 6.4.12, with the approval of the Project Integration Team. 11 8.3 SLC has jurisdiction over the following local streets that must be crossed by the „ . Project: 500 East, 600 East, Lake Street, 800 East, and 900 East. SLC agrees to allow the use of these streets for the Project. The value of this contribution may be treated as an in-kind contribution pursuant to paragraph 6.4.12, with the approval of the Project Integration Team. 8.4 The Parties understand and agree that there will be additional right-of-way acquisition needs as the Project is designed and constructed. Costs associated with such acquisitions, to the extent necessary for the Baseline Project, will be deemed Project Costs. ARTICLE 9. VEHICLE COSTS AND CONTRIBUTION 9.1 The Parties agree that efficient operation of the Project will require three vehicles, and that current funding sources do not provide a means to acquire vehicles. UTA is in the process of acquiring, testing, and commissioning a number of Siemens S70 light rail vehicles ("Siemens LRVs"), to be used in connection with UTA's existing TRAX system, as well as with other ongoing capital expansion projects. UTA agrees to devote three Siemens LRVs to the Project. UTA will retain full ownership of the Siemens LRVs at all times. 9.2 The Parties understand and agree that there will be additional vehicle costs associated with modifying the Siemens LRVs from UTA's light rail specifications, to accommodate Project-specific requirements. Such costs will be considered Project Costs. ARTICLE 10. ALTERNATIVE FUNDING SOURCES 10.1 The Parties may attempt to fund some or all of the Actual Project Cost and O&M Costs (defined in Article 13, below) from third party sources, as described herein. Such third party sources may include, but are not limited to: other grant programs, appropriations by the Utah State Legislature, contributions from Salt Lake County, contributions from business associations, and contributions or investments from private landowners with an interest in the Project. Any such funding contributions shall be allocated to Project Costs and O&M Costs as follows: 10.2 Any funds contributed toward Project Costs shall be credited against the Parties local funding obligations as determined by the Project Executive Team. 10.3 Any funds charged by UTA to non-Parties for the use of the Sugar House Spur shall be retained by UTA. Further, any funds charged by UTA to Parties for uses of the Sugar House Spur wholly unrelated to the Project (such as, for example, the placement of a utility facility unrelated to the Project) shall be retained by UTA. Any such uses shall be consistent with the Sugar House Corridor Management Policies. ARTICLE 11. MANNER AND TIMING OF FUNDING 11.1 UTA will prepare and deliver to the Cities monthly invoices for their respective shares of the local portion of Project Costs, as Project Costs are incurred. Each invoice shall be accompanied by documentation of the Project Costs incurred for which payment is being requested, and the Cities shall remit payment to UTA within 30 days after receipt of such . , invoices. If the Cities dispute any portion of an invoice, they shall remit payment of the 12 undisputed portion within 30 days, while the Project Integration Team reviews the disputed amounts. 11.2 The Parties recognize and agree that UTA has already incurred costs that are considered Project Costs. Such costs include monies paid for professional services, including monies paid to the Design Consultant. Immediately upon execution of this Agreement, UTA may invoice the Cities for such costs, and the Cities shall remit payment to UTA within 30 days after receipt of such invoices. ARTICLE 12. BETTERMENTS 12.1 Any Party may request Betterments in accordance with the terms of this Section. 12.2 Requests for Betterments shall be made as early in the Project planning and design process as possible. Requests shall be submitted in writing to the Project Integration Team. 12.3 A request for a Betterment shall be implemented by the Parties if: (i) the Betterment is not prohibited by a governing State or federal standard; (ii) the Betterment does not substantially adversely impact the operation of the Project; and (iii) the Betterment will not unreasonably delay or interfere with the Project schedule. 12.4 Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, the Party requesting the Betterment shall be responsible for all incremental costs incurred as a result of the Betterment; provided that the Parties shall only be responsible for the local match portion of any Betterments funded from Project savings, as contemplated in Article 7. The Parties shall enter into a letter agreement or similar document governing the terms pursuant to which the Party requesting the Betterment shall pay for the Betterment. The Party Representative requesting the Betterment shall be solely responsible for obtaining any necessary internal approval of the requested Betterment in a timely manner. ARTICLE 13. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE 13.1 Upon completion of the Project and the opening of the Project for use by the public (the "Revenue Operations Date"), UTA will begin to incur costs associated with operations and maintenance ("O&M Costs"). The Parties anticipate that the O&M Costs will exceed the revenues recovered through fares for some time. SLC and SSL agree to offset a portion of UTA's O&M Costs for a period not to exceed two years, as set forth herein. 13.2 For the first two years following the Revenue Operations Date, SLC and SSL shall each pay to UTA the amount of $100,000 per quarter, in a total amount not to exceed $800,000 per City. 13.3 The Cities' obligation hereunder shall terminate on the "Cessation of O&M Funding Date," which shall be the earlier of: (i) December 31 st of a year in which a referendum is held by which Salt Lake County voters approve a sales tax increase dedicated to transit purposes, or (ii) two years after the Revenue Operations Date. Upon the cessation of the Cities' 13 O&M funding obligations hereunder, UTA shall assume full responsibility to fund the O&M _004, Costs. 13.4 UTA will invoice the Cities for their respective shares of the O&M Costs, as described hereunder, on a quarterly basis. The Cities shall remit payment to UTA within 30 days after receipt of such invoices. 13.5 UTA agrees to discuss in good faith the Cities' concerns about balancing rail and bus service within the 2100 South/Sugar House Spur corridor. ARTICLE 14. PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND DECISION-MAKING 14.1 The Parties hereby create a Project Integration Team consisting of the UTA Representative, the SSL Representative, and the SLC Representative. 14.2 Each member of the Project Integration Team shall consult with such technical experts, principals or other personnel of the Cities or UTA, as appropriate, as may be required to properly perform his or her duties on the Project Integration Team, and shall obtain any authority or approval required prior to authorizing, approving or taking any action on behalf of the Project. 14.3 During the design and construction phase of the Project, the Project Integration Team shall: (a) meet on a regular basis; (b) perform all functions expressly assigned to the Project Integration Team in this Agreement, (c) review and approve relevant deliverables as set forth in this Agreement; (d) recommend any amendments to this Agreement or the Scope of ,,,at* Project deemed necessary or desirable; and (e) facilitate the development of the Sugar House Corridor Management Policies; and (f) address and resolve issues, disputes or concerns arising during the course of the Project. 14.4 Once the Project begins revenue operations, the Project Integration Team shall: (a) meet on a regular basis; (b) jointly make recommendations to the Project Executive Team regarding service levels, schedules, and other operational issues; (c) review and make recommendations regarding capital improvements deemed necessary or desirable; (d) recommend any amendments to this Agreement deemed necessary or desirable; (e) continue to facilitate the development of the Sugar House Corridor Management Policies; (f) address and resolve issues, disputes or concerns between the Parties arising from or related to the Project or the operation thereof; and (g) perform all other functions expressly assigned to the Project Integration Team in this Agreement. 14.5 The Parties hereby create a Project Executive Team consisting of the following individuals: (i) for SLC, the SLC Mayor, (ii) for SSL, the SSL Mayor, and (iii) for UTA, the General Manager. The Project Executive Team shall: (i) meet on at least a quarterly basis to review the progress and status of the design and construction of the Project, and once the Project begins revenue operations, to review the operations and performance of the Project, (ii)jointly make decisions regarding service levels, (iii) perform such duties and functions as are expressly assigned to the Project Executive Team in this Agreement, and (iv) resolve all disputes and make all decisions escalated to the Project Executive Team by the Project Integration Team. 14 14.6 Any dispute that cannot be resolved by the Project Integration Team shall be forwarded to the Project Executive Team. 14.7 On the Cessation of O&M Funding Date, the Project Integration Team and oject Executive Team shall be dissolved, and UTA shall assume sole responsibility and authority to operate the Project, consistent with the Sugar House Corridor Management Policies and Article 16 below. Nevertheless, the SLC Mayor, SSL Mayor, and UTA General Manager may still meet to review and discuss UTA's operation of the Project, and the Parties' efforts in implementing the Sugar House Corridor Management Policies. 14.8 The Parties shall exhaust the dispute escalation and resolution process identified in this Article prior to the initiation of any formal legal action. If a dispute cannot be resolved by the Parties after good faith negotiations as outlined in this Article, the dispute may then be brought before a court of competent jurisdiction as set forth in Article 23 of this Agreement. 14.9 Except for decisions which are expressly reserved in this Agreement to the UTA Board, whenever in this Agreement a decision, approval consent or other action is to be made or taken by "UTA," such decision, approval, consent or other action shall be made or taken by the General Manager of UTA, without further approval from the UTA Board. ARTICLE 15. PROJECT STATIONS 15.1 The Project shall include stations at the locations identified on the Scope of Work, attached hereto. 15.2 All stations shall include the elements and features, and shall be built to the standards, described in the Scope of Work. 15.3 UTA shall consult with the Mayors prior to the selection of names for the stations. UTA shall consider, in good faith, any station names proposed by the Cities. ARTICLE 16. OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS 16.1 The Project Integration Team will coordinate a process for establishing Sugar House Corridor Management Policies. Such Management Policies, to be completed prior to the Revenue Operations Date, will identify how the Parties will operate within the Sugar House Spur, and how the Parties might fund operations and improvements within the Sugar House Spur. The underlying goals for the Management Policies will include the expectation of the Parties to create an overall integrated area of development that will facilitate the use of the Sugar House Spur by users of the Project, a bike and walking trail, residential areas, and commercial areas, and enhance the overall redevelopment of neighboring areas within each City. Development of the Management Policies will include consideration of new revenues generated by implementation of the Project and by development of adjacent properties, and how such revenues might be allocated in an equitable manner to fund operations and capital investments within the Sugar House Spur on an ongoing basis. r--> 16.2 Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, upon satisfactory completion of all improvements constructed as part of the Baseline Project, UTA shall accept ownership of such 15 improvements as part of its transit system. UTA shall assume all maintenance and operation responsibility with respect to such improvements. 16.3 Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, upon satisfactory completion of the utility, roadway, sidewalk and related improvements constructed pursuant to the Project, each City shall accept such improvements as the City's public improvements. Each City shall assume all maintenance and operation responsibility with respect to such improvements within its own boundaries. ARTICLE 17. DEVELOPMENT OF UTA PROPERTY IN SOUTH SALT LAKE UTA and SSL recognize and agree that UTA owns a substantial amount of property within the City of South Salt Lake that, by virtue of UTA's status as a quasi-governmental agency, is tax-exempt. UTA and SSL agree to form a task force, promptly following execution of this Agreement, to investigate and implement opportunities for UTA to sell, lease, exchange, or otherwise develop some of its surplus property within the City of South Salt Lake to private owners and thereby bring it onto the tax rolls. ARTICLE 18. TERM This Agreement shall be effective as of the Effective Date and, unless otherwise agreed between the Parties, shall continue thereafter in full force and effect until all obligations, commitments and requirements have been fully performed as set forth hereunder. Nothing 004,, provided herein shall be construed so as to exceed the term limitation provided in the Act. The ,, expiration or termination of this Agreement shall not relieve or excuse any Party of any obligations accruing prior to the expiration or termination hereof including, without limitation, the covenants and warranties made hereunder and any obligations accruing under the indemnification provisions set forth in Article 18 of this Agreement ARTICLE 19. INDEMNITY Each Party (the "Indemnifying Party") hereby agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the other Party and such Party's respective agents, employees, officers, officials, directors, trustees and assigns (collectively, the "Indemnified Party") from and against any and all claims, demands, liens, liabilities, costs, fees (including reasonable attorneys' fees), damages or other losses incurred by the Indemnified Party and arising out of or by reason of: (a) the negligent acts or omissions of the Indemnifying Party or its agents; or (b) the material breach of this Agreement by the Indemnifying Party or its agents. The indemnities provided hereunder are contractual obligations personal to the Parties hereto. Nothing provided in this Agreement is intended to waive, modify, limit or otherwise affect any defense or provisions that the Parties may assert with respect to any third party under the Utah Governmental Immunity Act or other applicable law. ARTICLE 20. DEFAULT A Party shall be deemed in default of this Agreement upon the failure of such Party to observe or perform a covenant, condition or agreement on its part to be observed or performed, 16 and the continuance of such failure for a period of thirty (30) days after the giving of written notice by the non-defaulting Party, which notice shall specify such failure and request that it be remedied; provided, however, that if the failure stated in such notice cannot be corrected within the applicable period, it shall not give rise to a default hereunder if corrective action is instituted within the 30-day period and diligently pursued until such failure is corrected. In the event of a default hereunder, the non-defaulting Party shall have a breach of contract claim remedy against the defaulting Party in addition to all other remedies provided or permitted by law, provided that no remedy which would have the effect of amending any provisions of this Agreement shall become effective without formal amendment of this Agreement. ARTICLE 21. NOTICES Any notice, demand, request, consent, submission, approval, designation or other communication which either Party is required or desires to give under this Agreement shall be made in writing and mailed or faxed to the other Party at the addresses set forth below or at such other addresses as the Party may provide in writing from time to time. Such notices shall be hand delivered, mailed (by first-class mail, postage prepaid) or delivered by courier service as follows: If to the SLC: With a Copy to: Salt Lake City Corporation Attn: City Mayor Salt Lake City Attorney's Office City& County Building City & County Building 451 South State Street, Room 306 451 South State Street, Room 505 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 If to UTA: With a Copy to: Utah Transit Authority Utah Transit Authority Attn: General Manager Attn: General Counsel's Office 3600 South 700 West 3600 South 700 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84119 Salt Lake City, Utah 84119 If to SSL: With a Copy to: South Salt Lake City South Salt Lake City Attn: City Mayor Attn: City Attorney 220 E. Morris Avenue, Suite 200 220 E. Morris Avenue, Suite 200 South Salt Lake, Utah 84115 South Salt Lake, Utah 84115 ARTICLE 22. NON-WAIVER 17 No covenant or condition of this Agreement may be waived by either Party unless done so in writing by such Party. Forbearance or indulgence by a Party in any regard whatsoever shall not constitute a waiver of the covenants or conditions to be performed by the other Party. ARTICLE 23. SEVERABILITY If any provision of this Agreement shall be held or deemed to be or shall, in fact, be illegal, inoperative or unenforceable, the same shall not affect any other provisions herein contained or render the same invalid, inoperative or unenforceable to any extent whatsoever. ARTICLE 24. GOVERNING LAW This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Utah, both as to interpretation and performance. It shall be enforced only a court of competent jurisdiction located in Salt Lake City, Utah. ARTICLE 25. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES There are no intended third Party beneficiaries to this Agreement. It is expressly understood that enforcement of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and all rights of action relating to such enforcement, shall be strictly reserved to the Parties, and nothing contained in this Agreement shall give or allow any claim or right of action by any third person under this Agreement. It is the express intention of the Parties that any third person who receives benefits under this Agreement shall be deemed an incidental beneficiary only. ARTICLE 26. ENTIRE AGREEMENT; AMENDMENT Except as expressly provided herein, this Agreement contains the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and no statements, promises or inducements made by any Party or agents of any Party that are not contained in this Agreement shall be binding or valid. This Agreement may not be amended, enlarged, modified or altered except through a written instrument signed by all Parties. ARTICLE 27. POLICE POWER The Parties acknowledge the rights vested in the Cities pursuant to general law to exercise their police powers for the protection of health, safety and welfare of its constituents and their properties. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as precluding the Cities from exercising such powers in connection with the Project. ARTICLE 28. INTERLOCAL COOPERATION ACT REQUIREMENTS In satisfaction of the requirements of the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Title 11, Chapter 13, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, and in connection with this Agreement, the Parties agree as follows: 28.1 The Agreement shall be authorized by resolution or ordinance of the governing 00,3 body of each Party pursuant to §11-13-202.5 of the Act. 18 28.2 This Agreement shall be approved as to form and legality by a duly authorized attorney on behalf of each Party pursuant to §11-13-202.5 of the Act. 28.3 A duly executed original counterpart of this Agreement shall be filed with the keeper of records of each Party pursuant to §11-13-209 of the Act. 28.4 Prior to the expiration of the term of this Agreement pursuant to Article 17, this Agreement may only be terminated by and upon the express written consent of the Parties. 28.5 Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Agreement or in any of the documents incorporated herein, any real or personal property acquired by a Party, or by the Parties jointly, pursuant to this Agreement or in conjunction with the Project shall be acquired and held, and disposed of by such Party upon termination of this Agreement as agreed among the Parties or as otherwise required by applicable local, state and federal law. ARTICLE 29. LIMITED OBLIGATIONS Any obligations of the Parties to pay money or incur costs under this Agreement shall be subject to appropriation of sufficient funds for such purpose to the extent such payments or incurrence of costs fall outside of the present fiscal year or exceed amounts budgeted and available therefore in the budget for the present fiscal year. Except as otherwise provided herein, this Agreement shall not be construed to obligate any Party to make financial contributions toward the Project. It is not the intention of the Parties to create, and no obligations of the Parties hereunder shall be construed as creating or constituting, debt within the meaning of Article XIV, Section 3 of the Utah Constitution. ARTICLE 30. NO PRECEDENT The Parties acknowledge the unique circumstances relating to the planning, design and funding of the Project, and agree that nothing in this Agreement relating to Project funding, Project design, Scope of Project or the Parties' contributions to the Project shall be deemed as precedent between the Parties during negotiations on future agreements relating to transit improvements in either of the Cities. ARTICLE 31. INCORPORATION OF EXHIBITS This Agreement in its entirety includes Exhibits A through C, all of which are incorporated herein and made a part hereof by this reference. The Exhibits to this Agreement are as follows: Exhibit A—Scope of Work Exhibit B —Optional Betterments Exhibit C—Performance Specifications 19 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have each executed this Interlocal Agreement Regarding the Sugar House Streetcar Project as of the date first set forth above. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY By: By: Ralph Becker, Mayor Michael A. Allegra, General Manager ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: By: W. Steve Meyer, Chief Capital Development By: Officer City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: Senior City Attorney UTA Legal Counsel CITY OF SOUTH SALT LAKE B y Cherie Wood, Mayor ApPR C D AS Tv19:0111ce Salt Laker t so (I Date By r` 20 EXHIBIT A 4004, [Scope of Work.] The scope of the project is split into two descriptions. The first is for a Baseline Project, the minimum required to provide streetcar service as committed to the Federal Transit Administration in the TIGER II grant. The second, provided in Exhibit B, is a list of additional project elements, amenities, and/or improvements that the Parties of this agreement would like to be included if funds are available to pay for them. BASELINE PROJECT Guideway and Track Elements The Sugar House Streetcar will run in the existing Sugar House spur rail corridor from just south of existing 2100 South Central Pointe TRAX Station to the east nearly two miles to McClelland Street. The configuration shall be single track with one passing siding currently located near 500 East and a tail track at eastern end of line. The location of the track alignment will be approximately centered in the corridor based on building the north track of the vision document. The final alignment will be determined as part of the environmental re-evaluation, design, and FTA approval processes and may vary from block to block. The conceptual drawings, dated , provide additional information regarding the requirements of building the track elements. This item includes guideway and track for ballasted streetcar construction including rough grading, excavation, fill, and track elements from sub-ballast to 115 RE rail, including all construction materials and labor. Fourteen grade crossings of varying widths will use embedded concrete or concrete crossing panels. Landscaping is not included in the baseline project. Stations/Stops Stations include all materials and labor for the work of rough grading, excavation, finish-grading, platforms, shelters, mechanical and electrical components, and lighting. The stops for this project are designed for single-car trains with a horizontal length for door access of not more than 65 feet. Platforms will be reinforced concrete construction. Platform height is 8 inches, designed to be consistent with UTA's existing system. There are seven (7) stations planned for this project at: the western terminus near the 2100 South TRAX light rail station, between Main Street and State Street, 300 East, 500 East, 700 East, 900 East, and the eastern terminus at McClelland Street which is approximately 1050 east. Exact locations as shown in the conceptual drawings are subject to change pending FTA approval. All stations will meet ADA requirements. Public artwork to fulfill the obligations described in the Memorandum of Agreement between FTA and the Utah State Historic Preservation Office will be provided at one or more station locations. All other artwork is part of the additional project amenities. Site-work and Special Conditions Site-work includes all construction materials and labor for the following tasks: demolition, utility relocation and modification, hazardous materials, roadwork, and indirect contractor costs associated with the construction. Demolition consists of typical railroad corridor features 22 including but not limited to curbs, paving, old track and train systems elements, walls, bollards and barriers, signs, fences, and landscaping. Some hazardous material planning, monitoring and screening are required in association with the removal of old signal houses and in compliance with Environmental Protection Agency and/or Utah Department of Environmental Quality requirements pertaining to existing soil contamination, if any, location within the Sugar House Spur. The Project may require minor relocation, modification or rehabilitation of affected public and private utilities that are in conflict with, and are located along and/or crossing the track work alignment and within the station areas. Maintenance and access to utilities are to be considered as a conflict. It may include cities exercising their rights under utility franchise agreements, applicable only if on city right of way. No undergrounding of the power line or any other utilities is assumed. Because the project is being built in an existing railroad corridor, the roadway elements are limited to those measures required at the at-grade crossings. Some curb and gutter, sidewalk, paving, striping: and signage has been included. No major structures are anticipated. There are no park and ride lots associated with any station. The temporary indirect contractor expenses include mobilization, temporary facilities, traffic control, insurance, bonding, permits, project management,construction oversight, and community relations. Systems This category includes all the material and labor associated with the purchase, installation, and construction of all train control, traction power, communications, and fare collection systems. Project planning suggests a service of 15-minute headways during the peak hour, and 30-minute headways during off-peak times. Additionally, the project is being designed to accommodate a future second track. Train control will consist of a fixed block system. All 14 at-grade road crossings will use traffic signals or other active warning devices. Traction power will be distributed through an over head catenary system at a nominal 750-volt direct current via traction power substations to be sized for the potential future service. Communication systems will include a ductbank to accommodate fiber for the communication transmission systems including: TPSS, ATMS, train control block system, information technology, and telephone. Fare collection equipment is also included in this cost category. The Project will include a signal priority or pre-emption system to give consistent priority to streetcar trains at intersections with public streets under the jurisdiction of UDOT, Salt Lake City and South Salt Lake City. The project will employ galvanized H-Beam steel overhead catenary system poles, except at stations, where black tubular poles will be installed. The overhead catenary system will be standard (full depth high profile) catenary wire,per current UTA standards. Right-of-Way 23 This item consists of professional services associated with the real estate component of the , , project as well as costs to acquire any necessary right-of-way. Because this project will be built ,. in an existing rail corridor, most of the land acquisitions occur where the alignment turns north toward the western terminus to meet the existing light rail station. Some additional sliver parcels may be required along the corridor. Professional Services This cost category includes all professional, technical and management services. Preliminary engineering includes advancing the conceptual design to a point sufficient to procure contracting services. Final design includes engineering and architectural services, compilation of as-built plans, environmental mitigation services, specialty services such as safety and security analyses, value engineering, risk assessment, cost estimating and scheduling, and surveying. Project management consists of agency staff and/or professional service consultants who manage and oversee the entire project; insurance provides the owner, contractor/subcontractors, and consultant/sub-consultants with worker's compensation, environmental, various liability insurances, builder's risk, and railroad protective insurance. Legal costs and permits for plan reviews or other fees are also included in this cost category. Surveys, testing, investigation, inspection costs include environmental and hazardous contamination remediation oversight, testing, and clean-up support. Start-up costs include agency staff and professional services to provide support and training to begin revenue operations. An agency force account includes work performed by agency or partner staff including providing all necessary data for reporting requirements. 24 Exhibit C , ,. Performance Specifications The following standards shall constitute the Performance Specifications: 1. UTA's Light Rail Design Criteria Manual, as amended by the Parties. 2. Manual of Standard Specifications, as published by the Utah Chapter of the American Public Works Association(2007 Edition). 3. Manual of Standard Plans, as published by the Utah Chapter of the American Public Works Association(2007 Edition). 4. The Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department Performance Specifications and Design Criteria for culinary water, sanitary sewer and storm drain facilities, current edition. 5. All public works infrastructure owned and operated by the City of South Salt Lake shall be designed and installed in accordance with the latest edition of the Manual of Standard Plans and the Manual of Standard Specifications published by the Utah Chapter of the American Public Works Association, and South Salt Lake City design standards. Adak 6. The FHWA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, current edition. ... 7. The Traffic Control Manual published by the Utah LTAP Center of Utah State University, current edition. 8. The Americans With Disabilities Act, and all rules, regulations, interpretive guidance and other authority promulgated pursuant to the Americans With Disabilities Act. 9. All applicable building codes, laws and regulations. 10. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials standard practices for roadway and bridge design and construction. 26 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT REGARDING THE SUGAR HOUSE STREETCAR PROJECT THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT REGARDING THE SUGAR HOUSE STREETCAR PROJECT (this "Agreement"), is entered into as of 2011 (the "Effective Date"), by and between SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Utah ("SLC"), the CITY OF SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY, a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Utah ("SSL"), and UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY, a public transit district and political subdivision of the State of Utah("UTA"). SLC, SSL, and UTA are hereafter sometimes collectively referred to as "Parties" and may be referred to individually as a"Party." RECITALS WHEREAS, UTA owns a discontinued rail corridor known as the "Sugar House Spur," which runs easterly from UTA's North/South TRAX light rail corridor for approximately two miles through SSL and SLC at approximately 2200 South; WHEREAS, the Parties desire to construct and operate a streetcar system along the Sugar House Spur (the "Project"), and have worked together toward that goal for several years; WHEREAS, the Project has been selected for federal assistance under the TIGER II Discretionary Grants program pursuant to Title I (Department of Transportation) of the FY 2010 Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 111-117, Dec. 16, 2009), in an amount not to exceed $26,000,000; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to document herein their mutual goals, and their respective roles and obligations with respect to the Project. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the stated Recitals, which are incorporated herein by reference, and for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth, it is hereby agreed as follows: ARTICLE 1. DEFINITIONS In addition to capitalized terms defined elsewhere in this Agreement, the following terms shall have the following meanings: 1 1.1 "Actual Project Cost" means the actual amount of money expended to design and , „ construct the Baseline Project. 1.2 "Baseline Project" is defined in Article 3, Project Scope. 1.3 "Betterment" means any work that is (i) related to the Project and requires the expenditure of funds or other resources, (ii) not required by this Agreement to be performed as part of the Baseline Project, and (iii) performed at the request of one of the Parties pursuant to Article 12. 1.4 "Cities"means SLC and SSL. 1.5 "Contractor" means the Construction Manager/General Contractor ("CM/GC") to be selected by the Parties and placed under contract to (a) coordinate with the Final Design Consultant during final design; (b) provide preconstruction value engineering and constructability reviews; (c) construct those portions of the Project to be self-performed by the CM/GC; (d) procure, manage and oversee those portions of the Project to be subcontracted; (e) negotiate and establish a lump sum price for the Project as identified in the CM/GC Contract; (f) procure, manage and oversee work that is considered Betterments, and which any Party requests to be performed by the Contractor as provided in Article 12; and (g) perform such other work as agreed by the Parties and incorporated into the terms of the CM/GC Contract. 1.6 "Construction Submittals" means design and construction drawings submitted to '" ' UTA by the Contractor, pursuant to the CM/GC Contract. 1.7 "CM/GC Contract"means the construction manager/general contractor contract to be entered into between UTA and the Contractor, pursuant to the terms of Article 5. 1.8 "Design Consultant" means HDR, Inc., the engineering firm selected by the Parties and currently under contract with UTA to perform preliminary design services, and any firm engaged by UTA to perform final design services. 1.9 "Design Services Contract" means that certain Contract for Professional Services between UTA and HDR, Inc., dated August 11, 2011, for preliminary design services, and any contract between UTA and an engineering firm engaged to provide final design services. 1.10 "Design Submittals" means all plans, drawings, or other design documents submitted to UTA by the Design Consultant,pursuant to the Design Services Contract. 1.11 "Final Design Consultant" means HDR, Inc., or such other firm engaged by UTA to provide final design services. 1.12 "Performance Specifications" means those standards, requirements, and criteria set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto. 2 1.13 "Project" means the design and construction of a modern rail streetcar line of approximately two miles in length, running between UTA's Central Pointe TRAX light rail station on the existing north-south light rail corridor, on the west, and McClelland Avenue, or approximately 1050 East. The term "Project" includes the Baseline Project, along with any Betterments desired by a Party and approved pursuant to Article 12. 1.14 "Project Costs" means all costs and expenses heretofore or hereafter incurred by UTA in connection with, and reasonably allocated to, the planning, management, and implementation of the Project in accordance with the Final Design Documents, including by way of example, and not limitation, environmental review costs; preliminary design, final design and construction engineering costs; costs of equipment, materials, supplies and labor; construction costs; and costs of managing construction and enforcing the terms of the CM/GC Contract. Project Costs shall not include legal fees or other expenses incurred in negotiating or drafting this Agreement, or the Parties' financing costs. 1.15 "Project Executive Team" means the SLC Mayor, the SSL Mayor, and the UTA General Manager. 1.16 "Project Footprint" means that portion of the Sugar House Spur physically occupied by facilities and improvements required in the Baseline Project. 1.17 "Project Integration Team" means the SLC Representative, the SSL Representative, and the UTA Representative. 1.18 "SLC Representative" means the SLC City Engineer. As of the Effective Date, the SLC Representative is John Naser. 1.19 "SSL Representative" means the SSL Public Works Director. As of the Effective Date, the SSL Representative is Dennis Pay. 1.20 "UTA Representative"means the UTA Project Manager for the Project. As of the Effective Date, the UTA Representative is Jim Webb. ARTICLE 2. PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT 2.1 The Parties have entered into this Agreement for the following primary purposes: 2.1.1 To identify and document the interests and objectives of each Party with respect to the Project, and to establish Project parameters with respect to design, cost and service requirements. This Agreement shall constitute the guiding document governing the Project. 2.1.2 To provide for the allocation of Project Costs among the Parties. 2.1.3 To describe the respective responsibilities of the Parties and establish cooperative procedures that will achieve the objectives identified herein. 3 2.1.4 To establish a mechanism for achieving critical path milestones (such as , ,, obtaining Tiger II Grant funding), and for establishing construction commencement and completion dates. 2.1.5 To establish procedures for making decisions in connection with a number of unresolved issues relating to the Project. 2.1.6 To provide for the future operation and maintenance of the Project, and the payment of the costs thereof. 2.1.7 To establish mechanisms for resolving any disputes between the Parties arising in connection with the Project. 2.1.8 To establish procedures for making changes in the Scope of Project, Performance Specifications, and other matters relating to the Project. ARTICLE 3. PROJECT SCOPE 3.1 The scope of the Project includes (i) the Baseline Project, and (ii) optional Betterments that may be included in the Project pursuant to the terms of Article 12. The Baseline Project is more particularly described in the Scope of Work, attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Scope of Work has been drafted and approved by the Parties, and the final design shall be prepared, with the objective of establishing the absolute minimum criteria that will result in a Project (i) physically capable of initially providing a minimally acceptable level of streetcar ,,, „. service within the Project corridor, and (ii) meeting the commitments made by the Parties in the TIGER II Grant, at the lowest possible cost. An initial list of optional Betterments is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 3.2 The Scope of Work, along with the Performance Specifications, define and establish the "baseline" design and construction requirements for the Project (the "Baseline Project"). All costs and expenses associated with completing the Baseline Project in conformity with the Scope of Work and the Performance Specifications shall be considered Project Costs. 3.3 The Parties may amend the Baseline Project to include additional scope or, with the approval of FTA, exclude existing scope. Any such changes to the Baseline Project shall be made by mutual written agreement of the Parties. 3.4 The total cost to design and construct the Baseline Project is estimated to be $37,180,000. ARTICLE 4. PROJECT DESIGN 4.1 UTA has engaged the firm of HDR, Inc. as the Design Consultant to prepare the preliminary design for the Project, and has the option of extending HDR's contract to include the final design for the Project. In addition, the Parties may enter into other design contracts as recommended by the Project Integration Team. 4 4.2 UTA shall oversee and manage the efforts of the Design Consultant consistent with the Scope of Work, the Performance Specifications and the provisions of this Agreement. The Cities may provide comments to any Design Submittals and UTA will direct the Design Consultant to incorporate appropriate changes into the Design Submittals. UTA shall be the sole point of formal contact with the Design Consultant. 4.3 The Design Consultant has been tasked with the responsibility of meeting the Parties' objectives in connection with preparation of the Scope of Work, as those objectives are described in paragraph 3.1, above. 4.4 Throughout the design process, UTA shall cause the Design Consultant to provide the Cities with the opportunity of reviewing and commenting on all Design Submittals, including the preliminary design documents and the final design documents. The City Representatives shall be available to conduct"over-the-shoulder" reviews of Design Submittals and related work. UTA shall cause the Design Consultant to address all comments on the Design Submittals that are timely offered by the City Representatives. 4.5 UTA shall ensure that the Cities have the opportunity to participate in all formal and informal design meetings and reviews with the Design Consultant. 4.6 Any Party may request changes in the Scope of Work or any of the Performance Specifications, which changes must be approved by the other Parties prior to implementation. Each Party agrees to consider such requests in good faith. 4.7 When completed, the final design documents shall consist of and include (i) the Baseline Project Scope of Work, and (ii) any optional Betterments incorporated into the Project pursuant to Article 12. The preliminary design documents shall not be included in, or form the basis of, the CM/GC RFP or bid documents until the preliminary design documents have been approved by the Project Integration Team. ARTICLE 5. AWARD OF CM/GC CONTRACT; CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT 5.1 The Project shall be undertaken by UTA using the construction manager/general contractor procurement method. The CM/GC shall be selected as provided in this Section 5_154-, and is hereinafter referred to as the "Contractor". UTA shall, with the assistance of the Project Integration Team, prepare an RFP for the solicitation of proposals by potential CM/GCs. The RFP shall not be released until the same has been approved by the Project Integration Team. Proposals shall be reviewed and evaluated by the Parties, generally as provided in the approved RFP. UTA shall select the winning Proposal only with the consensus of all of the Parties. 5.2 UTA shall negotiate, prepare, and execute the CM/GC Contract in a form acceptable to the Project Integration Team. Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, UTA will not issue a Notice to Proceed to the CM/GC under the CM/GC Contract unless and until UTA and the Contractor have negotiated a contract price for the Baseline Project not to exceed $37,180,000, less a reasonable contingency, to be agreed on by the Parties. UTA shall manage the Contractor and the CM/GC Contract in consultation with the Project Integration Team. The CM/GC Contract shall incorporate and require compliance with all applicable terms and 5 provisions of this Agreement. The CM/GC Contract shall include performance and payment bonds in a form and from a surety acceptable to the Parties. 5.3 UTA shall hold a standing, weekly construction coordination meeting, to which the Design Consultant, the Contractor and the City Representatives shall be invited. 5.4 UTA shall cause the Contractor to provide the City Representatives with the opportunity to review and comment upon all Construction Submittals. The City Representatives shall be available to conduct "over the shoulder" reviews of Construction Submittals and related work. UTA shall cause the Contractor to address all comments on the Construction Submittals that are timely offered by the City Representatives. 5.5 UTA shall oversee and manage the efforts of the Contractor consistent with the CM/GC Contract, the Performance Specifications and the provisions of this Agreement. UTA shall be the sole point of formal contact with the Contractor during the preconstruction and construction phases of the Project. UTA recognizes that the Cities will have considerable interaction with the Contractor, but the Cities agree that they shall not provide formal direction to the Contractor. 5.6 The Cities shall have continuous access to the Project site to monitor all Project construction. If, as a result of a City's observation of construction, a City objects to the manner in which work is being performed, the City Representative shall immediately notify the UTA Representative or his or her designee. UTA shall cause the Contractor to comply with the design documents, the Performance Specifications and the terms and conditions of this Agreement. A City shall not directly order the Contractor to stop or correct work except as necessary to prevent or mitigate an imminent threat of death, bodily injury, other serious damage to persons or property, or the imminent threat of the disruption of critical utility facilities, as determined by the City in good faith. 5.7 UTA shall oversee the construction-phase services to be performed by the Design Consultant and others including, without limitation, processing all construction submittals, invoices, change orders, requests for clarification and quality control on behalf of the Parties. 5.8 UTA agrees to enforce all terms, conditions, performance requirements and warranties provided under the CM/GC Contract on behalf of the Cities and to cause the Contractor to correct any defective or non-compliant work as required by the CM/GC Contract and as reasonably requested by a City. 5.9 Change orders (which include, but are not limited to, Betterments) may be requested by any Party, or by the Contractor. UTA may approve and execute any requested change order, with the approval of the Project Integration Team. Notwithstanding the foregoing, UTA may approve change orders in an amount less than $25,000 without the prior approval of the Project Integration Team. ARTICLE 6. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS 6 6.1 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST. Design and construction of the Baseline Project is currently estimated to cost a total of$37,180,000 ("Estimated Project Cost"). The Estimated Project Cost includes the cost the cost of design and construction itself, the cost of additional right-of-way acquisitions, professional services, and unallocated contingency. Those cost categories are set forth more fully in the TIGER II Grant. Such figure is only an estimate. The actual cost to design and construct the Baseline Project (the "Actual Project Cost") may turn out to be either more or less than the Estimated Project Cost. 6.2 FEDERAL MATCH. The Parties have been awarded a federal grant for the Project under the TIGER II Department of Transportation grants program, in an amount not to exceed $26,000,000 (the "TIGER II Grant"). The TIGER II Grant, together with local funding in the amount of$11,180,000, will fund the Estimated Project Cost of$37,180,000. 6.3 The TIGER II Grant is based on a 70% federal to 30% local ratio, under which UTA, as the grantee, expends funds on the Project and then submits those expenditures for 70% reimbursement.1 Effectively, this means that 30 cents of local funds spent on the Project "earns" approximately 70 cents of federal funds to be spent on the Project (and every local $1.00 spent on the Project earns approximately $2.325 of federal funds for the Project). Since the Tiger II Grant is capped at $26,000,000, any local funds spent on the Project in excess of approximately $11,180,000 will not receive federal matching dollars. 6.4 LOCAL SHARE. The Parties hereby agree to provide local funding as follows. 6.4.1 TIER I. SLC and SSL shall provide TIER I local funding in equal amounts as follows: Local Contribution Federal Match Total (approximate) SLC $1,700,000 $3,952,500 $5,652,500 SSL $1,700,000 $3,952,500 $5,652,500 TIER I Total $3,400,000 $7,905,000 $11,305,000 While the Actual Project Cost is not known at this time, it is expected to exceed the TIER I budget of$11,305,000. 6.4.2 If the Actual Project Cost exceeds the combined TIER I budget of $11,305,000, SLC and SSL must each provide their entire TIER I commitment of$1,700,000. In no event shall SLC or SSL be required to contribute more than $1,700,000 to the Project under TIER I. 1 The figure 70%is approximate. The Estimated Project Cost of$37,180,000,divided by the Tiger II Grant amount of$26,000,000,means that the federal share is actually 69.993006%. 7 6.4.3 SLC and SSL shall provide their TIER I local funding in the manner set forth in Article 11. 6.4.4 TIER II. If the Actual Project Cost exceeds the TIER I budget of $11,305,000, the Cities agree to provide TIER II local funding in equal amounts as follows: Local Contribution Federal Match Total Funding (approximate) SLC As necessary to Up to $5,812,500 $8,312,500, fund the Actual maximum Project Cost, up to $2,500,000 SSL As necessary to Up to $5,812,500 $8,312,500, fund the Actual maximum Project Cost, up to $2,500,000 TIER II SLC + SSL TIER Up to $11,625,000 $16,625,000, Subtotal II contributions, maximum $5,000,000 maximum Tiers I and II, $8,400,000, $19,530,000, $27,930,000, Total maximum maximum maximum 6.4.5 Under TIER II, SLC and SSL are only obligated to expend the amount necessary, together with the federal match and the amounts available under the TIER I budget, to fund the Actual Project Cost. If the Actual Project Cost is less than the TIER I and II budget of $27,930,000, SLC and SSL will not be required to fully expend their respective TIER II commitments of$2,500,000. 6.4.6 If the Actual Project Cost exceeds the combined TIER I and II budget of $27,930,000, SLC and SSL must each provide their entire TIER II commitment of$2,500,000. In no event shall SLC or SSL be required to contribute more than $2,500,000 to the Project under TIER II. 6.4.7 TIER II funding shall not be due from SLC or SSL prior to August 1, 2012, but otherwise shall be provided in the manner set forth in Article 11. 6.4.8 TIER III. If the Actual Project Cost exceeds the combined TIER I and TIER II budget of$27,930,000, SLC shall provide TIER III funding as follows: Local Contribution Federal Match Total Funding (approximate) SLC As necessary to Up to $2,743,500 $3,923,500, fund the Actual maximum Project Cost, up 8 to $1,180,000 Total (together $9,580,000, $22,273,500, $31,853,500, with TIER I and maximum local maximum maximum TIER II funding) 6.4.9 Under TIER III, SLC is only obligated to expend the amount necessary, together with the federal match, and the amounts available under the TIER I and II budgets, to fund the Actual Project Cost. If the Actual Project Cost is less than the combined maximum TIER I, II and III budget of$31,853,500, SLC will not be required to expend its entire TIER III commitment of$1,180,000. 6.4.10 If the Actual Project Cost exceeds the TIER III budget of $31,853,500, SLC must provide its entire TIER III commitment of $1,180,000. In no event shall SLC be required to contribute more than$1,180,000 to the Project under TIER III. 6.4.11 TIER III funding shall not be due from SLC prior to August 1, 2012. 6.4.12 TIER IV. In the event that the Actual Project Cost exceeds the combined TIER I, II and III budget of$31,853,500, UTA agrees to provide TIER IV funding as follows: Local Contribution Federal Match Total Funding (approximate) UTA As necessary to Up to $3,726,500 $5,326,500, fund the Actual Project Cost, up maximum to $1,600,000 Total (together $11,180,000, $26,000,000, $37,180,000, with TIER I, II maximum maximum maximum and III funding) 6.4.13 Under TIER IV, UTA is only obligated to expend the amount necessary, together with the federal match, and the amounts available under the TIER I, II and III budgets, to fund the Actual Project Cost. If the Actual Project Cost is less than the Estimated Project Cost/TIER IV budget of $37,180,000, UTA will not be required to expend its entire TIER IV commitment of$1,600,000. 6.4.14 If the Actual Project Cost is equal to or exceeds the TIER IV budget of $37,180,000, UTA must provide its entire TIER III commitment of $1,600,000. In no event shall UTA be required to contribute more than$1,600,000 to the Project under TIER IV. 6.4.15 TIER IV funding shall not be due from UTA prior to January 1, 2013. 9 6.4.16 TTNotice to Proceed. Pursuant to Section 5.2 above, UTA shall - not issue a Notice to Proceed to commence construction activities to the Contractor unless UTA is successful in negotiating a contract price for the Baseline Project that, together with other known and reasonably anticipated Project Costs such as right-of-way and professional services, efis $37 180 000 or less. Ifileweveri--idue-te-eest-eveffunsi-the-Aettbal-Prejeet-Gest-exeeeds-the Estimated Project Cost/TIER IV budget-of $37,180,000, the Parties will fund any such cost funding obligations under TIERs I, II, III, or IV. The Parties agree, however, to make every effort to construct the Project within the Estimated Project Cost. The Parties agree that they will offset unanticipated cost overruns by cutting scope from the Baseline Project, if possible and with any required FTA approval, before exceeding the Estimated Project Cost. TIERg shall be due in the manner set forth in Article 11. 6.4.17 In-Kind Contributions. It is anticipated that each of the Parties may make in-kind contributions to the Project, in the form of staff time, right-of-way, etc. Such contributions may be eligible for federal matching dollars. The Project Integration Team shall determine whether to submit such in-kind expenditures for reimbursement under the TIGER II Grant. Such in-kind contributions shall, at the direction of the Project Integration Team, be credited to the Cities' funding obligations under this Article if they are (i) approved by FTA for federal match, and (ii) budgeted as part of the Estimated Project Cost, as determined by the Project Integration Team. Such in-kind contributions made by UTA shall be credited as agreed by the Project Integration Team. 6.4.18 Subject to the provision of this Section 6.4.17, each City shall be '" responsible for funding its own payment obligations under this Agreement in such manner and utilizing such financing mechanisms as each such City shall deem appropriate. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Cities agree between themselves as follows: 6.4.18.1 The Cities shall in good faith explore the feasibility of creating an interlocal entity pursuant to Title 11, Chapter 13 of the Utah Code, by mutual agreement, for the purpose, among others, of issuing bonds to finance, or otherwise providing financing vehicles for, all or a portion of the funding obligations of the Cities hereunder. The Cities shall immediately begin discussions toward such end, with a view to creating such an entity not later than April 1, 2012. 6.4.18.2 SSL shall make good faith efforts to diligently pursue separate public financing for the portion of its payment obligations it does not intend to meet with cash reserves or by other methods. 6.4.18.3 If, by June 1, 2012, SSL is unable to secure financing for its Tier II payment obligations on commercially reasonable terms, it shall so notify SLC in writing. The Cities shall thereupon, in consultation with UTA, identify the amount of SSL's Tier II payment obligation (the "SSL Tier II Amount"). SLC shall thereafter advance the SSL Tier II Amount to the Project in the same manner as all other payments to the Project are made. SSL shall agree to repay to SLC the SSL Tier II Amount so advanced by SLC, and to pledge as a source of payment and security for such repayment obligation the excise taxes currently pledged to the payment of the $15,000,000 City of South Salt Lake Redevelopment Agency Excise Tax 10 and Tax Increment Revenue Bonds Series, 2010 (the "Existing SSL Bonds"). SSL is planning on refunding the Existing SSL Bonds, which refunding will create an annual debt service savings of$290,000 (the "Debt Service Savings"). SSL agrees to repay the SSL Tier II Amount to SLC in equal semi-annual installments, based on an amortization over a period of not less than ten (10) years, and in some combination of term and interest rate mutually agreeable to the Cities that results in debt service payments that do not exceed the Debt Service Savings; provided that SLC may require SSL to fund a debt service reserve fund in an amount reasonably required by SLC that, together with debt service, does not exceed the Debt Service Savings. If, upon completion of the Project, SLC has not fully advanced the SSL Tier II Amount, the remaining amount shall be credited as a prepayment of principal against SSL's repayment obligation. SLC's agreement to advance the SSL Tier II Amount, and SSL's obligation to repay such amount to SLC, shall be documented with an interlocal agreement between the Cities, or such other documentation as the Cities shall mutually agree. ARTICLE 7. SPENDING PROJECT SAVINGS 7.1 If the Actual Project Cost is below the Estimated Project Cost, the Parties may elect to spend additional local funds on Project Betterments in order to "earn" some or all of the remaining available federal matching dollars. No Party will be required to provide additional funding under this Article. The Parties understand and agree that local funding applied to any such Betterments will only receive federal matching dollars if the FTA deems the Betterments eligible for federal matching. 7.2 Subject to paragraph 7.2.1, each City shall be entitled to spend an amount equal to the remainder, if any, of its TIER I, II, or III commitment to "claim" the corresponding federal match to fund Betterments within each respective City. Any portion of the federal share unclaimed by one City may be claimed by the other City, upon the City's commitment to pay the necessary local share. 7.2.1 Notwithstanding the foregoing, SSL may not use funds advanced by SLC on its behalf under paragraph 6.4.17 to claim a federal match for Betterments. 7.3 UTA shall be entitled to spend the remainder, if any, of its TIER IV commitment to "claim" the federal match to fund Betterments to the Project. Any portion of the TIER IV federal share unclaimed by UTA may be claimed by another Party, upon that Party's commitment to pay the necessary local share. ARTICLE 8. RIGHT OF WAY COSTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS 8.1 UTA acquired the Sugar House Spur rail corridor from Union Pacific Railroad in 2002, as part of a larger transaction in which UTA acquired approximately 75 miles of rail corridor property. The estimated value of the Sugar House Spur is $6,300,000. UTA agrees to allow the use of the Sugar House Spur for the Project. It is anticipated that the Project Footprint will not occupy the entirety of the Sugar House Spur. UTA retains the right to use the remainder of the Sugar House Spur for purposes not inconsistent with the Project, or the Sugar House Corridor Management Policies described in Article 16. 11 8.2 SSL has jurisdiction over the following local streets that must be crossed by the , . Project: West Temple, Main, 200 East, 300 East, 400 East. SSL agrees to allow the use of these streets for the Project. The value of this contribution may be treated as an in-kind contribution pursuant to paragraph 6.4.12, with the approval of the Project Integration Team. 8.3 SLC has jurisdiction over the following local streets that must be crossed by the Project: 500 East, 600 East, Lake Street, 800 East, and 900 East. SLC agrees to allow the use of these streets for the Project. The value of this contribution may be treated as an in-kind contribution pursuant to paragraph 6.4.12, with the approval of the Project Integration Team. 8.4 The Parties understand and agree that there will be additional right-of-way acquisition needs as the Project is designed and constructed. Costs associated with such acquisitions, to the extent necessary for the Baseline Project, will be deemed Project Costs. ARTICLE 9. VEHICLE COSTS AND CONTRIBUTION 9.1 The Parties agree that efficient operation of the Project will require three vehicles, and that current funding sources do not provide a means to acquire vehicles. UTA is in the process of acquiring, testing, and commissioning a number of Siemens S70 light rail vehicles ("Siemens LRVs"), to be used in connection with UTA's existing TRAX system, as well as with other ongoing capital expansion projects. UTA agrees to devote three Siemens LRVs to the Project. UTA will retain full ownership of the Siemens LRVs at all times. 9.2 The Parties understand and agree that there will be additional vehicle costs ___ associated with modifying the Siemens LRVs from UTA's light rail specifications, to accommodate Project-specific requirements. Such costs will be considered Project Costs. ARTICLE 10. ALTERNATIVE FUNDING SOURCES 10.1 The Parties may attempt to fund some or all of the Actual Project Cost and O&M Costs (defined in Article 13, below) from third party sources, as described herein. Such third party sources may include, but are not limited to: other grant programs, appropriations by the Utah State Legislature, contributions from Salt Lake County, contributions from business associations, and contributions or investments from private landowners with an interest in the Project. Any such funding contributions shall be allocated to Project Costs and O&M Costs as follows: 10.2 Any funds contributed toward Project Costs shall be credited against the Parties local funding obligations as determined by the Project Executive Team. 10.3 Any funds charged by UTA to non-Parties for the use of the Sugar House Spur shall be retained by UTA. Further, any funds charged by UTA to Parties for uses of the Sugar House Spur wholly unrelated to the Project (such as, for example, the placement of a utility facility unrelated to the Project) shall be retained by UTA. Any such uses shall be consistent with the Sugar House Corridor Management Policies. ARTICLE 11. MANNER AND TIMING OF FUNDING 12 11.1 UTA will prepare and deliver to the Cities monthly invoices for their respective shares of the local portion of Project Costs, as Project Costs are incurred. Each invoice shall be accompanied by documentation of the Project Costs incurred for which payment is being requested, and the Cities shall remit payment to UTA within 30 days after receipt of such invoices. If the Cities dispute any portion of an invoice, they shall remit payment of the undisputed portion within 30 days, while the Project Integration Team reviews the disputed amounts. 11.2 The Parties recognize and agree that UTA has already incurred costs that are considered Project Costs. Such costs include monies paid for professional services, including monies paid to the Design Consultant. Immediately upon execution of this Agreement, UTA may invoice the Cities for such costs, and the Cities shall remit payment to UTA within 30 days after receipt of such invoices. ARTICLE 12. BETTERMENTS 12.1 Any Party may request Betterments in accordance with the terms of this Section. 12.2 Requests for Betterments shall be made as early in the Project planning and design process as possible. Requests shall be submitted in writing to the Project Integration Team. 12.3 A request for a Betterment shall be implemented by the Parties if: (i) the Betterment is not prohibited by a governing State or federal standard; (ii) the Betterment does not substantially adversely impact the operation of the Project; and (iii) the Betterment will not unreasonably delay or interfere with the Project schedule. 12.4 Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, the Party requesting the Betterment shall be responsible for all incremental costs incurred as a result of the Betterment; provided that the Parties shall only be responsible for the local match portion of any Betterments funded from Project savings, as contemplated in Article 7. The Parties shall enter into a letter agreement or similar document governing the terms pursuant to which the Party requesting the Betterment shall pay for the Betterment. The Party Representative requesting the Betterment shall be solely responsible for obtaining any necessary internal approval of the requested Betterment in a timely manner. ARTICLE 13. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE 13.1 Upon completion of the Project and the opening of the Project for use by the public (the "Revenue Operations Date"), UTA will begin to incur costs associated with operations and maintenance ("O&M Costs"). The Parties anticipate that the O&M Costs will exceed the revenues recovered through fares for some time. SLC and SSL agree to offset a portion of UTA's O&M Costs for a period not to exceed two years, as set forth herein. 13.2 For the first two years following the Revenue Operations Date, SLC and SSL shall each pay to UTA the amount of $100,000 per quarter, in a total amount not to exceed $800,000 per City. 13 13.3 The Cities' obligation hereunder shall terminate on the "Cessation of O&M Funding Date," which shall be the earlier of: (i) December 31 st of a year in which a referendum is held by which Salt Lake County voters approve a ['/1 cent sales tax increase dedicated to transit purposes, or (ii) two years after the Revenue Operations Date. Upon the cessation of the Cities' O&M funding obligations hereunder, UTA shall assume full responsibility to fund the O&M Costs. 13.4 UTA will invoice the Cities for their respective shares of the O&M Costs, as described hereunder, on a quarterly basis. The Cities shall remit payment to UTA within 30 days after receipt of such invoices. 13.5 UTA agrees to discuss in good faith the Cities' concerns about balancing rail and bus service within the 2100 South/Sugar House Spur corridor. ARTICLE 14. PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND DECISION-MAKING 14.1 The Parties hereby create a Project Integration Team consisting of the UTA Representative, the SSL Representative, and the SLC Representative. 14.2 Each member of the Project Integration Team shall consult with such technical experts, principals or other personnel of the Cities or UTA, as appropriate, as may be required to properly perform his or her duties on the Project Integration Team, and shall obtain any authority or approval required prior to authorizing, approving or taking any action on behalf of the Project. 14.3 During the design and construction phase of the Project, the Project Integration Team shall: (a) meet on a regular basis; (b) perform all functions expressly assigned to the Project Integration Team in this Agreement, (c) review and approve relevant deliverables as set forth in this Agreement; (d) recommend any amendments to this Agreement or the Scope of Project deemed necessary or desirable; and (e) facilitate the development of the Sugar House Corridor Management Policies; and (f) address and resolve issues, disputes or concerns arising during the course of the Project. 14.4 Once the Project begins revenue operations, the Project Integration Team shall: (a) meet on a regular basis; (b) jointly make recommendations to the Project Executive Team regarding service levels, schedules, and other operational issues; (c) review and make recommendations regarding capital improvements deemed necessary or desirable; (d) recommend any amendments to this Agreement deemed necessary or desirable; (e) continue to facilitate the development of the Sugar House Corridor Management Policies; (f) address and resolve issues, disputes or concerns between the Parties arising from or related to the Project or the operation thereof; and (g) perform all other functions expressly assigned to the Project Integration Team in this Agreement. 14.5 The Parties hereby create a Project Executive Team consisting of the following individuals: (i) for SLC, the SLC Mayor, (ii) for SSL, the SSL Mayor, and (iii) for UTA, the General Manager. The Project Executive Team shall: (i) meet on at least a quarterly basis to review the progress and status of the design and construction of the Project, and once the Project begins revenue operations, to review the operations and performance of the Project, (ii) jointly "" oh 14 make decisions regarding service levels, (iii) perform such duties and functions as are expressly assigned to the Project Executive Team in this Agreement, and (iv) resolve all disputes and make all decisions escalated to the Project Executive Team by the Project Integration Team. 14.6 Any dispute that cannot be resolved by the Project Integration Team shall be forwarded to the Project Executive Team. 14.7 On the Cessation of O&M Funding Date, the Project Integration Team and Project Executive Team shall be dissolved, and UTA shall assume sole responsibility and authority to operate the Project, consistent with the Sugar House Corridor Management Policies and Article 16 below. Nevertheless, the SLC Mayor, SSL Mayor, and UTA General Manager may still meet to review and discuss UTA's operation of the Project, and the Parties' efforts in implementing the Sugar House Corridor Management Policies. 14.8 The Parties shall exhaust the dispute escalation and resolution process identified in this Article prior to the initiation of any formal legal action. If a dispute cannot be resolved by the Parties after good faith negotiations as outlined in this Article, the dispute may then be brought before a court of competent jurisdiction as set forth in Article 23 of this Agreement. 14.9 Except for decisions which are expressly reserved in this Agreement to the UTA Board, whenever in this Agreement a decision, approval consent or other action is to be made or taken by "UTA," such decision, approval, consent or other action shall be made or taken by the General Manager of UTA, without further approval from the UTA Board. ARTICLE 15. PROJECT STATIONS 15.1 The Project shall include stations at the locations identified on the Scope of Work, attached hereto. 15.2 All stations shall include the elements and features, and shall be built to the standards, described in the Scope of Work. 15.3 UTA shall consult with the Mayors prior to the selection of names for the stations. UTA shall consider, in good faith, any station names proposed by the Cities. ARTICLE 16. OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS 16.1 The Project Integration Team will coordinate a process for establishing Sugar House Corridor Management Policies. Such Management Policies, to be completed prior to the Revenue Operations Date, will identify how the Parties will operate within the Sugar House Spur, and how the Parties might fund operations and improvements within the Sugar House Spur.: The underlying goals for the Management Policies will include the expectation of the Parties to create an overall integrated area of development that will facilitate the use of the Sugar House Spur by users of the Project, a bike and walking trail, residential areas, and commercial areas, and enhance the overall redevelopment of neighboring areas within each City. Development of the Management Policies will include consideration of new revenues generated by implementation of the Project and by development of adjacent properties, and how such 15 revenues might be allocated in an equitable manner to fund operations and capital investments within the Sugar House Spur on an ongoing basis. 16.2 Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, upon satisfactory completion of all improvements constructed as part of the Baseline Project, UTA shall accept ownership of such improvements as part of its transit system. UTA shall assume all maintenance and operation responsibility with respect to such improvements. 16.3 Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, upon satisfactory completion of the utility, roadway, sidewalk and related improvements constructed pursuant to the Project, each City shall accept such improvements as the City's public improvements. Each City shall assume all maintenance and operation responsibility with respect to such improvements within its own boundaries. ARTICLE 17. DEVELOPMENT OF UTA PROPERTY IN SOUTH SALT LAKE UTA and SSL recognize and agree that UTA owns a substantial amount of property within the City of South Salt Lake that, by virtue of UTA's status as a quasi- governmental agency, is tax-exempt. UTA and SSL agree to form a task force, promptly following execution of this Agreement, to investigate and implement opportunities for UTA to sell, lease, exchange, or otherwise develop some of its surplus property within the City of South Salt Lake to private owners and thereby bring it onto the tax rolls. ARTICLE 1 -ARTICLE 18. TERM This Agreement shall be effective as of the Effective Date and, unless otherwise agreed between the Parties, shall continue thereafter in full force and effect until all obligations, commitments and requirements have been fully performed as set forth hereunder. Nothing provided herein shall be construed so as to exceed the term limitation provided in the Act. The expiration or termination of this Agreement shall not relieve or excuse any Party of any obligations accruing prior to the expiration or termination hereof including, without limitation, the covenants and warranties made hereunder and any obligations accruing under the indemnification provisions set forth in Article 18 of this Agreement A -R4-I€LE-1 3.ARTICLE 19. INDEMNITY Each Party (the "Indemnifying Party") hereby agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the other Party and such Party's respective agents, employees, officers, officials, directors, trustees and assigns (collectively, the "Indemnified Party") from and against any and all claims, demands, liens, liabilities, costs, fees (including reasonable attorneys' fees), damages or other losses incurred by the Indemnified Party and arising out of or by reason of: (a) the negligent acts or omissions of the Indemnifying Party or its agents; or (b) the material breach of this Agreement by the Indemnifying Party or its agents. The indemnities provided hereunder are contractual obligations personal to the Parties hereto. Nothing provided in this Agreement is intended to waive, modify, limit or otherwise affect any defense or provisions that the Parties may assert with respect to any third party under the Utah Governmental Immunity Act or other "" applicable law. 16 ARTICLE 19.ARTICLE 20. DEFAULT A Party shall be deemed in default of this Agreement upon the failure of such Party to observe or perform a covenant, condition or agreement on its part to be observed or performed, and the continuance of such failure for a period of thirty (30) days after the giving of written notice by the non-defaulting Party, which notice shall specify such failure and request that it be remedied; provided, however, that if the failure stated in such notice cannot be corrected within the applicable period, it shall not give rise to a default hereunder if corrective action is instituted within the 30-day period and diligently pursued until such failure is corrected. In the event of a default hereunder, the non-defaulting Party shall have a breach of contract claim remedy against the defaulting Party in addition to all other remedies provided or permitted by law, provided that no remedy which would have the effect of amending any provisions of this Agreement shall become effective without formal amendment of this Agreement. ARTICLE 20.ARTICLE 21. NOTICES Any notice, demand, request, consent, submission, approval, designation or other communication which either Party is required or desires to give under this Agreement shall be made in writing and mailed or faxed to the other Party at the addresses set forth below or at such other addresses as the Party may provide in writing from time to time. Such notices shall be hand delivered, mailed (by first-class mail, postage prepaid) or delivered by courier service as follows: If to the SLC: With a Copy to: Salt Lake City Corporation Attn: City Mayor Salt Lake City Attorney's Office City& County Building City& County Building 451 South State Street, Room 306 451 South State Street, Room 505 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 If to UTA: With a Copy to: Utah Transit Authority Utah Transit Authority Attn: General Manager Attn: General Counsel's Office 3600 South 700 West 3600 South 700 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84119 Salt Lake City, Utah 84119 If to SSL: With a Copy to: South Salt Lake City South Salt Lake City Attn: City Mayor Attn: City Attorney 220 E. Morris Avenue, Suite 200 220 E. Morris Avenue, Suite 200 South Salt Lake, Utah 84115 South Salt Lake, Utah 84115 17 ARTICLE 21.ARTICLE 22. NON-WAIVER No covenant or condition of this Agreement may be waived by either Party unless done so in writing by such Party. Forbearance or indulgence by a Party in any regard whatsoever shall not constitute a waiver of the covenants or conditions to be performed by the other Party. ARTIC'L-E 22.ARTICLE 23. SEVERABILITY If any provision of this Agreement shall be held or deemed to be or shall, in fact, be illegal, inoperative or unenforceable, the same shall not affect any other provisions herein contained or render the same invalid, inoperative or unenforceable to any extent whatsoever. ARTICLE 23TARTICLE 24. GOVERNING LAW This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Utah, both as to interpretation and performance. It shall be enforced only a court of competent jurisdiction located in Salt Lake City, Utah. A44T4-GL--E 24.ARTICLE 25. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES There are no intended third Party beneficiaries to this Agreement. It is expressly understood that enforcement of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and all rights of action relating to such enforcement, shall be strictly reserved to the Parties, and nothing , contained in this Agreement shall give or allow any claim or right of action by any third person under this Agreement. It is the express intention of the Parties that any third person who receives benefits under this Agreement shall be deemed an incidental beneficiary only. AR-T-IGLE 2 A RTIC LE 26. ENTIRE AGREEMENT; AMENDMENT Except as expressly provided herein, this Agreement contains the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and no statements, promises or inducements made by any Party or agents of any Party that are not contained in this Agreement shall be binding or valid. This Agreement may not be amended, enlarged, modified or altered except through a written instrument signed by all Parties. ARTICLE 26.ARTICLE 27. POLICE POWER The Parties acknowledge the rights vested in the Cities pursuant to general law to exercise their police powers for the protection of health, safety and welfare of its constituents and their properties. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as precluding the Cities from exercising such powers in connection with the Project. .1RTICLE 27.ARTICLE 28. INTERLOCAL COOPERATION ACT REQUIREMENTS Avow 18 In satisfaction of the requirements of the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Title 11, Chapter 13, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, and in connection with this Agreement, the Parties agree as follows: 27.128.1 The Agreement shall be authorized by resolution or ordinance of the governing body of each Party pursuant to §11-13-202.5 of the Act. 27.228.2 This Agreement shall be approved as to form and legality by a duly authorized attorney on behalf of each Party pursuant to §11-13-202.5 of the Act. 27.328.3 A duly executed original counterpart of this Agreement shall be filed with the keeper of records of each Party pursuant to §11-13-209 of the Act. 27:-428.4 Prior to the expiration of the term of this Agreement pursuant to Article 17, this Agreement may only be terminated by and upon the express written consent of the Parties. 27.528.5 Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Agreement or in any of the documents incorporated herein, any real or personal property acquired by a Party, or by the Parties jointly, pursuant to this Agreement or in conjunction with the Project shall be acquired and held, and disposed of by such Party upon termination of this Agreement as agreed among the Parties or as otherwise required by applicable local, state and federal law. A-14 1G-LE 214.ARTIC' ,E 29. LIMITED OBLIGATIONS Any obligations of the Parties to pay money or incur costs under this Agreement shall be subject to appropriation of sufficient funds for such purpose to the extent such payments or incurrence of costs fall outside of the present fiscal year or exceed amounts budgeted and available therefore in the budget for the present fiscal year. Except as otherwise provided herein, this Agreement shall not be construed to obligate any Party to make financial contributions toward the Project. It is not the intention of the Parties to create, and no obligations of the Parties hereunder shall be construed as creating or constituting, debt within the meaning of Article XIV, Section 3 of the Utah Constitution. ARTICLE 29.ARTICLE 30. NO PRECEDENT The Parties acknowledge the unique circumstances relating to the planning, design and funding of the Project, and agree that nothing in this Agreement relating to Project funding, Project design, Scope of Project or the Parties' contributions to the Project shall be deemed as precedent between the Parties during negotiations on future agreements relating to transit improvements in either of the Cities. ART--CLE 30.A.RTICLE 31. INCORPORATION OF EXHIBITS This Agreement in its entirety includes Exhibits A through C, all of which are incorporated herein and made a part hereof by this reference. The Exhibits to this Agreement are as follows: 19 Exhibit A—Scope of Work Exhibit B—Optional Betterments Exhibit C—Performance Specifications IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have each executed this Interlocal Agreement Regarding the Sugar House Streetcar Project as of the date first set forth above. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY By: By: Ralph Becker, Mayor Michael A. Allegra, General Manager ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: By: W. Steven Meyer, Chief Capital Development By: Officer City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: Senior City Attorney UTA Legal Counsel 20 EXHIBIT A Avow [Scope of Work.1 The scope of the project is split into two descriptions. The first is for a Baseline Project, the minimum required to provide streetcar service as committed to the Federal Transit Administration in the TIGER II grant. The second, provided in Exhibit B, is a list of additional project elements, amenities, and/or improvements that the Parties of this agreement would like to be included if funds are available to pay for them. BASELINE PROJECT Guideway and Track Elements The Sugar House Streetcar will run in the existing Sugar House spur rail corridor from just south of existing 2100 South Central Pointe TRAX Station to the east nearly two miles to McClelland Street. The configuration shall be single track with one passing siding currently located near 500 East and a tail track at eastern end of line. The location of the track alignment will be approximately centered in the corridor based on building the north track of the vision document. The final alignment will be determined as part of the environmental re-evaluation, design, and FTA approval processes and may vary from block to block. The conceptual drawings, dated , provide additional information regarding the requirements of building the track elements. This item includes guideway and track for ballasted streetcar construction including rough grading, excavation, fill, and track elements from sub-ballast to 115 RE rail, including all construction materials and labor. Fourteen grade crossings of varying widths will use embedded concrete or concrete crossing panels. Landscaping is not included in the baseline project. Stations/Stops Stations include all materials and labor for the work of rough grading, excavation, finish-grading, platforms, shelters, mechanical and electrical components, and lighting. The stops for this project are designed for single-car trains with a horizontal length for door access of not more than 65 feet. Platforms will be reinforced concrete construction. Platform height is 8 inches, designed to be consistent with UTA's existing system. There are seven (7) stations planned for this project at: the western terminus near the 2100 South TRAX light rail station, between Main Street and State Street, 300 East, 500 East, 700 East, 900 East, and the eastern terminus at McClelland Street which is approximately 1050 east. Exact locations as shown in the conceptual drawings are subject to change pending FTA approval. All stations will meet ADA requirements. Public artwork to fulfill the obligations described in the Memorandum of Agreement between FTA and the Utah State Historic Preservation Office will be provided at one or more station locations. All other artwork is part of the additional project amenities. Site-work and Special Conditions Site-work includes all construction materials and labor for the following tasks: demolition, utility relocation and modification, hazardous materials, roadwork, and indirect contractor costs associated with the construction. Demolition consists of typical railroad corridor features "' "' 22 including but not limited to curbs, paving, old track and train systems elements, walls, bollards and barriers, signs, fences, and landscaping. Some hazardous material planning, monitoring and screening are required in association with the removal of old signal houses and in compliance with Environmental Protection Agency and/or Utah Department of Environmental Quality requirements pertaining to existing soil contamination, if any, location within the Sugar House Spur. The Project may require minor relocation, modification or rehabilitation of affected public and private utilities that are in conflict with, and are located along and/or crossing the track work alignment and within the station areas. Maintenance and access to utilities are to be considered as a conflict. It may include cities exercising their rights under utility franchise agreements, applicable only if on city right of way. No undergrounding of the power line or any other utilities is assumed. Because the project is being built in an existing railroad corridor, the roadway elements are limited to those measures required at the at-grade crossings. Some curb and gutter, sidewalk, paving, striping; and signage has been included. No major structures are anticipated. There are no park and ride lots associated with any station. The temporary indirect contractor expenses include mobilization, temporary facilities, traffic control, insurance, bonding, permits, project management,construction oversight, and community relations. Systems This category includes all the material and labor associated with the purchase, installation, and construction of all train control, traction power, communications, and fare collection systems. Project planning suggests a service of 15-minute headways during the peak hour, and 30-minute headways during off-peak times. Additionally, the project is being designed to accommodate a future second track. Train control will consist of a fixed block system. All 14 at-grade road crossings will use traffic signals or other active warning devices. Traction power will be distributed through an over head catenary system at a nominal 750-volt direct current via traction power substations to be sized for the potential future service. Communication systems will include a ductbank to accommodate fiber for the communication transmission systems including: TPSS, ATMS, train control block system, information technology, and telephone. Fare collection equipment is also included in this cost category. The Project will include a signal priority or pre-emption system to give consistent priority to streetcar trains at intersections with public streets under the jurisdiction of UDOT, Salt Lake City and South Salt Lake City. The project will employ galvanized H-Beam steel overhead catenary system poles, except at stations, where black tubular poles will be installed. The overhead catenary system will be standard(full depth high profile) catenary wire, per current UTA standards. Right-of-Way 23 This item consists of professional services associated with the real estate component of the project as well as costs to acquire any necessary right-of-way. Because this project will be built in an existing rail corridor, most of the land acquisitions occur where the alignment turns north toward the western terminus to meet the existing light rail station. Some additional sliver parcels may be required along the corridor. Professional Services This cost category includes all professional, technical and management services. Preliminary engineering includes advancing the conceptual design to a point sufficient to procure contracting services. Final design includes engineering and architectural services, compilation of as-built plans, environmental mitigation services, specialty services such as safety and security analyses, value engineering, risk assessment, cost estimating and scheduling, and surveying. Project management consists of agency staff and/or professional service consultants who manage and oversee the entire project; insurance provides the owner, contractor/subcontractors, and consultant/sub-consultants with worker's compensation, environmental, various liability insurances, builder's risk, and railroad protective insurance. Legal costs and permits for plan reviews or other fees are also included in this cost category. Surveys, testing, investigation, inspection costs include environmental and hazardous contamination remediation oversight, testing, and clean-up support. Start-up costs include agency staff and professional services to provide support and training to begin revenue operations. An agency force account includes work performed by agency or partner staff including providing all necessary data for reporting requirements. 24 Exhibit C Performance Specifications The following standards shall constitute the Performance Specifications: 1. UTA's Light Rail Design Criteria Manual, as amended by the Parties. 2. Manual of Standard Specifications, as published by the Utah Chapter of the American Public Works Association (2007 Edition). 3. Manual of Standard Plans, as published by the Utah Chapter of the American Public Works Association(2007 Edition). 4. The Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department Performance Specifications and Design Criteria for culinary water, sanitary sewer and storm drain facilities, current edition. 5. All public works infrastructure owned and operated by the City of South Salt Lake shall be designed and installed in accordance with the latest edition of the Manual of Standard Plans and the Manual of Standard Specifications published by the Utah Chapter of the American Public Works Association, and South Salt Lake City design standards. — 6. The FHWA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, current edition. 7. The Traffic Control Manual published by the Utah LTAP Center of Utah State University, current edition. 8. The Americans With Disabilities Act, and all rules, regulations, interpretive guidance and other authority promulgated pursuant to the Americans With Disabilities Act. 9. All applicable building codes, laws and regulations. 10. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials standard practices for roadway and bridge design and construction. 26 ku. SCANNED TO. )=a -v !...,...,. SCANNED BY. RALPH BECKER t� ��\ tit lv Gar s i I a DATE /(d MAYOR ^"R `� OFFICE OF THE MAYOR CITY C 1[, GIII T SMITTAL �L �p NOV 0 g 2011 t_ __ Date Received: Dav''i veritt, Clue of Staff C , ° �, SLC �J�.��u,� „��ent to Council: ��7��/ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: Jill Remington Love, Chair FROM: David Everitt, Chief of Staff SUBJECT: Sugar House Streetcar—Phase 1 Interlocal Agreement FY 2011-12 Budget Amendment#4,Funding for Interlocal Agreement STAFF CONTACT: D.J. Baxter, at 801-535-7735 or dj.baxternslcgov.com Gina Chamness 535-7766 or gina.chamness@,slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing,Resolution and Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that the City Council set the date for a public hearing for Budget Amendment#4 of FY 2011-12, and subsequently approve funding necessary for the City to sign an interlocal agreement to begin construction of the baseline Sugarhouse streetcar project. The Administration further recommends that a resolution authorizing the approval of an interlocal agreement between the City, Utah Transit Authority, and South Salt Lake City be adopted. BUDGET IMPACT: In order to sign the Interlocal Agreement(ILA),the Administration requests the Council approve an ordinance amending the FY 2011-12 Salt Lake City budget. This amendment creates a budget in the Capital Improvement Project(CIP) Fund of$8,021,000. The Administration is proposing to issue sales tax bonds,payable over 20 years, for this amount. Uses of Funds: Issuance Costs/Contingency $ 141,000 Salt Lake City Commitment to Baseline Project $5,380,000 Potential Advance of Funds to South Salt Lake City $2.500,000 $8,021,000 Sources of Funds: 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306 P.O.BOX 145474,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5474 TELEPHONE:801-535-7704 FAX:801-535-6331 www.slcgov.com CEP Funds (from CAM Placeholder) $3,271,000 CEP Funds (RDA Funds as Source) $2,250,000 Repayment from South Salt Lake City $2,500,000 $8,021,000 In addition, the ILA requires Salt Lake City to support up to the first 2 years of streetcar operations with the commitment of operating funds for this project. This commitment would not begin until the line is operational, which is expected to be in mid-2013, meaning that Salt Lake City funds would not be needed for this purpose until FY 2013-14. Because the budget for FY 2013-14 has not yet been proposed or adopted,this amendment would not commit those funds; however, a future budget would reflect this commitment. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: In October 2010,the U.S. Department of Transportation awarded$26,000,000 in federal grant funds to the Sugar House Streetcar project. Sponsored by Salt Lake City, South Salt Lake City, and the Utah Transit Authority as partners, the grant application described the proposed project as a 2-mile modern streetcar line running from the Central Pointe TRAX Station at 2100 South, along the old freight rail corridor at approximately 2200 South, east to the intersection with McClelland Street in the Sugar House Business District. The three project sponsors must execute an Inter-local Agreement(ILA)to specify their respective roles and responsibilities for the funding and construction of the baseline streetcar project, all pursuant to the terms of the federal grant. While the federal grant covers the majority of the project's cash needs, it leaves approximately$11.18 million to be covered with local funds, in addition to the provision of vehicles and right-of-way. UTA has pledged to provide the needed 3 streetcar vehicles, valued at $12 million, and the right-of-way, valued at$6.3 million, at no cost to the cities. The cities and UTA will share the $11.18 cash gap, with South Salt Lake pledging $4.2 million, Salt Lake City pledging $5.38 million, and UTA pledging up to $1.6 million. For a limited initial period, ending no 2 years after revenue service begins,UTA will require the cities each to contribute approximately 1/3 of the cost to operate the line, after farebox revenues have been applied to that cost. UTA's estimate for the annual need is $1.2 million. Dividing this amount into thirds, each party's annual 1/3 share(UTA will also contribute 1/3), is $400,000, up to a maximum total for two years of$800,000 per party. While Salt Lake City,UTA, and South Salt Lake City have shared all costs of the project equally up to this time, South Salt Lake City does not have the financial capability to contribute to the capital costs of the project at a rate equal to Salt Lake City's. With a general fund roughly 1/10 the size of Salt Lake City's, South Salt Lake has determined that it cannot provide a total contribution greater than $5.0 million. Based on a resolution both City Councils passed several years ago to commit $2.5 million in local match toward the project, South Salt Lake has access to its committed $2.5 million, of which $800,000 will likely go toward its O&M commitment. If 4* the project requires additional capital funds, which is almost certain, South Salt Lake is willing 2 to invest up to an additional $2.5 million, but may request Salt Lake City's assistance in financing that amount over a multi-year term. Therefore, the ILA governing funding of the project provides for a Salt Lake City contribution up to $5.38 million, a South Salt Lake City contribution up to $5.0 million(jointly covering the capital gap), and commits Salt Lake City to lend South Salt Lake up to $2.5 million, if requested by a certain date. Furthermore,the ILA calls for up to $800,000 in contributions toward operating and maintenance costs. Analysis: 1. Capital Funds The federal grant application enumerated the project's capital budget as follows: Capital Costs Guideway and Track Elements $5,400,000 Stations $1,140,000 Sitework $12,320,000 Systems $8,900,000 Right-of-way $700,000 Professional Services $2,720,000 Unallocated Contingency $6,000,000 Total Cash Needed: $37,180,000 Right-of-Way(owned by UTA) $6,300,000 3 Vehicles (owned by UTA) $12,000,000 Total Project Budget: $55,480,000 These costs are proposed to be covered as follows: USDOT TIGER II Grant $26,000,000 Salt Lake City-Cash Commitment $2,500,000 South Salt Lake-Cash Commitment $2,500,000 UTA Vehicles $12,000,000 UTA Rail Corridor $6,300,000 Total Sources: $49,300,000 Gap to be covered: $6,180,000 3 The grant application proposed local contributions of$2.5 million from each city, which the cities committed to provide by resolutions adopted by the city councils in August 2009. As awarded,however, the grant requires a larger local share, consisting of the initial contributions of $2.5 million each, plus an additional local share of$6.18 million. Therefore,the total cash gap needing to be covered is $11.18 million. Based on the financial circumstances of each of the partners,the partners have agreed that the cities will share the initial portions of the cash contribution,while UTA will be responsible for the final $1.6 million of capital funds, if those funds are needed. UTA's contribution to the capital costs of the project will also include the three Siemens S70 vehicles needed (valued at$12 million total),the right-of-way (valued at$6.3 million), and the management and oversight of the project's procurement and construction processes. While the two cities have shared all costs equally thus far,the allocation of capital costs creates a disproportionate burden on South Salt Lake's funding resources, which are roughly 1/10 of Salt Lake City's. Therefore,the Administration is proposing that that the City assume responsibility for a larger share of the capital costs, with Salt Lake City committing to cover up to $5.38 million, and South Salt Lake City up to $4.2 million. The qualifier"up to" in the preceding sentence is important, as the project budget as presented above carries a healthy contingency of$6 million, very close to the amount of the outstanding $6.18 million capital gap. While FTA requires the budget to contain this contingency and for the parties to commit to covering the full amount,UTA believes the nature of the project and the current construction climate may present an opportunity to construct the project for less than the full budgeted cost. If the project is built for a lower amount, the first $1.6 million in savings will be credited to UTA's capital commitment; the next$1.18 million in savings will accrue to Salt Lake City. Thereafter, each city's capital obligation would be reduced by an equal amount. By working closely with UTA on management of the contractor and the scope of work, the cities may be able to reduce the level of their capital obligations on the baseline project. Such a reduction, however, would have consequences for the grant. For the full $26 million in federal funds to be accessed,the project must consume the full amount of the budget, including the $6 million contingency. If the project does not use the full contingency, the 70/30 federal-to-local matching ratio will reduce the amount of federal dollars available to the project. There are two approaches available to the parties in this situation. The first is to simply close out the project at the lower cost, and accept a lower sum of federal dollars. The second is to identify other capital components that would complement the project, but which go beyond the baseline project, and which would qualify for federal matching contributions. Because this project is an economic development project in addition to being a transportation project, the FTA has preliminarily indicated it would certify some "betterments" in the corridor as expenses that would be eligible for the federal matching dollars at the 70/30 ratio. Because the Baseline Project includes only the core elements needed for operation of the streetcar, there are several physical improvements to the remaining width of the corridor that would greatly enhance its appearance and its effectiveness as an economic development catalyst. .00040, These betterments have been the subject of a robust public process and professional urban design analysis over the past 6 months. With presentations to the City Council planned in November 2011, and additional input expected from the public and property owners in the months ahead, the Administration plans to develop a"vision" for the corridor, along with a budget for implementation of the improvements needed to accomplish that vision. If the baseline project is completed under budget, some of these improvements could benefit from the federal matching dollars available in the TIGER II grant. This component of the project will be developed in the months ahead, and presented to the City Council for consideration at a later date, likely in mid-2012. The City will also need to consider a funding mechanism for those betterments at that time. In order to meet the timeline specified in the TIGER II grant, however,the initial ILA governing the baseline project cannot wait for completion of the betterments discussion and decision process. The grant requires project construction to begin in April 2012, and meeting that deadline requires the execution of an Inter-local Agreement no later than the end of 2011. Again, the current ILA need only cover the costs associated with the baseline project, and can be amended later to add any desired betterments. Proposed Funding Sources: The ILA commits Salt Lake City to fund up to $5.38 million of the capital construction cost. In the ILA, Salt Lake City would also commit to lend South Salt Lake City up to $2.5 million of its $4.2 million capital contribution, if South Salt Lake elected to utilize that option. Therefore, Salt Lake City must be prepared to provide up to $7.88 million in funding for the project, understanding that$2.5 of that amount accounts for a loan to South Salt Lake City,which would provide an annual repayment, based on the terms to be negotiated in a separate agreement with South Salt Lake City. The Administration proposes to issue a sales tax revenue bond for the full amount needed,up to $7.88 million, plus the cost of issuance, estimated to be approximately $140,000 with repayments coming from the following sources: RDA: $2.25 million CIP: $3.27 million SSL: $2.50 million Total: $8.02 million The assumption for RDA participation is based on RDA's current balance of$750,000 in cash allocated for the streetcar project, and an assumption that the Board would allocate at least $500,000 toward the project in each of the three remaining fiscal years of the project area, adding $1.5 million to the total. This amount could be transferred to the City's CIP Fund, or could be paid annually from allocated RDA funds. Alternatively, available cash from the RDA could be used to reduce the overall amount of bonds issued. 5 As an alternative, the Council could, acting as the RDA Board, opt to allocate higher annual amounts from the Sugar House Budget in each of the future years,thereby reducing the burden on the City's CIP program. This, of course, would reduce the flow of RDA dollars available for other projects in Sugar House, such as public art, streetscape improvements and amenities, and public infrastructure improvements. RDA staff estimates that, if the Board wished, it could allocate up to $750,000/year without jeopardizing funding for current ongoing commitments. Over three fiscal years,this level of RDA allocation would reduce the City's total General Fund share by $750,000. If South Salt Lake City requests a loan from Salt Lake City before June 1, 2012, the ILA would commit Salt Lake City to provide the loan on the following terms: • Must be requested in writing by June 1, 2012 • Funds only available for SSL's contribution to Baseline project (not Betterments) • Repayment secured with pledge of SSL Excise Tax revenues • Interest rate and term to be negotiated by the cities • No penalty for early repayment • SSL will make good faith efforts to secure the funds on its own. Attached is spreadsheet outlining several possible debt service scenarios, assuming repayment from South Salt Lake City over a period of 13 years, at an interest rate of approximately 6%. These scenarios are included for illustrative purposes only. A myriad of issues regarding debt service remain to be determined, including whether we would prefer to consider revenue from both South Salt Lake and the RDA as "special revenue" and pledge the revenues directly to our bond issue,thus excluding those pieces from our debt capacity calculations, or whether we would prefer to apply those revenues in a manner that equalizes the City contribution over time, which would likely mean those revenues could not be pledged, and the City's overall debt capacity would be reduced by the total amount of the bond. Further, an agreement regarding the terms of a loan with South Salt Lake has not yet been reached, and the highest rate the City would negotiate is included in these illustrations. These scenarios are meant to provide Council members with the range of choices that may be available once bonds are issued and a debt service budget is developed, likely in FY 2012-13. Scenario One proposes to use the advance of funds repayment monies from South Salt Lake first, and supplement as necessary with RDA funds, which could be transferred to the City before the end of the RDA Sugarhouse District. In this scenario, CIP placeholder funds are not needed until FY 2021, but then escalate quickly, with CIP assuming full responsibility for the final 7 years of debt service. Scenario Two reverses the order between South Salt Lake and RDA funds, which would be held for debt service and then used as illustrated. In this scenario, CIP placeholder funds would not be needed until FY 2021, with CIP assuming full responsibility for the final 7 years of debt service. Scenario Three equalizes RDA payments over the full life of the bond, but uses South Salt Lake funds as they are collected for debt service. This would leave the CIP placeholder contributing the remainder of the debt service amount, which would begin around $140,000 and then escalate as the South Salt Lake loan is paid off to around $425,000. Finally, Scenario Four equalizes all payments across the life of the bond, which would require a contribution of approximately $244,000 annually from the CIP placeholder amount. Prior to " 44, bond issuance, the Administration will present a recommendation for debt service over the life of the bond, and will likely recommend Scenario 4,which would equalize payments over the full term of the bond. 2. Operations and Maintenance Funds Representatives of South Salt Lake and Salt Lake Cities approached UTA in the mid- 2000s asking for support of the project. UTA was receptive and agreed to support the process for evaluating the project, and has been an equal and committed partner throughout the process. UTA has consistently indicated,however, that its long range revenue projections (which revenues are based primarily on sales tax collections)would not likely be strong enough to pay for operations of the Streetcar line. Thus,UTA has insisted that the cities consider sharing the cost of operations and maintenance (O&M) for this project. Based on experience with its existing rail service, UTA estimates that the annual O&M cost will be approximately $1.5 million. This cost can be offset by fare box revenues, which UTA expects will produce approximately $300,000 of revenue per year. This leaves an annual gap of approximately $1.2 million that needs to be covered for O&M. The parties have agreed that this will be shared in equal thirds of$400,000 per year for up to two years after the beginning of revenue service. After the end of two years, UTA will assume full responsibility for O&M costs on the line. Salt Lake City's maximum obligation will be $800,000. The cities' O&M obligations may be reduced from this amount if a voter referendum passes increasing UTA's sales tax collections. We are also negotiating other contingencies that might truncate the cities' O&M obligations. Assuming Salt Lake City's O&M obligation is not extinguished or reduced by a referendum,the Administration believes there are several options for funding the City's $800,000 O&M obligation. As mentioned above, these funds would not be needed until the FY 2013-14. Options include appropriating $400,000 of revenue growth we may see in the next two years for this purpose from the City's General Fund, committing $400,000 from fund balance in each year for this purpose, or reducing the CAM "placeholder" in CIP by $400,000 in FY 2014 and FY 2015 in order to fund this commitment. 3. Additional Capital Costs: Corridor Vision and"Betterments" The current ILA deals only with construction of the "Baseline"project,which includes ballasted track, overhead wires, 7 station locations, and in general, the equipment and material needed to enable the streetcar operate, but nothing more. Only a portion of the UTA corridor, which varies from 40-66 feet in width, will be needed for the streetcar track. The remainder of the corridor will be available to cities or adjacent property owners for the installation of improvements and amenities that serve the public, support the streetcar line, and help to catalyze development. 7 The two cities have funded and led a Corridor Visioning Process over the last six months to involve the general public,nearby property and business owners, and potential developers in an effort to define how the corridor should look. That process has included significant public involvement,as described below, as well as urban design and development assistance from Citiventure Associates and CRSA Architects. The formal results of this process will be presented to the community and the City Councils in the coming weeks and months. In general, the results include a series of upgrades and finishes to the remainder of the corridor to create both a linear park corridor and a series of plazas and gathering places around the stations that would support development. We are currently working with a Citizens Advisory Committee in both cities to prioritize various elements of the recommended improvements, and to establish more accurate costs for those improvements. As the proposals are refined with additional public input, we will also evaluate opportunities and the appetite for private participation in those costs. In the meantime,the City's Engineering Division has provided very rough cost estimates of approximately $5.4 million for a"complete finish"of the Salt Lake City portion of the corridor with a series of landscaped trail sections and plazas. In addition,providing embedded track in the Salt Lake City portion of the corridor would add another$2.1 million in cost. While these improvements and their costs need further public input and refinement, and do not need to be selected or funded at this time, we provide the rough estimates for informational purposes for the Council. The Administration is not anticipating issuing a sales tax bond for this project prior to the A" completion of the betterment review. Once the visioning process is complete,the Administration will bring this issue back to the Council, and will request the Council adopt a parameters resolution in order to issue the sales tax bond at that time. PUBLIC PROCESS: Sugar House Streetcar Phase I Community Visioning The Sugar House Streetcar Community Visioning project has been a collaboration of the RDA, City of South Salt Lake, Citiventure (Consultant), and UTA. Community Open Houses May 12 &August 25: Community open houses were held on May 12 and August 25 to provide information and collect public comments on the Sugar House Streetcar Line. The RDA staff sent postcards to residents and businesses located within one-block on each side of the Sugarmont Rail Corridor, notifying them about the open houses. Over 3,000 postcards were mailed for both meetings. The meetings were also posted on the Salt Lake City Meeting Calendar, City Council, and Sugar House Streetcar websites. In addition, email blasts about the open houses were sent to community members and groups, businesses, and other stakeholders by the Sugar House Community Council, Westminster College, East Central Community Council, Liberty Wells 8 Community Council, Salt Lake City Planning Division, and the RDA. Also, flyers were distributed throughout the Sugar House community by members of the Sugar House Community Council about the open houses. May 12 Community Open House: The purpose of the open house was to educate the public about how this streetcar system will work,the public space and potential amenities in the corridor, including Parley's Trail, and what new development is planned nearby. The public shared their ideas and thoughts on what they would like to see and potential changes in the corridor potential changes and how they think they will use the corridor in the future. Over 150 members of the public attended the open house. August 25 Community Open House: The open house was a follow up to the May 28 meeting. Design concepts of the Sugarmont Corridor and Streetcar Line were presented for the community to review and provide input. Over 75 members of the public attended the open house. July 20 Developers' Forum: The RDA, Urban Land Institute, and the City of South Salt Lake partnered to host a developers' forum on July 20 to offer an early look at the designs and opportunities of the upcoming Sugar House Streetcar. Developers were brought up to speed on the project, met other key property owners and developers, and explored specific station area development opportunities. At the forum it was also discussed that the public sector has taken the lead on planning the infrastructure element, but capitalizing on the investment and building the community will need to come from the private sector. Developers were encouraged to construct new residential, commercial, retail and entertainment projects and plan to invest in civic projects to complement the streetcar line. Thirty-five developers and stakeholders attended the forum, which included walking tours of several station areas. Community Events: The RDA and the City of Salt Lake hosted booths at the Freedom Festival on July 2 and the Sugar House Street Fair on July 4. Posters showing renderings and other information on the streetcar were presented at the booth. Members of the public were encouraged to provide comments. An estimated 500 people passed through the booths and received information during the two events. Sugar House Community Council Meetings: The RDA staff has attended the Sugar House Community Council meetings since May to present information on the Sugar House Streetcar Line, provide updates on upcoming open houses and outreach events, and collect public comment. Open City Hall: The Sugar House Streetcar has been listed and maintained as a topic on Open City Hall since May 2011, with an emphasis on gathering input about what people would like to see in the corridor. The forum has attracted 279 participants, and generated 25 written comments. which are attached to this transmittal. Publication of this Transmittal: 9 On November 8, 2011,this transmittal was posted to Open City Hall for public review and comment. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Inter-local Agreement for Baseline Streetcar Project(work scope attached). 2. Resolution for Approving the Inter-local Agreement 3. List of public comments collected on Open City Hall 4. Debt Service Analysis Scenarios 5. Budget Ordinance for Budget Amendment#4 6. Budget Amendment Narrative 7. Budget Amendment Document 8. Debt Service Schedule, $7.9 million for 20 Year Sales Tax Bond issue 9. Repayment Schedule, $2.5 million over 13 years at 6% interest 10. General Fund Revenue projection,as of October 2011 10 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT REGARDING THE SUGAR HOUSE STREETCAR PROJECT THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT REGARDING THE SUGAR HOUSE STREETCAR PROJECT (this "Agreement"), is entered into as of , 2011 (the "Effective Date"), by and between SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Utah ("SLC"), SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY, a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Utah ("SSL"), and UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY, a public transit district and political subdivision of the State of Utah ("UTA"). SLC, SSL, and UTA are hereafter sometimes collectively referred to as "Parties" and may be referred to individually as a"Party." RECITALS WHEREAS, UTA owns a discontinued rail corridor known as the "Sugar House Spur," which runs easterly from UTA's North/South TRAX light rail corridor for approximately two miles through SSL and SLC at approximately 2200 South; WHEREAS, the Parties desire to construct and operate a streetcar system along the Sugar House Spur (the "Project"), and have worked together toward that goal for several years; WHEREAS, the Project has been selected for federal assistance under the TIGER II Discretionary Grants program pursuant to Title I (Department of Transportation) of the FY 2010 Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 111-117, Dec. 16, 2009), in an amount not to exceed $26,000,000; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to document herein their mutual goals, and their respective roles and obligations with respect to the Project. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the stated Recitals, which are incorporated herein by reference, and for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth, it is hereby agreed as follows: ARTICLE 1. DEFINITIONS In addition to capitalized terms defined elsewhere in this Agreement, the following terms shall have the following meanings: 1 1.1 "Actual Project Cost" means the actual amount of money expended to design and construct the Baseline Project. ''""w 1.2 "Baseline Project" is defined in Article 3, Project Scope. 1.3 "Betterment" means any work that is (i) related to the Project and requires the expenditure of funds or other resources, (ii) not required by this Agreement to be performed as part of the Baseline Project, and (iii) performed at the request of one of the Parties pursuant to Article 12. 1.4 "Cities"means SLC and SSL. 1.5 "Contractor" means the Construction Manager/General Contractor ("CM/GC") to be selected by the Parties and placed under contract to (a) coordinate with the Final Design Consultant during final design; (b) provide preconstruction value engineering and constructability reviews; (c) construct those portions of the Project to be self-performed by the CM/GC; (d) procure, manage and oversee those portions of the Project to be subcontracted; (e) negotiate and establish a lump sum price for the Project as identified in the CM/GC Contract; (f) procure, manage and oversee work that is considered Betterments, and which any Party requests to be performed by the Contractor as provided in Article 12; and (g) perform such other work as agreed by the Parties and incorporated into the terms of the CM/GC Contract. 1.6 "Construction Submittals" means design and construction drawings submitted to UTA by the Contractor, pursuant to the CM/GC Contract. 1.7 "CM/GC Contract" means the construction manager/general contractor contract to be entered into between UTA and the Contractor, pursuant to the terms of Article 5. 1.8 "Design Consultant" means HDR, Inc., the engineering firm selected by the Parties and currently under contract with UTA to perform preliminary design services, and any firm engaged by UTA to perform final design services. 1.9 "Design Services Contract" means that certain Contract for Professional Services between UTA and HDR, Inc., dated August 11, 2011, for preliminary design services, and any contract between UTA and an engineering firm engaged to provide final design services. 1.10 "Design Submittals" means all plans, drawings, or other design documents submitted to UTA by the Design Consultant, pursuant to the Design Services Contract. 1.11 "Final Design Consultant" means HDR, Inc., or such other firm engaged by UTA to provide final design services. 1.12 "Performance Specifications" means those standards, requirements, and criteria set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto. 2 1.13 "Project" means the design and construction of a modern rail streetcar line of approximately two miles in length, running between UTA's Central Pointe TRAX light rail station on the existing north-south light rail corridor, on the west, and McClelland Avenue, or approximately 1050 East. The term "Project" includes the Baseline Project, along with any Betterments desired by a Party and approved pursuant to Article 12. 1.14 "Project Costs" means all costs and expenses heretofore or hereafter incurred by UTA in connection with, and reasonably allocated to, the planning, management, and implementation of the Project in accordance with the Final Design Documents, including by way of example, and not limitation, environmental review costs; preliminary design, final design and construction engineering costs; costs of equipment, materials, supplies and labor; construction costs; and costs of managing construction and enforcing the terms of the CM/GC Contract. Project Costs shall not include legal fees or other expenses incurred in negotiating or drafting this Agreement, or the Parties' financing costs. 1.15 "Project Executive Team" means the SLC Mayor, the SSL Mayor, and the UTA General Manager. 1.16 "Project Footprint" means that portion of the Sugar House Spur physically occupied by facilities and improvements required in the Baseline Project. 1.17 "Project Integration Team" means the SLC Representative, the SSL Representative, and the UTA Representative. 1.18 "SLC Representative" means the SLC City Engineer. As of the Effective Date, the SLC Representative is John Naser. 1.19 "SSL Representative" means the SSL Public Works Director. As of the Effective Date,the SSL Representative is Dennis Pay. 1.20 "UTA Representative" means the UTA Project Manager for the Project. As of the Effective Date, the UTA Representative is Jim Webb. ARTICLE 2. PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT 2.1 The Parties have entered into this Agreement for the following primary purposes: 2.1.1 To identify and document the interests and objectives of each Party with respect to the Project, and to establish Project parameters with respect to design, cost and service requirements. This Agreement shall constitute the guiding document governing the Project. 2.1.2 To provide for the allocation of Project Costs among the Parties. 2.1.3 To describe the respective responsibilities of the Parties and establish cooperative procedures that will achieve the objectives identified herein. 3 2.1.4 To establish a mechanism for achieving critical path milestones (such as obtaining Tiger II Grant funding), and for establishing construction commencement and completion dates. 2.1.5 To establish procedures for making decisions in connection with a number of unresolved issues relating to the Project. 2.1.6 To provide for the future operation and maintenance of the Project, and the payment of the costs thereof 2.1.7 To establish mechanisms for resolving any disputes between the Parties arising in connection with the Project. 2.1.8 To establish procedures for making changes in the Scope of Project, Performance Specifications, and other matters relating to the Project. ARTICLE 3. PROJECT SCOPE 3.1 The scope of the Project includes (i) the Baseline Project, and (ii) optional Betterments that may be included in the Project pursuant to the terms of Article 12. The Baseline Project is more particularly described in the Scope of Work, attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Scope of Work has been drafted and approved by the Parties, and the final design shall be prepared, with the objective of establishing the absolute minimum criteria that will result in a Project (i) physically capable of initially providing a minimally acceptable level of streetcar service within the Project corridor, and (ii) meeting the commitments made by the Parties in the " " *4110 TIGER II Grant, at the lowest possible cost. An initial list of optional Betterments is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 3.2 The Scope of Work, along with the Performance Specifications, define and establish the "baseline" design and construction requirements for the Project (the "Baseline Project"). All costs and expenses associated with completing the Baseline Project in conformity with the Scope of Work and the Performance Specifications shall be considered Project Costs. 3.3 The Parties may amend the Baseline Project to include additional scope or, with the approval of FTA, exclude existing scope. Any such changes to the Baseline Project shall be made by mutual written agreement of the Parties. 3.4 The total cost to design and construct the Baseline Project is estimated to be $37,180,000. ARTICLE 4. PROJECT DESIGN 4.1 UTA has engaged the firm of HDR, Inc. as the Design Consultant to prepare the preliminary design for the Project, and has the option of extending HDR's contract to include the final design for the Project. In addition, the Parties may enter into other design contracts as recommended by the Project Integration Team. sook 4.2 UTA shall oversee and manage the efforts of the Design Consultant consistent with the Scope of Work, the Performance Specifications and the provisions of this Agreement. The Cities may provide comments to any Design Submittals and UTA will direct the Design Consultant to incorporate appropriate changes into the Design Submittals. UTA shall be the sole point of formal contact with the Design Consultant. 4.3 The Design Consultant has been tasked with the responsibility of meeting the Parties' objectives in connection with preparation of the Scope of Work, as those objectives are described in paragraph 3.1, above. 4.4 Throughout the design process, UTA shall cause the Design Consultant to provide the Cities with the opportunity of reviewing and commenting on all Design Submittals, including the preliminary design documents and the final design documents. The City Representatives shall be available to conduct "over-the-shoulder" reviews of Design Submittals and related work. UTA shall cause the Design Consultant to address all comments on the Design Submittals that are timely offered by the City Representatives. 4.5 UTA shall ensure that the Cities have the opportunity to participate in all formal and informal design meetings and reviews with the Design Consultant. 4.6 Any Party may request changes in the Scope of Work or any of the Performance Specifications, which changes must be approved by the other Parties prior to implementation. Each Party agrees to consider such requests in good faith. 4.7 When completed, the final design documents shall consist of and include (i) the Baseline Project Scope of Work, and (ii) any optional Betterments incorporated into the Project pursuant to Article 12. The preliminary design documents shall not be included in, or form the basis of, the CM/GC RFP or bid documents until the preliminary design documents have been approved by the Project Integration Team. ARTICLE 5. AWARD OF CM/GC CONTRACT; CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT 5.1 The Project shall be undertaken by UTA using the construction manager/general contractor procurement method. The CM/GC shall be selected as provided in this Section 5.1, and is hereinafter referred to as the "Contractor". UTA shall, with the assistance of the Project Integration Team, prepare an RFP for the solicitation of proposals by potential CM/GCs. The RFP shall not be released until the same has been approved by the Project Integration Team. Proposals shall be reviewed and evaluated by the Parties, generally as provided in the approved RFP. UTA shall select the winning Proposal only with the consensus of all of the Parties. 5.2 UTA shall negotiate, prepare, and execute the CM/GC Contract in a form acceptable to the Project Integration Team. Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, UTA will not issue a Notice to Proceed to the CM/GC under the CM/GC Contract unless and until UTA and the Contractor have negotiated a contract price for the Baseline Project not to exceed $37,180,000, less a reasonable contingency, to be agreed on by the Parties. UTA shall manage the Contractor and the CM/GC Contract in consultation with the Project Integration Team. The CM/GC Contract shall incorporate and require compliance with all applicable terms and 5 provisions of this Agreement. The CM/GC Contract shall include performance and payment bonds in a form and from a surety acceptable to the Parties. ""`� 5.3 UTA shall hold a standing, weekly construction coordination meeting, to which the Design Consultant,the Contractor and the City Representatives shall be invited. 5.4 UTA shall cause the Contractor to provide the City Representatives with the opportunity to review and comment upon all Construction Submittals. The City Representatives shall be available to conduct "over the shoulder" reviews of Construction Submittals and related work. UTA shall cause the Contractor to address all comments on the Construction Submittals that are timely offered by the City Representatives. 5.5 UTA shall oversee and manage the efforts of the Contractor consistent with the CM/GC Contract, the Performance Specifications and the provisions of this Agreement. UTA shall be the sole point of formal contact with the Contractor during the preconstruction and construction phases of the Project. UTA recognizes that the Cities will have considerable interaction with the Contractor, but the Cities agree that they shall not provide formal direction to the Contractor. 5.6 The Cities shall have continuous access to the Project site to monitor all Project construction. If, as a result of a City's observation of construction, a City objects to the manner in which work is being performed, the City Representative shall immediately notify the UTA Representative or his or her designee. UTA shall cause the Contractor to comply with the design documents, the Performance Specifications and the terms and conditions of this Agreement. A City shall not directly order the Contractor to stop or correct work except as necessary to prevent or mitigate an imminent threat of death, bodily injury, other serious damage to persons or property, or the imminent threat of the disruption of critical utility facilities, as determined by the City in good faith. 5.7 UTA shall oversee the construction-phase services to be performed by the Design Consultant and others including, without limitation, processing all construction submittals, invoices, change orders, requests for clarification and quality control on behalf of the Parties. 5.8 UTA agrees to enforce all terms, conditions, performance requirements and warranties provided under the CM/GC Contract on behalf of the Cities and to cause the Contractor to correct any defective or non-compliant work as required by the CM/GC Contract and as reasonably requested by a City. 5.9 Change orders (which include, but are not limited to, Betterments) may be requested by any Party, or by the Contractor. UTA may approve and execute any requested change order, with the approval of the Project Integration Team. Notwithstanding the foregoing, UTA may approve change orders in an amount less than $25,000 without the prior approval of the Project Integration Team. ARTICLE 6. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS Auk 6.1 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST. Design and construction of the Baseline Project is currently estimated to cost a total of$37,180,000 ("Estimated Project Cost"). The Estimated Project Cost includes the cost the cost of design and construction itself, the cost of additional right-of-way acquisitions, professional services, and unallocated contingency. Those cost categories are set forth more fully in the TIGER II Grant. Such figure is only an estimate. The actual cost to design and construct the Baseline Project (the "Actual Project Cost") may turn out to be either more or less than the Estimated Project Cost. 6.2 FEDERAL MATCH. The Parties have been awarded a federal grant for the Project under the TIGER II Department of Transportation grants program, in an amount not to exceed $26,000,000 (the "TIGER II Grant"). The TIGER II Grant, together with local funding in the amount of$11,180,000, will fund the Estimated Project Cost of$37,180,000. 6.3 The TIGER II Grant is based on a 70% federal to 30% local ratio, under which UTA, as the grantee, expends funds on the Project and then submits those expenditures for 70% reimbursement.' Effectively, this means that 30 cents of local funds spent on the Project "earns" approximately 70 cents of federal funds to be spent on the Project (and every local $1.00 spent on the Project earns approximately $2.325 of federal funds for the Project). Since the Tiger II Grant is capped at $26,000,000, any local funds spent on the Project in excess of approximately $11,180,000 will not receive federal matching dollars. 6.4 LOCAL SHARE. The Parties hereby agree to provide local funding as follows. 6.4.1 TIER I. SLC and SSL shall provide TIER I local funding in equal amounts as follows: Local Contribution Federal Match Total (approximate) SLC $1,700,000 $3,952,500 $5,652,500 SSL $1,700,000 $3,952,500 $5,652,500 TIER I Total $3,400,000 $7,905,000 $11,305,000 While the Actual Project Cost is not known at this time, it is expected to exceed the TIER I budget of$11,305,000. 6.4.2 If the Actual Project Cost exceeds the combined TIER I budget of $11,305,000, SLC and SSL must each provide their entire TIER I commitment of$1,700,000. In no event shall SLC or SSL be required to contribute more than $1,700,000 to the Project under TIER I. 1 The figure 70% is approximate. The Estimated Project Cost of$37,180,000,divided by the Tiger II Grant amount of$26,000,000,means that the federal share is actually 69.993006%. 7 6.4.3 SLC and SSL shall provide their TIER I local funding in the manner set forth in Article 11. 6.4.4 TIER II. If the Actual Project Cost exceeds the TIER I budget of $11,305,000, the Cities agree to provide TIER II local funding in equal amounts as follows: Local Contribution Federal Match Total Funding (approximate) SLC As necessary to Up to $5,812,500 $8,312,500, fund the Actual maximum Project Cost, up to $2,500,000 SSL As necessary to Up to $5,812,500 $8,312,500, fund the Actual maximum Project Cost, up to $2,500,000 TIER II SLC + SSL TIER Up to $11,625,000 $16,625,000, Subtotal II contributions, maximum $5,000,000 maximum Tiers I and II, $8,400,000, $19,530,000, $27,930,000, Total maximum maximum maximum 6.4.5 Under TIER II, SLC and SSL are only obligated to expend the amount necessary, together with the federal match and the amounts available under the TIER I budget, to fund the Actual Project Cost. If the Actual Project Cost is less than the TIER I and II budget of $27,930,000, SLC and SSL will not be required to fully expend their respective TIER II commitments of$2,500,000. 6.4.6 If the Actual Project Cost exceeds the combined TIER I and II budget of $27,930,000, SLC and SSL must each provide their entire TIER II commitment of$2,500,000. In no event shall SLC or SSL be required to contribute more than $2,500,000 to the Project under TIER II. 6.4.7 TIER II funding shall not be due from SLC or SSL prior to August 1, 2012, but otherwise shall be provided in the manner set forth in Article 11. 6.4.8 TIER III. If the Actual Project Cost exceeds the combined TIER I and TIER II budget of$27,930,000, SLC shall provide TIER III funding as follows: Local Contribution Federal Match Total Funding (approximate) SLC As necessary to Up to $2,743,500 $3,923,500, fund the Actual maximum Project Cost, up .ems, 8 to $1,180,000 Total (together $9,580,000, $22,273,500, $31,853,500, with TIER I and maximum local maximum maximum TIER II funding) 6.4.9 Under TIER III, SLC is only obligated to expend the amount necessary, together with the federal match, and the amounts available under the TIER I and II budgets, to fund the Actual Project Cost. If the Actual Project Cost is less than the combined maximum TIER I, II and III budget of$31,853,500, SLC will not be required to expend its entire TIER III commitment of$1,180,000. 6.4.10 If the Actual Project Cost exceeds the TIER III budget of $31,853,500, SLC must provide its entire TIER III commitment of $1,180,000. In no event shall SLC be required to contribute more than $1,180,000 to the Project under TIER III. 6.4.11 TIER III funding shall not be due from SLC prior to August 1, 2012. 6.4.12 TIER IV. In the event that the Actual Project Cost exceeds the combined TIER I, II and III budget of$31,853,500, UTA agrees to provide TIER IV funding as follows: Local Contribution Federal Match Total Funding (approximate) UTA As necessary to Up to $3,726,500 $5,326,500, fund the Actual Project Cost, up maximum to $1,600,000 Total (together $11,180,000, $26,000,000, $37,180,000, with TIER I, II maximum maximum maximum and III funding) 6.4.13 Under TIER IV, UTA is only obligated to expend the amount necessary, together with the federal match, and the amounts available under the TIER I, II and III budgets, to fund the Actual Project Cost. If the Actual Project Cost is less than the Estimated Project Cost/TIER IV budget of $37,180,000, UTA will not be required to expend its entire TIER IV commitment of$1,600,000. 6.4.14 If the Actual Project Cost is equal to or exceeds the TIER IV budget of $37,180,000, UTA must provide its entire TIER III commitment of $1,600,000. In no event shall UTA be required to contribute more than $1,600,000 to the Project under TIER IV. 6.4.15 TIER IV funding shall not be due from UTA prior to January 1, 2013. 9 6.4.16 TIER V. Pursuant to Section 5.2 above, UTA shall not issue a Notice to Proceed to the Contractor unless UTA is successful in negotiating a contract price for the Baseline Project of $37,180,000 or less. If, however, due to cost overruns, the Actual Project Cost exceeds the Estimated Project Cost/TIER IV budget of$37,180,000, the Parties will fund any such cost overruns in three equal shares. This obligation is separate from and in addition to any Party's funding obligations under TIERs I, II, III, or IV. The Parties agree, however, to make every effort to construct the Project within the Estimated Project Cost. The Parties agree that they will offset unanticipated cost overruns by cutting scope from the Baseline Project, if possible and with any required FTA approval, before exceeding the Estimated Project Cost. TIER V funding shall be due in the manner set forth in Article 11. 6.4.17 In-Kind Contributions. It is anticipated that each of the Parties may make in-kind contributions to the Project, in the form of staff time, right-of-way, etc. Such contributions may be eligible for federal matching dollars. The Project Integration Team shall determine whether to submit such in-kind expenditures for reimbursement under the TIGER II Grant. Such in-kind contributions shall, at the direction of the Project Integration Team, be credited to the Cities' funding obligations under this Article if they are (i) approved by FTA for federal match, and (ii) budgeted as part of the Estimated Project Cost, as determined by the Project Integration Team. Such in-kind contributions made by UTA shall be credited as agreed by the Project Integration Team. 6.4.18 Subject to the provision of this Section 6.4.17, each City shall be responsible for funding its own payment obligations under this Agreement in such manner and utilizing such financing mechanisms as each such City shall deem appropriate. Notwithstanding .. the foregoing, the Cities agree between themselves as follows: 6.4.18.1 The Cities shall in good faith explore the feasibility of creating an interlocal entity pursuant to Title 11, Chapter 13 of the Utah Code, by mutual agreement, for the purpose, among others, of issuing bonds to finance, or otherwise providing financing vehicles for, all or a portion of the funding obligations of the Cities hereunder. The Cities shall immediately begin discussions toward such end, with a view to creating such an entity not later than April 1, 2012. 6.4.18.2 SSL shall make good faith efforts to diligently pursue separate public financing for the portion of its payment obligations it does not intend to meet with cash reserves or by other methods. 6.4.18.3 If, by June 1, 2012, SSL is unable to secure financing for its Tier II payment obligations on commercially reasonable terms, it shall so notify SLC in writing. The Cities shall thereupon, in consultation with UTA, identify the amount of SSL's Tier II payment obligation (the "SSL Tier II Amount"). SLC shall thereafter advance the SSL Tier II Amount to the Project in the same manner as all other payments to the Project are made. SSL shall agree to repay to SLC the SSL Tier II Amount so advanced by SLC, and to pledge as a source of payment and security for such repayment obligation the excise taxes currently pledged to the payment of the $15,000,000 City of South Salt Lake Redevelopment Agency Excise Tax and Tax Increment Revenue Bonds Series, 2010 (the "Existing SSL Bonds"). SSL is planning on refunding the Existing SSL Bonds, which refunding will create an annual debt service savings Amok 10 of$290,000 (the "Debt Service Savings"). SSL agrees to repay the SSL Tier II Amount to SLC in equal semi-annual installments, based on an amortization over a period of not less than ten (10) years, and in some combination of term and interest rate mutually agreeable to the Cities that results in debt service payments that do not exceed the Debt Service Savings; provided that SLC may require SSL to fund a debt service reserve fund in an amount reasonably required by SLC that, together with debt service, does not exceed the Debt Service Savings. If, upon completion of the Project, SLC has not fully advanced the SSL Tier II Amount, the remaining amount shall be credited as a prepayment of principal against SSL's repayment obligation. SLC's agreement to advance the SSL Tier II Amount, and SSL's obligation to repay such amount to SLC, shall be documented with an interlocal agreement between the Cities, or such other documentation as the Cities shall mutually agree. ARTICLE 7. SPENDING PROJECT SAVINGS 7.1 If the Actual Project Cost is below the Estimated Project Cost, the Parties may elect to spend additional local funds on Project Betterments in order to "earn" some or all of the remaining available federal matching dollars. No Party will be required to provide additional funding under this Article. The Parties understand and agree that local funding applied to any such Betterments will only receive federal matching dollars if the FTA deems the Betterments eligible for federal matching. 7.2 Subject to paragraph 7.2.1, each City shall be entitled to spend an amount equal to the remainder, if any, of its TIER I, II, or III commitment to "claim" the corresponding federal match to fund Betterments within each respective City. Any portion of the federal share unclaimed by one City may be claimed by the other City, upon the City's commitment to pay the necessary local share. 7.2.1 Notwithstanding the foregoing, SSL may not use funds advanced by SLC on its behalf under paragraph 6.4.17 to claim a federal match for Betterments. 7.3 UTA shall be entitled to spend the remainder, if any, of its TIER IV commitment to "claim" the federal match to fund Betterments to the Project. Any portion of the TIER IV federal share unclaimed by UTA may be claimed by another Party, upon that Party's commitment to pay the necessary local share. ARTICLE 8. RIGHT OF WAY COSTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS 8.1 UTA acquired the Sugar House Spur rail corridor from Union Pacific Railroad in 2002, as part of a larger transaction in which UTA acquired approximately 75 miles of rail corridor property. The estimated value of the Sugar House Spur is $6,300,000. UTA agrees to allow the use of the Sugar House Spur for the Project. It is anticipated that the Project Footprint will not occupy the entirety of the Sugar House Spur. UTA retains the right to use the remainder of the Sugar House Spur for purposes not inconsistent with the Project, or the Sugar House Corridor Management Policies described in Article 16. 8.2 SSL has jurisdiction over the following local streets that must be crossed by the Project: West Temple, Main, 200 East, 300 East, 400 East. SSL agrees to allow the use of these 11 streets for the Project. The value of this contribution may be treated as an in-kind contribution pursuant to paragraph 6.4.12, with the approval of the Project Integration Team. 8.3 SLC has jurisdiction over the following local streets that must be crossed by the Project: 500 East, 600 East, Lake Street, 800 East, and 900 East. SLC agrees to allow the use of these streets for the Project. The value of this contribution may be treated as an in-kind contribution pursuant to paragraph 6.4.12, with the approval of the Project Integration Team. 8.4 The Parties understand and agree that there will be additional right-of-way acquisition needs as the Project is designed and constructed. Costs associated with such acquisitions, to the extent necessary for the Baseline Project, will be deemed Project Costs. ARTICLE 9. VEHICLE COSTS AND CONTRIBUTION 9.1 The Parties agree that efficient operation of the Project will require three vehicles, and that current funding sources do not provide a means to acquire vehicles. UTA is in the process of acquiring, testing, and commissioning a number of Siemens S70 light rail vehicles ("Siemens LRVs"), to be used in connection with UTA's existing TRAX system, as well as with other ongoing capital expansion projects. UTA agrees to devote three Siemens LRVs to the Project. UTA will retain full ownership of the Siemens LRVs at all times. 9.2 The Parties understand and agree that there will be additional vehicle costs associated with modifying the Siemens LRVs from UTA's light rail specifications, to accommodate Project-specific requirements. Such costs will be considered Project Costs. ARTICLE 10. ALTERNATIVE FUNDING SOURCES 10.1 The Parties may attempt to fund some or all of the Actual Project Cost and O&M Costs (defined in Article 13, below) from third party sources, as described herein. Such third party sources may include, but are not limited to: other grant programs, appropriations by the Utah State Legislature, contributions from Salt Lake County, contributions from business associations, and contributions or investments from private landowners with an interest in the Project. Any such funding contributions shall be allocated to Project Costs and O&M Costs as follows: 10.2 Any funds contributed toward Project Costs shall be credited against the Parties local funding obligations as determined by the Project Executive Team. 10.3 Any funds charged by UTA to non-Parties for the use of the Sugar House Spur shall be retained by UTA. Further, any funds charged by UTA to Parties for uses of the Sugar House Spur wholly unrelated to the Project (such as, for example, the placement of a utility facility unrelated to the Project) shall be retained by UTA. Any such uses shall be consistent with the Sugar House Corridor Management Policies. ARTICLE 11. MANNER AND TIMING OF FUNDING 11.1 UTA will prepare and deliver to the Cities monthly invoices for their respective shares of the local portion of Project Costs, as Project Costs are incurred. Each invoice shall be 12 accompanied by documentation of the Project Costs incurred for which payment is being requested, and the Cities shall remit payment to UTA within 30 days after receipt of such invoices. If the Cities dispute any portion of an invoice, they shall remit payment of the undisputed portion within 30 days, while the Project Integration Team reviews the disputed amounts. 11.2 The Parties recognize and agree that UTA has already incurred costs that are considered Project Costs. Such costs include monies paid for professional services, including monies paid to the Design Consultant. Immediately upon execution of this Agreement, UTA may invoice the Cities for such costs, and the Cities shall remit payment to UTA within 30 days after receipt of such invoices. ARTICLE 12. BETTERMENTS 12.1 Any Party may request Betterments in accordance with the terms of this Section. 12.2 Requests for Betterments shall be made as early in the Project planning and design process as possible. Requests shall be submitted in writing to the Project Integration Team. 12.3 A request for a Betterment shall be implemented by the Parties if: (i) the Betterment is not prohibited by a governing State or federal standard; (ii) the Betterment does not substantially adversely impact the operation of the Project; and (iii) the Betterment will not unreasonably delay or interfere with the Project schedule. 12.4 Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, the Party requesting the Betterment shall be responsible for all incremental costs incurred as a result of the Betterment; provided that the Parties shall only be responsible for the local match portion of any Betterments funded from Project savings, as contemplated in Article 7. The Parties shall enter into a letter agreement or similar document governing the terms pursuant to which the Party requesting the Betterment shall pay for the Betterment. The Party Representative requesting the Betterment shall be solely responsible for obtaining any necessary internal approval of the requested Betterment in a timely manner. ARTICLE 13. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE 13.1 Upon completion of the Project and the opening of the Project for use by the public (the "Revenue Operations Date"), UTA will begin to incur costs associated with operations and maintenance ("O&M Costs"). The Parties anticipate that the O&M Costs will exceed the revenues recovered through fares for some time. SLC and SSL agree to offset a portion of UTA's O&M Costs for a period not to exceed two years, as set forth herein. 13.2 For the first two years following the Revenue Operations Date, SLC and SSL shall each pay to UTA the amount of $100,000 per quarter, in a total amount not to exceed $800,000 per City. 13.3 The Cities' obligation hereunder shall terminate on the "Cessation of O&M Funding Date," which shall be the earlier of: (i) December 31 st of a year in which a referendum 13 is held by which Salt Lake County voters approve a [1/4] cent sales tax increase dedicated to transit purposes, or (ii) two years after the Revenue Operations Date. Upon the cessation of the Cities' O&M funding obligations hereunder, UTA shall assume full responsibility to fund the O&M Costs. 13.4 UTA will invoice the Cities for their respective shares of the O&M Costs, as described hereunder, on a quarterly basis. The Cities shall remit payment to UTA within 30 days after receipt of such invoices. 13.5 UTA agrees to discuss in good faith the Cities' concerns about balancing rail and bus service within the 2100 South/Sugar House Spur corridor. ARTICLE 14. PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND DECISION-MAKING 14.1 The Parties hereby create a Project Integration Team consisting of the UTA Representative, the SSL Representative, and the SLC Representative. 14.2 Each member of the Project Integration Team shall consult with such technical experts, principals or other personnel of the Cities or UTA, as appropriate, as may be required to properly perform his or her duties on the Project Integration Team, and shall obtain any authority or approval required prior to authorizing, approving or taking any action on behalf of the Project. 14.3 During the design and construction phase of the Project, the Project Integration Team shall: (a) meet on a regular basis; (b) perform all functions expressly assigned to the Project Integration Team in this Agreement, (c) review and approve relevant deliverables as set forth in this Agreement; (d) recommend any amendments to this Agreement or the Scope of Project deemed necessary or desirable; and (e) facilitate the development of the Sugar House Corridor Management Policies; and (f) address and resolve issues, disputes or concerns arising during the course of the Project. 14.4 Once the Project begins revenue operations, the Project Integration Team shall: (a) meet on a regular basis; (b) jointly make recommendations to the Project Executive Team regarding service levels, schedules, and other operational issues; (c) review and make recommendations regarding capital improvements deemed necessary or desirable; (d) recommend any amendments to this Agreement deemed necessary or desirable; (e) continue to facilitate the development of the Sugar House Corridor Management Policies; (f) address and resolve issues, disputes or concerns between the Parties arising from or related to the Project or the operation thereof; and (g) perform all other functions expressly assigned to the Project Integration Team in this Agreement. 14.5 The Parties hereby create a Project Executive Team consisting of the following individuals: (i) for SLC, the SLC Mayor, (ii) for SSL, the SSL Mayor, and (iii) for UTA, the General Manager. The Project Executive Team shall: (i) meet on at least a quarterly basis to review the progress and status of the design and construction of the Project, and once the Project begins revenue operations, to review the operations and performance of the Project, (ii) jointly make decisions regarding service levels, (iii) perform such duties and functions as are expressly 14 assigned to the Project Executive Team in this Agreement, and (iv) resolve all disputes and make all decisions escalated to the Project Executive Team by the Project Integration Team. 14.6 Any dispute that cannot be resolved by the Project Integration Team shall be forwarded to the Project Executive Team. 14.7 On the Cessation of O&M Funding Date, the Project Integration Team and Project Executive Team shall be dissolved, and UTA shall assume sole responsibility and authority to operate the Project, consistent with the Sugar House Corridor Management Policies and Article 16 below. Nevertheless, the SLC Mayor, SSL Mayor, and UTA General Manager may still meet to review and discuss UTA's operation of the Project, and the Parties' efforts in implementing the Sugar House Corridor Management Policies. 14.8 The Parties shall exhaust the dispute escalation and resolution process identified in this Article prior to the initiation of any formal legal action. If a dispute cannot be resolved by the Parties after good faith negotiations as outlined in this Article, the dispute may then be brought before a court of competent jurisdiction as set forth in Article 23 of this Agreement. 14.9 Except for decisions which are expressly reserved in this Agreement to the UTA Board, whenever in this Agreement a decision, approval consent or other action is to be made or taken by "UTA," such decision, approval, consent or other action shall be made or taken by the General Manager of UTA, without further approval from the UTA Board. ARTICLE 15. PROJECT STATIONS 15.1 The Project shall include stations at the locations identified on the Scope of Work, attached hereto. 15.2 All stations shall include the elements and features, and shall be built to the standards, described in the Scope of Work. 15.3 UTA shall consult with the Mayors prior to the selection of names for the stations. UTA shall consider, in good faith, any station names proposed by the Cities. ARTICLE 16. OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS 16.1 The Project Integration Team will coordinate a process for establishing Sugar House Corridor Management Policies. Such Management Policies, to be completed prior to the Revenue Operations Date, will identify how the Parties will operate within the Sugar House Spur. The underlying goals for the Management Policies will include the expectation of the Parties to create an overall integrated area of development that will facilitate the use of the Sugar House Spur by users of the Project, a bike and walking trail, residential areas, and commercial areas, and enhance the overall redevelopment of neighboring areas within each City. 16.2 Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, upon satisfactory completion of all improvements constructed as part of the Baseline Project, UTA shall accept ownership of such improvements as part of its transit system. UTA shall assume all maintenance and operation responsibility with respect to such improvements. 15 16.3 Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, upon satisfactory completion of the utility, roadway, sidewalk and related improvements constructed pursuant to the Project, each '" ' City shall accept such improvements as the City's public improvements. Each City shall assume all maintenance and operation responsibility with respect to such improvements within its own boundaries. ARTICLE 17. TERM This Agreement shall be effective as of the Effective Date and, unless otherwise agreed between the Parties, shall continue thereafter in full force and effect until all obligations, commitments and requirements have been fully performed as set forth hereunder. Nothing provided herein shall be construed so as to exceed the term limitation provided in the Act. The expiration or termination of this Agreement shall not relieve or excuse any Party of any obligations accruing prior to the expiration or termination hereof including, without limitation, the covenants and warranties made hereunder and any obligations accruing under the indemnification provisions set forth in Article 18 of this Agreement ARTICLE 18. INDEMNITY Each Party (the "Indemnifying Party") hereby agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the other Party and such Party's respective agents, employees, officers, officials, directors, trustees and assigns (collectively, the "Indemnified Party") from and against any and all claims, demands, liens, liabilities, costs, fees (including reasonable attorneys' fees), damages or other losses incurred by the Indemnified Party and arising out of or by reason of: (a) the negligent acts or omissions of the Indemnifying Party or its agents; or (b) the material breach of this Agreement by the Indemnifying Party or its agents. The indemnities provided hereunder are contractual obligations personal to the Parties hereto. Nothing provided in this Agreement is intended to waive, modify, limit or otherwise affect any defense or provisions that the Parties may assert with respect to any third party under the Utah Governmental Immunity Act or other applicable law. ARTICLE 19. DEFAULT A Party shall be deemed in default of this Agreement upon the failure of such Party to observe or perform a covenant, condition or agreement on its part to be observed or performed, and the continuance of such failure for a period of thirty (30) days after the giving of written notice by the non-defaulting Party, which notice shall specify such failure and request that it be remedied; provided, however, that if the failure stated in such notice cannot be corrected within the applicable period, it shall not give rise to a default hereunder if corrective action is instituted within the 30-day period and diligently pursued until such failure is corrected. In the event of a default hereunder, the non-defaulting Party shall have a breach of contract claim remedy against the defaulting Party in addition to all other remedies provided or permitted by law, provided that no remedy which would have the effect of amending any provisions of this Agreement shall become effective without formal amendment of this Agreement. ARTICLE 20. NOTICES 16 Any notice, demand, request, consent, submission, approval, designation or other communication which either Party is required or desires to give under this Agreement shall be made in writing and mailed or faxed to the other Party at the addresses set forth below or at such other addresses as the Party may provide in writing from time to time. Such notices shall be hand delivered, mailed (by first-class mail, postage prepaid) or delivered by courier service as follows: If to the SLC: With a Copy to: Salt Lake City Corporation Attn: City Mayor Salt Lake City Attorney's Office City & County Building City & County Building 451 South State Street, Room 306 451 South State Street, Room 505 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 If to UTA: With a Copy to: Utah Transit Authority Utah Transit Authority Attn: General Manager Attn: General Counsel's Office 3600 South 700 West 3600 South 700 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84119 Salt Lake City, Utah 84119 If to SSL: With a Copy to: South Salt Lake City South Salt Lake City Attn: City Mayor Attn: City Attorney 220 E. Morris Avenue, Suite 200 220 E. Morris Avenue, Suite 200 South Salt Lake, Utah 84115 South Salt Lake, Utah 84115 ARTICLE 21. NON-WAIVER No covenant or condition of this Agreement may be waived by either Party unless done so in writing by such Party. Forbearance or indulgence by a Party in any regard whatsoever shall not constitute a waiver of the covenants or conditions to be performed by the other Party. ARTICLE 22. SEVERABILITY If any provision of this Agreement shall be held or deemed to be or shall, in fact, be illegal, inoperative or unenforceable, the same shall not affect any other provisions herein contained or render the same invalid, inoperative or unenforceable to any extent whatsoever. ARTICLE 23. GOVERNING LAW 17 This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Utah, both as to interpretation and performance. It shall be enforced only a court of competent jurisdiction "" located in Salt Lake City, Utah. ARTICLE 24. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES There are no intended third Party beneficiaries to this Agreement. It is expressly understood that enforcement of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and all rights of action relating to such enforcement, shall be strictly reserved to the Parties, and nothing contained in this Agreement shall give or allow any claim or right of action by any third person under this Agreement. It is the express intention of the Parties that any third person who receives benefits under this Agreement shall be deemed an incidental beneficiary only. ARTICLE 25. ENTIRE AGREEMENT; AMENDMENT Except as expressly provided herein, this Agreement contains the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and no statements, promises or inducements made by any Party or agents of any Party that are not contained in this Agreement shall be binding or valid. This Agreement may not be amended, enlarged, modified or altered except through a written instrument signed by all Parties. ARTICLE 26. POLICE POWER The Parties acknowledge the rights vested in the Cities pursuant to general law to exercise their police powers for the protection of health, safety and welfare of its constituents and °�`% their properties. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as precluding the Cities from exercising such powers in connection with the Project. ARTICLE 27. INTERLOCAL COOPERATION ACT REQUIREMENTS In satisfaction of the requirements of the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Title 11, Chapter 13, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, and in connection with this Agreement, the Parties agree as follows: 27.1 The Agreement shall be authorized by resolution or ordinance of the governing body of each Party pursuant to §11-13-202.5 of the Act. • 27.2 This Agreement shall be approved as to form and legality by a duly authorized attorney on behalf of each Party pursuant to §11-13-202.5 of the Act. 27.3 A duly executed original counterpart of this Agreement shall be filed with the keeper of records of each Party pursuant to §11-13-209 of the Act. 27.4 Prior to the expiration of the term of this Agreement pursuant to Article 17, this Agreement may only be terminated by and upon the express written consent of the Parties. 27.5 Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Agreement or in any of the documents incorporated herein, any real or personal property acquired by a Party, or by the Oft 18 Parties jointly, pursuant to this Agreement or in conjunction with the Project shall be acquired and held, and disposed of by such Party upon termination of this Agreement as agreed among the Parties or as otherwise required by applicable local, state and federal law. ARTICLE 28. LIMITED OBLIGATIONS Any obligations of the Parties to pay money or incur costs under this Agreement shall be subject to appropriation of sufficient funds for such purpose to the extent such payments or incurrence of costs fall outside of the present fiscal year or exceed amounts budgeted and available therefore in the budget for the present fiscal year. Except as otherwise provided herein, this Agreement shall not be construed to obligate any Party to make financial contributions toward the Project. It is not the intention of the Parties to create, and no obligations of the Parties hereunder shall be construed as creating or constituting, debt within the meaning of Article XIV, Section 3 of the Utah Constitution. ARTICLE 29. NO PRECEDENT The Parties acknowledge the unique circumstances relating to the planning, design and funding of the Project, and agree that nothing in this Agreement relating to Project funding, Project design, Scope of Project or the Parties' contributions to the Project shall be deemed as precedent between the Parties during negotiations on future agreements relating to transit improvements in either of the Cities. ARTICLE 30. INCORPORATION OF EXHIBITS This Agreement in its entirety includes Exhibits A through C, all of which are incorporated herein and made a part hereof by this reference. The Exhibits to this Agreement are as follows: Exhibit A— Scope of Work Exhibit B —Optional Betterments Exhibit C—Performance Specifications 19 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have each executed this Interlocal Agreement Regarding the Sugar House Streetcar Project as of the date first set forth above. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY By: By: Ralph Becker, Mayor Michael Allegra, General Manager ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: By: Steven Meyer, Chief Capital Development By: Officer City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: Auk //Cv Senior City Attorney UTA Legal Counsel CITY OF SOUTH SALT LAKE By: Cherie Wood, Mayor ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: By: Chief Deputy City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: 20 EXHIBIT A [Scope of Work.1 The scope of the project is split into two descriptions. The first is for a Baseline Project, the minimum required to provide streetcar service as committed to the Federal Transit Administration in the TIGER II grant. The second, provided in Exhibit B, is a list of additional project elements, amenities, and/or improvements that the Parties of this agreement would like to be included if funds are available to pay for them. BASELINE PROJECT Guideway and Track Elements The Sugar House Streetcar will run in the existing Sugar House spur rail corridor from just south of existing 2100 South Central Pointe TRAX Station to the east nearly two miles to McClelland Street. The configuration shall be single track with one passing siding currently located near 500 East and a tail track at eastern end of line. The location of the track alignment will be approximately centered in the corridor based on building the north track of the vision document. The final alignment will be determined as part of the environmental re-evaluation, design, and FTA approval processes and may vary from block to block. The conceptual drawings, dated , provide additional information regarding the requirements of building the track elements. This item includes guideway and track for ballasted streetcar construction including rough grading, excavation, fill, and track elements from sub-ballast to 115 RE rail, including all construction materials and labor. Fourteen grade crossings of varying widths will use embedded concrete or concrete crossing panels. Landscaping is not included in the baseline project. Stations/Stops Stations include all materials and labor for the work of rough grading, excavation, finish-grading, platforms, shelters, mechanical and electrical components, and lighting. The stops for this project are designed for single-car trains with a horizontal length for door access of not more than 65 feet. Platforms will be reinforced concrete construction. Platform height is 8 inches, designed to be consistent with UTA's existing system. There are seven (7) stations planned for this project at: the western terminus near the 2100 South TRAX light rail station, between Main Street and State Street, 300 East, 500 East, 700 East, 900 East, and the eastern terminus at McClelland Street which is approximately 1050 east. Exact locations as shown in the conceptual drawings are subject to change pending FTA approval. All stations will meet ADA requirements. Public artwork to fulfill the obligations described in the Memorandum of Agreement between FTA and the Utah State Historic Preservation Office will be provided at one or more station locations. All other artwork is part of the additional project amenities. Site-work and Special Conditions Site-work includes all construction materials and labor for the following tasks: demolition, utility relocation and modification, hazardous materials, roadwork, and indirect contractor costs associated with the construction. Demolition consists of typical railroad corridor features 22 including but not limited to curbs, paving, old track and train systems elements, walls, bollards and barriers, signs, fences, and landscaping. Some hazardous material planning, monitoring and screening are required in association with the removal of old signal houses and in compliance with Environmental Protection Agency and/or Utah Department of Environmental Quality requirements pertaining to existing soil contamination, if any, location within the Sugar House Spur. The Project may require minor relocation, modification or rehabilitation of affected public and private utilities that are in conflict with, and are located along and/or crossing the track work alignment and within the station areas. Maintenance and access to utilities are to be considered as a conflict. It may include cities exercising their rights under utility franchise agreements, applicable only if on city right of way. No undergrounding of the power line or any other utilities is assumed. Because the project is being built in an existing railroad corridor, the roadway elements are limited to those measures required at the at-grade crossings. Some curb and gutter, sidewalk, paving, striping: and signage has been included. No major structures are anticipated. There are no park and ride lots associated with any station. The temporary indirect contractor expenses include mobilization, temporary facilities, traffic control, insurance, bonding, permits, project management, construction oversight, and community relations. Systems This category includes all the material and labor associated with the purchase, installation, and construction of all train control, traction power, communications, and fare collection systems. Project planning suggests a service of 15-minute headways during the peak hour, and 30-minute headways during off-peak times. Additionally, the project is being designed to accommodate a future second track. Train control will consist of a fixed block system. All 14 at-grade road crossings will use traffic signals or other active warning devices. Traction power will be distributed through an over head catenary system at a nominal 750-volt direct current via traction power substations to be sized for the potential future service. Communication systems will include a ductbank to accommodate fiber for the communication transmission systems including: TPSS, ATMS, train control block system, information technology, and telephone. Fare collection equipment is also included in this cost category. The Project will include a signal priority or pre-emption system to give consistent priority to streetcar trains at intersections with public streets under the jurisdiction of UDOT, Salt Lake City and South Salt Lake City. The project will employ galvanized H-Beam steel overhead catenary system poles, except at stations, where black tubular poles will be installed. The overhead catenary system will be standard (full depth high profile) catenary wire, per current UTA standards. Right-of-Way 23 This item consists of professional services associated with the real estate component of the project as well as costs to acquire any necessary right-of-way. Because this project will be built 4104 " in an existing rail corridor, most of the land acquisitions occur where the alignment turns north toward the western terminus to meet the existing light rail station. Some additional sliver parcels may be required along the corridor. Professional Services This cost category includes all professional, technical and management services. Preliminary engineering includes advancing the conceptual design to a point sufficient to procure contracting services. Final design includes engineering and architectural services, compilation of as-built plans, environmental mitigation services, specialty services such as safety and security analyses, value engineering, risk assessment, cost estimating and scheduling, and surveying. Project management consists of agency staff and/or professional service consultants who manage and oversee the entire project; insurance provides the owner, contractor/subcontractors, and consultant/sub-consultants with worker's compensation, environmental, various liability insurances, builder's risk, and railroad protective insurance. Legal costs and permits for plan reviews or other fees are also included in this cost category. Surveys, testing, investigation, inspection costs include environmental and hazardous contamination remediation oversight, testing, and clean-up support. Start-up costs include agency staff and professional services to provide support and training to begin revenue operations. An agency force account includes work performed by agency or partner staff including providing all necessary data for reporting requirements. 24 North Greenway 1 Parley's Trail 2 Native landscape w-irrigation 3 Pedestrian Lighting 4 Wayfinding signage 5 Artistic/I-lisoric Interpretive elements 6 Benches 7 Enhanced landscaping South Greenway 8 Crushed gravel path 9 Native landscape w-irrigation 10 Pedestrian Lighting 11 Wayfinding signage 12 Park features Stations-Urban Design 13 Plaza hardscape 14 Landscape w-irrigation 15 Light fixture on OCS poles 16 Pedestrian Lighting 17 Bike racks 18 Bike share kiosk 19 Wayfinding signage 20 Intersection improvements 21 Shelter canopy 22 Artwork 23 Interpretive elements Additional stations-urban design 3 Streetcar changes 24 In-street alignment-Main/Utopia AO*, 25 In-street alignment-W Temple/Commonwealth ,, 26 In-street alignment-Sugarmont 27 Additional station-Main 28 Additional station-200 East 29 Additional station-800 East Streetcar upgrades 30 bury Transmission power lines LF 31 bury Distribution power lines LF 32 Upgrade Utility poles-lighting+material 33 Upgraded OCS poles-lighting+color 34 Guideway curb on ballast next to trail 35 Concrete embedded track at stations 36 Concrete embedded track between stations 37 Rubberized embement at station 38 Paver embedment at station Street upgrades 39 State St.Intersection improvement 40 300 East Intersection improvement 41 500 East Intersection improvement 42 700 East Intersection improvement 43 900 East Intersection improvement 44 Central Pointe Plaza street Miscellaneous 38 Above grade ped/bike crossing 39 landscape screen to neighbors 40 Parley's Trail as bike lane , Exhibit C Performance Specifications The following standards shall constitute the Performance Specifications: 1. UTA's Light Rail Design Criteria Manual, as amended by the Parties. 2. Manual of Standard Specifications, as published by the Utah Chapter of the American Public Works Association (2007 Edition). 3. Manual of Standard Plans, as published by the Utah Chapter of the American Public Works Association (2007 Edition). 4. The Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department Performance Specifications and Design Criteria for culinary water, sanitary sewer and storm drain facilities, current edition. 5. All public works infrastructure owned and operated by the City of South Salt Lake shall be designed and installed in accordance with the latest edition of the Manual of Standard Plans and the Manual of Standard Specifications published by the Utah Chapter of the American Public Works Association, and South Salt Lake City design standards. 6. The FHWA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, current edition. 7. The Traffic Control Manual published by the Utah LTAP Center of Utah State University, current edition. 8. The Americans With Disabilities Act, and all rules, regulations, interpretive guidance and other authority promulgated pursuant to the Americans With Disabilities Act. 9. All applicable building codes, laws and regulations. 10. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials standard practices for roadway and bridge design and construction. 26 Resolution No. of 2011 Authorizing the Approval of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement Among Salt Lake City Corporation, Utah Transit Authority and South Salt Lake City for Construction of the Sugar House Streetcar WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13, Utah Code Ann., 1953, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, the Utah Transit Authority ("UTA") is a public transit district, which presently owns and operates a high capacity fixed guideway system serving portions of the Salt Lake Valley; and WHEREAS, this fixed guideway system has been a major success with ridership substantially exceeding pre-construction projections and public sentiment strongly supporting rapid expansion of high capacity fixed guideway systems; and WHEREAS, UTA proposes to expand fixed guideway systems to include, among other things, a 2-mile extension of the system from South Salt Lake to the Sugar House community of Salt Lake City (the "Sugar House Streetcar") with an existing rail corridor owned by UTA (the "Sugar House Transit Corridor"); and WHEREAS, the construction of a modern rail-based streetcar along the Sugar House Transit Corridor would substantially benefit the residents of the Salt Lake City Corporation and South Salt Lake City(the "City Sponsors") by increasing access to the public transit system for all residents of the region through a fixed guideway access to more residents and job sites; and WHEREAS, construction and operation of a streetcar in the Sugar House Transit Corridor will reduce reliance on the private automobile, improve air quality, reduce the growth of vehicle miles traveled, and support the objectives of the Wasatch Front Regional Council's Long Range Transportation Plan; and WHEREAS, both City Sponsors desire to promote transit-oriented development within and around the corridor and encourage a greater use of transit by individuals living, working and visiting in the greater Sugar House area; and WHEREAS, because the Sugar House Transit Corridor will benefit and serve the transportation needs of present and future residents, the City Sponsors support and encourage implementation of a streetcar within the Sugar House Transit Corridor at the earliest possible date; and WHEREAS, the City Sponsors and UTA have desired to construct and operate a streetcar system along the Sugar House Transit Corridor (the "Project"), and have worked together toward that goal for several years; and WHEREAS, the Project has been selected for Federal assistance under the TIGER II Discretionary Grants program pursuant to Title I (Department of Transportation) of the FY 2010 Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 111-117, Dec. 16, 2009), in an amount not to exceed $26,000,000; and WHEREAS, the City Sponsors and UTA are now prepared to undertake the construction of the Project and to operate the Sugar House Streetcar; and WHEREAS, the attached agreement has been prepared to accomplish such purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: 1. It does hereby approve the execution and delivery of the following: Interlocal Cooperation Agreement Among Salt Lake City Corporation, Utah Transit Authority and South Salt Lake City Regarding the Sugar House Streetcar Project. 2. Ralph E. Becker, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, or his designee, is hereby authorized to approve said agreement on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation, subject to such minor changes which do not materially affect the rights and obligations of the City thereunder and as shall be approved by the Mayor, his execution thereof to constitute conclusive evidence of such approval. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah,this day of , 2011. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: CHAIRPERSON 2 Sugar House Streetcar What would you like to see in the streetcar corridor? Public comments as of November 3, 2011 , 2:00 PM All Participants around Salt Lake City T 11, % "f s` er s ;-:r 1".t r I +w ,,' W. 'I 44r I 4. : ��;~ w i Rom-• .• 44,--n. . . .. . r 7 ir ., be:,4-is - r --1.;,..- - ... 0, r t ' j : C I I * 4 ' 4.14%,„ I ry, l"6 tit ti Xt%� As with any public comment process, participation in Open City Hall is voluntary. The statements in this record are not necessarily representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials. Sugar House Streetcar What would you like to see in the streetcar corridor? Introduction Mayor Becker has made the return of the streetcar to Salt Lake City a priority and Sugar House is where it all begins! 400011* Public comments as of November 3,2011, 2:00 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/693 Page 1 of 9 Sugar House Streetcar What would you like to see in the streetcar corridor? As of November 3, 2011 , 2:00 PM, this forum had: Attendees: 279 Participants around Salt Lake City: 25 Hours of Public Comment: 1 .3 Public comments as of November 3.2011, 2:00 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/693 Page 2 of 9 Sugar House Streetcar What would you like to see in the streetcar corridor? All Participants around Salt Lake City Heather Hendriksen in District 7 August 25, 2011, 4:17 PM I live between 700 E and 900 E.Where will the stop be for 700 E? On the west side or the east side? Will there be a traffic light, cross walk, or sky walk in the plans for 700 E?There are many people who jay-walk near Simpson Ave in order to cross 700 E and I can only imagine that there will be more of this once the street car is finished. Jahn Barlow in District 3 August 15, 2011, 5:04 PM As a former Sugar House resident, now living in the Avenues, I am jealous.This is going to be a real asset to the east-west corridor, especially since the streetcar will not be competing with vehicle traffic as much as the 400 South University TRAX line. I agree with others, it would be cool to see the street car connect to Sugar House Park and Highlind High - or better yet all the way to Parleys Way and the new Wal-Mart. Eventually, a new Trax line could run from the University along Foothill and connect to the Sugar House streetcar on Parleys, thus making a full public transit loop around the east side of the city. Maybe the city should negotiate a deal with Wal-Mart to incorporate the streetcar line into their design in exchange for letting them tear down the old K-Mart building and build a new one like they want. If we're going to have a new Wal-Mart, it would be cool if it were as environmentally friendly as possible. Public transit should be a part of that. Name not shown in District 6 August 2, 2011, 6:07 PM 4.410, I am, overall, very excited about the prospect of a street car in the Sugarhouse business area. It would be terrific to be able to easily access different areas of the district without driving. We currently ride our bikes and walk, and I would very much like to see a project that incorporates and improves both pedestrian and cycling traffic. We are east of 2100 South, so for us, access would be primarily within the area between Granite Block and Central Point, including transferring to other trax lines. We will still use our bikes and walk between 1500 East and Granite Block. As such, we're very excited about the trail creating access from Sugarhouse Park to the west side of 2100 South and that shopping/entertainment area--without having to cross the surface street at 2100 South. In reading previous comments, I've noted that some have expressed interest in an extension of the line northward on 1500 East. I absolutely OPPOSE any such extension. 1500 East between 2100 South and 1300 South is for many families and children the primary (if not the only) route to schools in the neighborhood. My children and many others, must cross 1500 East to get to school no matter what school they attend. Adding a street car line to cross would exponentially increase the safety hazard of the road. 1500 East is in the heart of a number of neighborhoods and I do not believe it is appropriate to have a line running right in front of the homes where children, families, and pets are at play and where kids of all ages must use and cross the street to access their schools. The line is going to be a fantastic addition to the business district and we look forward to the development it will bring to the area. Our car is used very little around town, and with a streetcar line, we'll need to use it even less. The currently proposed line-- at least from what limited detail is available from the map-- seems like a well suited location, providing access to businesses, parks, Public comments as of November 3,2011, 2:00 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/693 Page 3 of 9 Sugar House Streetcar What would you like to see in the streetcar corridor? All Participants around Salt Lake City recreation, and entertainment, with (hopefully) minimal disturbance to neighborhoods. Name not shown in District 7 June 20, 2011, 11:37 AM The streetcar will be an great asset to the Sugar House business district and the residential neighborhoods around it.The public investment will be returned many times over by the increase in private business investment. Developers know that more people will be moving into the neighborhood because of the permanent transit system, which they can rely on for decades. Bus routes change all the time, but with UTA and the City making this serious commitment for the streetcar, investors can be assured that the streetcar service will be here for the long-term, long enough to justify new residential and commercial developments in the area. I want to see a beautiful trail alongside the streetcar; new housing; convenient, safe and accessible connections to intersecting sidewalks, bike paths, and streets; street furniture, lighting, and amenities that make it attractive, safe, and pleasant to use at all hours, every day of the week. Ross Chambless in District 3 May 27, 2011, 4:14 PM I am very supportive of the proposed streetcar for the same reasons that others have mentioned here. In addition, I simply see this as smart planning for the future. Future generations will thank us for having some foresight (something that's often lacking in our society) in regard to energy and mobility in the future.We have lost our cultural knowledge of streetcars since they passed several generations ago, so we have lots of questions. But I don't see gasoline prices getting any cheaper.Along with impending carbon regulations, fossil fuel options will be diminished in the future. And as our population grows urbanites like myself will look for accessible and reliable modes for getting around. I think streetcar lines, if planned carefully, could bring multiple benefits to our communities. I think the proposed streetcar "pilot" for the existing passage area of Sugar House makes a lot of sense. I'd like to see lots of public areas around the line, so that neighborhoods have room to flourish around the line corridor.And these corridors should also be designed safely for pedestrians or bicyclists. Ashley Eddington Hoopes in District 6 May 25, 2011, 10:19 AM I am in favor of the street car but I wish that it would extend up 21 st south, have a stop at Sugarhouse park, and then head north along 15th East. The university neighborhoods of Wasatch Hollow and Yalecrest would love to have the street car return to their area, and would support it en mass. To have the streetcar pass the 15th and 15th business district, and then head east on 15th and 13th to pass the 13th and 17th business district would be fantastic. It could continue all the way up to Foothill where it would make sense to have a line heading to the new Natural History Museum and Red Butte Gardens. The fact that streetcars used to wind through out the Salt Lake City neighborhoods shows that it can be successful. People are ready to ditch their cars, connect with their neighborhoods, and get on the street cars! Thanks Mayor Becker!! Name not shown in District 3 May 24, 2011, 10:24 AM Suggest you title the artist's rendering 2175(?) South 800 East. Public comments as of November 3,2011, 2:00 PM http://www.peakdemocracycom/693 Page 4 of 9 Sugar House Streetcar What would you like to see in the streetcar corridor? All Participants around Salt Lake City Please reconsider the use of ballast (crushed stone) for the railway base. It is difficult to walk or bike on or near. It's best attribute, I suppose, is that it is cheap. Please educate us all on the safety aspects of streetcars coexisting on the same right-of-way as pedestrians and automobiles.That is how it was designed in the early 1900s.What are the streetcar speeds? I hope we can avoid chain link fences cutting the streetcar off from the rest of the world in this 3-mile section. After all, we don't fence in all of our streets to keep pedestrians and bicycles away from traffic. How is this different? Living as I do east of 2300 East, I hope to see this streetcar line extended at least to 2300 East. Currently the 21 bus is a 20 minute walk away for my neighbors and me. It was only 5 minutes prior to the route change, which is much more reasonable. Jack Matheson in District 3 May 19, 2011, 3:45 PM •What would you like to see in the streetcar corridor? It would be awesome if we could daylight Parley's Creek after Hidden Hollow and run it down this corridor!!! •What do you think about the potential changes? ow* Very excited to be able to access Sugarhouse via rail! I hope Bike and Pedestrian Networks will be well accommodated in this corridor as well. • How you think you will use this corridor in the future? I will ride the Streetcar, Walk down the sidewalks, and ride my bike. Hopefully along Parley's Creek. John Wilkes in District 5 May 19, 2011, 11:06 AM There have been many failures and bad decisions concerning Sugarhouse recently.This could revive the area again, if it is handled properly. What solutions are being considered to ensure the very heavy auto traffic already in the area will not become a larger problem? I'd like to think people would reduce their driving, but that seems idealistic. How about designating the entire corridor area as pedestrian only, kind of like a park? In fact, if the streetcar line was extended to the Sugarhouse Park area, that could reduce the unsavory type of traffic that enters the park. In any case, having the streetcar go to the park seems sensible instead of ending at 11th East (if I'm reading the map correctly). I always enjoyed the off track, old-fashioned trolley cars that used to run from Trolley Square to the downtown hotels. I never understood why they were eliminated.Anything that reduces traffic and pollution is a great idea. Public comments as of November 3,2011, 2:00 PM http://www.peakdenmocracy.com/693 Page 5 of 9 Sugar House Streetcar What would you like to see in the streetcar corridor? All Participants around Salt Lake City As a Sugar House resident I have been in favor of this idea for a long time. The current corridor is wasted space and does nothing to enhance our community. I envision using this street car to get to work and downtown to avoid traffic and parking hassles. The big questions to me as a very near resident of the business district is the holistic approach to getting people into Sugar House via the streetcar. Currently we have nearly impossible roads to cross of 2100 S, 1100 E, and 1300 E. Unless you are at a major intersection it is extremely dangerous to cross the street. We need safer crosswalks, we need a better pedestrian circulation system in the business district that doesn't encourage people to drive from each development pad as currently happens. It doesn't do any good to create a pedestrian oriented business district when it's down right dangerous to be a pedestrian. We need to rethink how traffic goes along 2100 S and perhaps mirror the improvements done on 1300 E that created a dedicated turn lane in the middle and allows traffic to flow on either side more smoothly. It is no surprise that traffic along 2100 S between 700 E- 1300 E is an absolute nightmare. I am very excited about the streetcar! Matthew Kirkegaard in District 6 May 18, 2011, 4:44 PM I very much support the streetcar as currently planned. In fact I support it to such an extent that I do not believe the current plan goes far enough.The city ought to have streetcars all around the city especially jutting off of Trax lines to reach areas untouched by much public transportation such as the 9th and 9th district or up either 3300 S or 3900 S. In terms of the Sugar House line, I would even like to see it extend just a bit farther to at least Highland Drive. I would hope there will be accommodations for bikes on the streetcar itself, so that riders may bike to and from the line. The leaders of Salt Lake City should be applauded for this great move towards mobility and sustainability, especially Mayor Becker. As an environmentalist, it is inspiring to finally see efficacious environmental efforts on a city wide scale for the benefit of the citizens of Salt Lake. Adam Holmes in District 7 May 18, 2011, 7:42 AM Extend the proposed streetcar terminus at least to Highland Dr. This will make the streetcar more visible to everyone and reduces the walking time to current businesses in the area. People who shop have bags and don't want to carry them very far. Extend into Sugarmont Dr, if needed. I highly support this project as it uses an existing transportation corridor and could revitalize properties along the route. This will also speed up the construction of the PRATT walking trail along the corridor, another benefit to the region. Name not shown in District 5 May 17, 2011, 11:15 PM Every day at certain times I see a Trax train with 2-4 cars going up or down 400/500 South with only a scattering of passengers. Looks great though. The Sugarhouse streetcar will likely be another pretty addition to the ambience of Salt Lake but will not provide much benefit because few will use it. The majority of shoppers in Sugarhouse live in Sugarhouse and must therefore drive south, north or west to the stores. Very few will come from a connection through Trax. And if it really does result in an influx of businesses and new housing units, congestion on 2100 South will only increase. And the artist's rendition shows pedestrians and a pretty red train peacefully co-existing, but the reality is that Public comments as of November 3,2011, 2:00 PM http://www.peakdemocracycom/693 Page 6 of 9 Sugar House Streetcar What would you like to see in the streetcar corridor? Amok, All Participants around Salt Lake City kids and others will be at greater risk of being crushed. Another reality of Trax is that it creates an almost impenetrable barrier to both cars and pedestrians, which will reduce walkability. I like the concept, but the benefits will not equal the costs, both initial and ongoing. Glen Elkins in District 5 May 17, 2011, 9:04 PM It seems many people are thinking 21st South per se, when the route is actually a bit south of 21st South. I don't see it requiring little if any demolition; the rail corridor already exists. I support the concept, and hope there would cafes and shops along the route with wide sidewalks and outdoor dining. I would hope that passengers could get on and off along the route using one ticket ... it would encourage use and promote commerce. I'm on board! Name not shown in District 5 May 17, 2011, 5:29 PM I'm excited to expand the rail system. I haven't really seen the kind of transit oriented urban infill development that is described in the plan, though. For example, it seems like 400 S. is all full of surface parking lots and strip malls despite easy access by rail. Sugar House has been having issues with unwanted strip-mall type development. In general I like rail better than buses because the bus routes keep changing and the rail stays where it is. The proposed streetcar doesn't really substitute for the existing 21 bus line which connects Sugar House to the U of U and is also used by Highland High School students. If the 2 mile rail line eliminates the existing 17 and/or 21 routes it's going to become a lot harder for Sugar House/ Liberty Wells transit riders to get to the University of Utah. Some of the nodes shown on the map (Salt Lake Community College, Columbus Center, Sugar House Park) aren't very walkable from the proposed rail line, especially at night. The pedestrian/bike linkage between the Sugar House Business District and Sugar House Park should be improved and perhaps that could be part of this project. I like the idea of having a bike path in the transit corridor since East/West biking presents some difficulties in the Sugar House area. The bike route going south along 600 E kind of dead ends at 21st S since there is no traffic light, though. Name not shown in District 3 May 17, 2011, 4:39 PM I hoped this corridor would eventually be used for a future high-speed rail to Park City and Denver... Matthew Gray outside Salt Lake City May 17, 2011, 4:06 PM "` Public comments as of November 3,2011, 2:00 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/693 Page 7 of 9 Sugar House Streetcar What would you like to see in the streetcar corridor? All Participants around Salt Lake City I am very supportive of the Sugar House Streetcar Line. Not only would it help to relieve congestion along 2100 South, but it would also be a major incentive for economic development in the area. I think it would be great to have a pedestrian and bike path running parallel to the streetcar line, as I have seen in renderings of the project. The streetcar, accompanied by a pedestrian/bicycle pathway would greatly encourage pedestrian-oriented development and a greener and healthier lifestyle. Julie van der Wekken outside Salt Lake City May 17, 2011, 3:56 PM I've been excited about this project since first hearing about it 3 years ago.We live just south of Sugarhouse (across from Nibley Golf Course in an unincorporated area of Salt Lake), and would defintely frequent the streecar if indeed it is established. We frequent the area often, but it is just a bit too far to be within walking distance for us. If the streetcar is established we would be within walking distance to one of the stops along the route. I'm hoping this project will focus on local businesses and in getting more local shops established along and within walking distance of the route. I also hope that open space will also be a big consideration in regards to this project. That could include park space, community gardens and walking paths among other things. Name not shown in District 3 May 17, 2011, 3:00 PM I see a lot of concerns around cost and "subsidies." Do our highways and roadways pay for themselves? No. They are all funded through taxpayer dollars. Why the big concern around public transportation being subsidized? The idea of returning the streetcar to Salt Lake City is very forward thinking. Gas is slowly getting more and more unafordable over time and I'll be pleased that city leaders saw this coming and have alternatives ready to go when most of us get to the point of losing our cars because of the expense. Many areas along the corridor are ripe for development so don't assume that a large swath of single family homes is going to be razed - that's simply not economically feasible for the city or for a developer to do. Go down to the area and take a look at where the streetcar will be and you'll see that there's more than enough space to redevelop. Joseph Doubek in District 7 May 17, 2011, 2:35 PM What will this cost the taxpayers? We are currently paying some unknown level of subsidy for every ticket UTA sells. How much does it cost to provide a ride on the buses or light rail? Two times the amount the ticket costs ... or maybe three times.... or maybe more? Let's require UTA to tell us what their current costs are before we commit to adding additional costs to the tax paying public.And then, before heading down the street car path, lets have an honest discussion about cost and funding. Where will the money come from to obtain the corridor and other land needed, to lay the tracks and buy the cars? Equally important how much will it cost to run the system including management, labor, security, maintenance and depreciation. Until I see realistic cost figures, I will strongly oppose the Sugar House street car corridor plan. Name not shown in District 6 May 17, 2011, 2:17 PM I have a few questions when I read the specs of this endeavor. The project analysis specifies 4000 new households and 7000 new permanent jobs in the street car corridor. Are these 4000 new Public comments as of November 3,2011. 2:00 PM http://www.peakdemocracycom/693 Page 8 of 9 Sugar House Streetcar What would you like to see in the streetcar corridor? All Participants around Salt Lake City households actual houses with yards? Or are they predominately densely packed apartment buildings? How many single-family houses need to be demolished and replaced with apartments to support this 4000 household figure. As for the jobs, how many of these are full-time jobs that are capable of sustaining a family versus how many are low-paying cashier and burger-flipping occupations? What are the annual on-going maintenance costs of the system compared to alternatives? Are these costs to be paid by the 3000-or-so daily users of the street cars and the surrounding businesses? Or, will the rest of Salt Lake's residents be forced to sustain the project? Unlike Trax, it seems this project is only going to be useful for a relatively small area. How will the increased development and displaced auto-traffic impact the east-west corridors in the area? I know the street cars themselves take some of the load, but they certainly can't take it all.Will the already packed 2100 south corridor be widened to accommodate the extra vehicle traffic, or should we just expect it to get worse? Overall, I think a traditional street with sidewalks makes more sense as it can be used by street cars, bikes, cars, buses, delivery vehicles, van-pools, taxis, etc. The rail-only approach is basically only for UTA. Burton Brown in District 7 May 17, 2011, 12:54 PM I used to kind of support the idea of a street car...but Mayor Becker is ruining my support for it. Instead of keeping it simple, its now a complicated TRAX Lite I urge everyone to speak up when/if the city tries to take current open space or even City Park space ' ' and use it for anything other than open space or park use. Please speak up if the city tries to allow the building pathetic strip-type malls along the route, or if the city tries to build apartments or some such nonsense in nice, open park space....these have all been mentioned directly to me by Mayor Becker...so it can not be denied. Please speak up if any zoning change requests do not make any practical sense. Name not shown in District 7 May 17, 2011, 12:17 PM I hope the City is realistic about the ongoing subsidies that will be required to keep this running and where they will be found. This is much more an ego trip than a thoughtful response to a transportation need. Carole Straughn in District 7 May 17, 2011, 12:08 PM Since I live in Sugar House, the streetcar will really help get me out of my car to shop or go out via public transit. Good job! Keep up the work, City Leaders! oirk Public comments as of November 3.2011, 2:00 PM http://www.peakdernocracy.com/693 Page 9 of 9 Debt Service An ArstratIve Scenarios SUGARHOUSE STREETCAR POTENTIAL SALES TAX BOND ISSUE Scenario One:SSL funds applied first,then RDA funds,then CIP-GF FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Uses: TOTAL DEBT SERVICE on$7.9 million Sales Tat Bond 537,088 536,755 536,974 537,200 536,502 537,030 536,592 537,193 536,723 536,547 536,579 Sources: Salt lake City CIP Funds(RDA funds as source) 251,905 252,924 252,791 253,212 252,258 253,139 252,662 252,895 228,214 Salt Lake City CIP Funds(So.Salt Lake Repayment) 285,183 283,831 284,183 283,988 284,244 283,891 283,930 284,298 283,936 284,843 283,898 Salt Lake City CIP Funds(Capital Assets Placeholder) 24,573 251,704 252,681 Total Sources: 537,088 536,755 536,974 537,200 536,502 537,030 536,592 537,193 536,723 536,547 536,579 Difference - - - - - - - - - - - Scenario Two:RDA Funds applied first,SSL funds stockpiled then applied,the CIP-GF FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Uses: TOTAL DEBT SERVICE on$7.9 million Sales Tax Bond 537,088 536,755 536,974 537,200 536,502 537,030 536,592 537,193 536,723 536,547 536,579 Sources: Salt lake City CIP Funds(RDA funds as source) 537,088 536,755 536,974 537,200 101,983 Salt Lake City CIP Funds(So.Salt Lake Repayment) 434,519 537,030 536,592 537,193 512,150 284,843 293,898 Salt Lake City CIP Funds(Capital Assets Placeholder) - - - 24,573 251,704 252,681 Total Sources! 537,088 536,755 536,974 537,200 536,502 537,030 536,592 537,193 536,723 536,547 536,579 Difference - - - - - - - - - Scenario Three:SSL Funds applied first,RDA Funds used as a source for OP FY 2013 FT 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Uses: TOTAL DEBT SERVICE on$7.9 million Sales Tax Bond 537,088 536,755 536,974 537,200 536,502 537,030 536,592 537,193 536,723 536,547 536,579 Sources. Salt Lake City CIP Funds(So.Salt Lake Repayment) 285,183 283,831 284,183 283,988 284,244 283,891 283,930 284,298 283,936 284,843 283,898 Salt Lake City CIP Funds(Capital Assets Placeholder) 139,405 140,424 140,291 140,712 139,758 140,639 140,162 140,395 140,287 139,204 140,181 Salt Lake City CIP Funds(RDA funds as source) 112,500 112,500 112,500 112,500 112,500 112,500 112,500 112,500 112,500 112,500 112,500 Total Sources: 537,088 536,755 536,974 537,200 536,502 537,030 536,592 537,193 536,723 536,547 536,579 Difference - - - - - - - - --Scenario Four:Equalized Payments FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Uses! TOTAL DEBT SERVICE on$7.9 million Sales Tax Bond 537,088 536,755 536,974 537,200 536,502 537,030 536,592 537,193 536,723 536,547 536,579 Sources: Salt Lake City CIP Funds(So.Salt Lake Repayment) 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 190,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 Salt Lake City CIP Funds(Capital Assets Placeholder) IIMECOMMIMMEI 244,474 244,700 IM111=11111MIEMMI =21 244,693 244,223 IMIII=E1 244,079 Salt Lake City CIP Funds(RDA funds as source) 112,500 112,500 112,500 112,500 112,500 112,500 112,500 112,500 112,500 112,500 112,500 Total Sources: 537,088 536,755 536,974 537,200 536,502 537,030 536,592 537,193 536,723 536,547 536,579 • - - Difference - - - - • - - - Scenarios provided for illustrated purposes only;a debt service budget will be recommended and created prior to issuance of the proposed bonds. Debt Service Analysis Illustrative Scenarios SUGARHOUSE STREETCAR POTENTIAL SALES TAX BOND ISSUE Scenario One:SSL funds applied first,then RDA funds,then OP-GE FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 _ FY 707e FY 2029 ,., FY 2030 FY 2031 FY 2032 Total Uses: • -- TOIAL DEBT SERVICE on$7.9 million Sales Tax Bond 536,804 537,164 536,680 536,366 537,164 537,022 536,910 536,909 536,959 10,737,161_ __. Sources _ Salt Lake CRy CIP Funds(RDA funds as source) 2,250,000 Salt Lake City CIP Funds(So.Salt Lake Repayment) 284,160 200,510 . 3,610,895 . Salt Lake City CIP Funds(Capital Assets Placeholder) 252,644 336,654 536,680 536,366 537,164 537,022 536,910 536,909 536,959 4,876,266 Total Sources: 536,804 537,164 536,680 536,366 537,164 537,022 536,910 536,909 536,959 10,737,161, . Difference - - - - - , • - - Scenario Two:RDA Funds applied first,SSL funds stockpiled then applied,the CIP-OF FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 FY 2032 Total Uses: TOTAL DEBT SERVICE on$7.9 million Sales Tax Bond 536,804 537,164 536,680 536,366 537,164 537,022 536,910 536,909 536,959 10,737,161 Sources: Salt Lake aty CIP Funds(RDA funds as source) 2,250,000 Salt Lake City CIP Funds(So.Salt Lake Repayment) 284,160 200,510 3,610,895 Salt Lake City OP Funds(Capital Assets Placeholder) 252,644 336,654 536,680 536,366 537,164 557,022 _-_.... 536,910 536,909 -- 536,959 , 4,876,266 T otalSources: 536,804 537,164 536,680 536,366 537,164 537,022 536,910 536,909 536,959 10,737,161 Difference - • - - . .„_. . .. . Scenario Three:SR Funds applied first,RDA Funds used as a source for[II' FY 2024 FY 2025 Ff 2026 FY 2027 FT 20211 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 FY 2032 Total - Uses: TOTAL DEBT SERVICE on$7.9 million Sales Tax Bond 536,804 537,164 536,680 536,366 537,164 537,022 536,910 536,909 536,959 10,737,161 Sources: Salt Lake City CIP Funds(So.Salt Lake Repayment) 284,160 200,510 3,610,895 Salt Lake City CIP Funds(Capital Assets Placeholder) 140,144 224,154 424,180 423,866 424,664 424,522 424,410 424,409 424,459 4,876,266 Salt Lake City CIF Funds(RDA funds as source) 112,500 112,500 112,500 112,500 112,500 112,500 112,500 112,500 112,500 2,250,000 Total Sources: 536,804 537,164 536,680 536,366_ 537,164 537,022 536,910 536,909 536,959 10,737,161 Difference - - - - - - - . Scenario Four:Equalized Payments FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 - FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 FY 2032 Total Uses: TOTAL DEBT SERVICE on$7.9 million Sales Tax Bond 536,804 537,164 536,680 536,366 537,164 537,022 536,910 536,909 536,959 10,737,161 Sources: Salt Lake City CIP Funds(So.Salt Lake Repayment) 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 190,895 3,610,895 Salt Lake City CIP Funds(Capital Assets Placeholder) 244,304 244,664_ 244,180 243,866 244,664 244,522 244,410 244,409 233,564 4,876,266 Salt Lake City CIP Funds(RDA funds as source) 112,500 112,500 112,500 112,500 112,500 112,500 112,500 112,500 112,500 2,250,000 Total Sources: _ 536,804 537,164 536,680 536,366_ 537,164 537,022 536,910 536,909 536,959 10,737,161 Difference - - - - - - ' - Scenarios provided for illustrated purposes only;a debt service bt , I .i_ = SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2011 (Amending the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2011-2012) An Ordinance Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 50 of 2011 Which Adopted the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2011 and Ending June 30, 2012. PREAMBLE On August 9, 2011,the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the employment staffing document, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2011 and ending June 30, 2012, in accordance with the requirements of Section 118, Chapter 6, Title 10 of the Utah Code Annotated, and said budget, including the employment staffing document, was approved by the Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah. The City's Budget Director, acting as the City's Budget Officer, prepared and filed with the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, including the amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes specifically stated herein, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and inspection by the public. All conditions precedent to amend said budget, including the employment staffing document as provided above, have been accomplished. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 50 of 2011. SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, including amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes specifically stated herein, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the amendments to the employment staffing document described above, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2011 and ending June 30, 2012, in accordance with the requirements of Section 128, Chapter 6, Title 10, of the Utah Code Annotated. SECTION 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Am* Officer is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including amendments to the employment staffing document, in the office of said Budget Officer and in the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on its first publication. 2 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2011. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved Vetoed MAYOR ATTEST: -- CITY RECORDER _ Alri'4/4 (SEAL) Bill No. of2011. Published: HB_ATTY-#15990-v2-B udget_Amendment_FY11-12.DOC 3 Salt Lake Ci FY 2011-12 Bud•et Amendment#4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 7 . ,1 1,, $ ,=: -_✓ re -ate- �.�ti r t '. .,'q,' -"° tea +� g .*^ (4 'a f A-1 Sugarhouse Streetcars: Baseline Funding for Interlocal CIP $8,021,000 Agreement In order to sign the Interlocal Agreement(ILA),the Administration requests the Council approve an ordinance amending the FY 2011-12 Salt Lake City budget. This amendment creates a budget in the Capital Improvement Project(CIP) Fund of$8,021,000. The Administration is proposing to issue sales tax bonds,payable over 20 years,for this amount. Uses of Funds: Issuance Costs/Contingency $ 141,000 Salt Lake City Commitment to Baseline Project $5,380,000 Potential Advance of Funds to South Salt Lake City $2,500,000 $8,021,000 Sources of Funds: CIP Funds (Debt Service from CAM Placeholder) $3,271,000 CIP Funds(RDA Funds as Source of Payment) $2,250,000 Repayment from South Salt Lake City $2,500,000 $8,021,000 In addition,the ILA asks Salt Lake City to support the first 2.5 years of streetcar operations with the commitment of operating funds for this project. This commitment would not begin until the line is operational,which is expected to be in mid-2013, meaning that Salt Lake City funds would not be needed for this purpose until FY 2013-14. Because the budget for FY 2013-14 has not yet been proposed or adopted,this amendment would not commit those funds; however, a future budget would reflect this commitment. Please see Streetcar Transmittal as well as Debt Service Analysis for more information about uses of funds. 1 Fiscal Year 2011-12 Budget Amendment#4 Expenditure Revenue On-going or Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount Amount One time FTEs Section A; New Items � ' �,1,� e �" �': 1 Sugarhouse Streetcar: Baseline Funding for Interlocal Agreement CIP 8,021,000.00 8,021,000.00 one-time 0 Section B; Grants for Existing Staff Resources Section C; Grants for New Staff Resources• ° ,.,,.�:r', �. 3: ,.. .: ,f..,° .ram,c ,N� Section D; Housekeeping . Section Et Grants Requiring No New staff Resources `" Section F; Donations ,,, ¢ -' x'°,u Section G; Council Consent Agenda••Grant Award>e ` ° Section I: Council Added Items " Total of Budget Amendment Items 8,021,000.00 Total by Fund,Budget Amendment 114; - CIP Fund 8,021,000.00 Total of Budget Amendment Items 8,021,000.00 Current Year Budget Summary,provided for information only FY2011-12 Budget,Including Budget Amendments FY 2011-12 Adopted Budget BA#1 Total BA#2 Total BA#3 Total BA#4 Total Total To-Date General Fund $195,154,853 $195,154,853 CIP Fund $19,618,798 $8,021,000 $19,618,798 Certification I certify that this document is a full and correct copy of Ordinance of 2011,amending Salt Lake City Ordinance of 2011,which adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City Utah for the fiscal year beginning June 1 2011 and ending lune 30,2012. Budget Director Deputy Director,City Council 1 f$•il '7'• !,.'; 7 -; , ..„ $8,021 ,000 Aosok, Trolley Street Car Project Salt Lake City, Utah Series 2011 Table of Contents Report 1 Sources& Uses Debt Service Schedule 2 Avow Trolley Street Car Propc I SINGLE PURPOSE I 11/7/2011 I 1:16 PM .014, Awse $8,021 ,000 Trolley Street Car Project Salt Lake City, Utah Series 2011 Sources & Uses Dated 07/01/2012 I Delivered 07/01/2012 Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds $8,021,000.00 Total Sources $8,021,000.00 Uses Of Funds Total Underwriters Discount (0.500%) 40,105.00 Costs of Issuance 80,000.00 Deposit to Project Construction Fund 7,900,000.00 Rounding Amount 895.00 Total Uses $8,021,000.00 Trolley Street Car Projec I SINGLE PURPOSE I 11/7/2011 I 116 PM Page 1 _ ', ;'t - e' x.1,.p ,v,- ' e - . ..'�.xn_, 3, '..Az� C�a.. .�l`°;�ezr9=�;A.bi LF"r`., i5s�'::.'e . J,._, .F a $8,021,000 Trolley Street Car Project Salt Lake City, Utah Series 2011 Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total 07/01/2012 - - - - - 10/01/2012 - - 52,029.25 52,029.25 - 04/01/2013 381,000.00 0.620% 104,058.50 485,058.50 537,087.75 10/01/2013 - - 102,877.40 102,877.40 - 04/01/2014 331,000.00 0.840% 102,877.40 433,877.40 536,754.80 10/01/2014 - - 101,487.20 101,487.20 04/01/2015 334,000.00 1.130% 101,487.20 435,487.20 536,974.40 10/01/2015 - - 99,600.10 99,600.10 - 04/01/2016 338,000.00 1.390% 99,600.10 437,600.10 537,200.20 10/01/2016 97,251.00 97,251.00 04/01/2017 342,000.00 1.600% 97,251.00 439,251.00 536,502.00 10/01/2017 - - 94,515.00 94,515.00 - 04/01/2018 348,000.00 1.850% 94,515.00 442,515.00 537,030.00 10/01/2018 - - 91,296.00 91,296.00 - 04/01/2019 354,000.00 2.090% .__....91,296_00 445,296.00 536,592.00 10/01/2019 - - 87,596.70 87,596.70 - 04/01/2020 362,000.00 2.340% 87,596.70 449,596.70 537,193.40 10/01/2020 - - 83,361.30 83,361.30 - 04/01/2021 370,000.00 2.480% 83,361.30 453,361.30 536,722.60 10/01/2021 - - 78,773.30 78,773.30 04/01/2022 379,000.00 2.630% 78,773.30 457,773.30 536,546.60 10/01/2022 - - 73,789.45 73,789.45 - 04/01/2023 389,000.00 2.770% 73,789.45 462,789.45 536,578.90 10/01/2023 - - 68,401.80 68,401.80 - 40* 04/01/2024 400L000.00 2.910% 68,401.80 468,401.80 536,803.60 10/01/2024 - - 62,581.80 62,581.80 - 04/01/2025 412,000.00 3.030% 62,581.80 474,581.80 537,163.60 10/01/2025 - - 56,340.00 56,340.00 - 04/01/2026 424,000.00 3.140% 56,340.00 480,340.00 536,680.00 10/01/2026 - - 49,683.20 49,683.20 u 04/01/2027 437,000.00 3.250% 49,683.20 486,683.20 536,366.40 10/01/2027 - - 42,581.95 42,581.95 - 04/01/2028 452,000.00 3.350% 42,581.95 494,581.95 537,163.90 10/01/2028 - - 35,010.95 35,010.95 - 04/01/2029 467,000.00 3.450% 35,010.95 502,010.95 537,021.90 10/01/2029 - - 26,955.20 26,955.20 - 04/01/2030 483,000.00 3.520% 26,955.20 509,955.20 536,910.40 10/01/2030 - - 18,454.40 18,454.40 - 04/01/2031 500,000.00 3.590% 18,454.40 518,454.40 536,908.80 10/01/2031 - 9,479.40 9,479.40 - 04/01/2032 518,000.00 3.660% 9,479.40 527,479.40 536,958.80 Total $8,021,000.00 - $2,716,160.05 $10,737,160.05 - Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars —._--- ........---... ..__-- _-.. —._ $88,334.75 Average Life 11.013 Years Average Coupon 3.0748489% Net Interest Cost(NIC) 3.1202500% True Interest Cost(TIC) 3.0897432% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes__ _________ _ 3,0342757% All Inclusive Cost(AIC) _ _ . 3.2016013% IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost 3.0748489% Weighted Average Maturity 11.013 Years TrWey Street Cr Prolec I SINGLE PURPOSE 1 11/72011 I 116PM Page 2 $2,500,000 Trolley Street Car Project Salt Lake City, Utah Series 2011 Sources & Uses Dated 07/01/2012 I Delivered 07/0112 01 2 Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds $2,500,000.00 Total Sources $2,500,000.00 Uses Of Funds Deposit to Project Construction Fund 2,500,000.00 Total Uses $2,500,000.00 Trolley Street Car Pro/ec I SINGLE PURPOSE I 11/7/2011 I 1:54 PM Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham, Inc. Public Finance Page 1 $2,500,000 Trolley Street Car Project ' Salt Lake City, Utah Series 2011 Debt Service Schedule Part 1 of 2 Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total 07/01/2012 - - - - - 10/01/2012 - - 38,061.06 38,061.06 - 04/01/2013 171,000.00 6.090% 76,122.13 247,122.13 - 07/01/2013 - - - - 285,183.19 10/01/2013 - 70,915.37 70,915.37 - 04/01/2014 142,000.00 6.090% 70,915.37 212,915.37 - 07/01/2014 - - - - 283,830.74 10/01/2014 - - 66,591.63 66,591.63 - 04/01/2015 151,000.00 6.090% 66,591.63 217,591.63 - 07/01/2015 - - - - 284,183.26 10/01/2015 - - 61,993.86 61,993.86 - 04/01/2016 160,000.00 6.090% 61,993.86 221,993.86 - 07/01/2016 - - - - 283,987.72 10/01/2016 - - 57,122.04 57,122.04 - 04/01/2017 170,000.00 6.090% 57,122.04 227,122.04 - 07/01/2017 - - - 284,244.08 10/01/2017 - - 51,945.74 51,945.74 - 04/01/2018 180,000.00 6.090% 51,945.74 231,945.74 - 07/01/2018 - - - - 283,891.48 10/01/2018 - - 46,464.95 46,464.95 - 04/01/2019 191,000.00 6.090% 46,464.95 237,464.95 - 4rh 07/01/2019 - - - - 283,929.90 10/01/2019 - - 40,649.21 40,649.21 - 04/01/2020 203,000.00 6.090% 40,649.21 243,649.21 - 07/01/2020 - - - 284,298.42 10/01/2020 - - 34,468.10 34,468.10 - 04/01/2021 215,000.00 6.090% 34,468.10 249,468.10 - 07/01/2021 - - - _ 283,936.20 10/01/2021 - - 27,921.60 27,921.60 - 04/01/2022 229,000.00 6.090% 27,921.60 256,921.60 - 07/01/2022 - - - - 284,843.20 10/01/2022 - - 20,948.81 20,948.81 - 04/01/2023 242,000.00 6.090% 20,948.81 262,948.81 - 07/01/2023 - - - - 283,897.62 10/01/2023 - - 13,580.19 13,580.19 04/01/2024 257,000.00 6.090% 13,580.19 270,580.19 - 07/01/2024 - - - - 284,160.38 10/01/2024 - - 5,754.83 5,754.83 - 04/01/2025 189,000.00 6.090% 5,754.83 194,754.83 - 07/01/2025 - - - 200,509.66 Total $2,500,000.00 - $1,110,895.85 $3,610,895.85 - Trolley Street Car Prolec I SINGLE PURPOSE I 11/7/2011 I 1:54 PM C Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham, Inc. Public Finance Page 2 $2,500,000 Trolley Street Car Project Salt Lake City, Utah Series 2011 Debt Service Schedule Part 2 of 2 Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars _ $18.242.00 Average Life 7.297 Years Average Coupon 6.0897700% Net Interest Cost(NIC) 6.0897700% True Interest Cost(TIC) 6.0917949% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 6.0917949% All Inclusive Cost(AIC) 6.0917949% IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost 6.0897700% Weighted Average Maturity 7.297 Years Trolley Street Car Projec I SINGLE PURPOSE I 11/7/2011 1 1:54 PM Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham, Inc. Public Finance Page 3 FY 2011-12 Variance Imok Annual Revised Favorable ,40. Revenue Budget Forecast (Unfavorable) Total General Fund 195,114,853 194,559,704 (555,149) Selected Discussion Items Total Property Taxes 63,175,537 63,175,537 0 Discussion: Total Sales and Use Tax 45,622,655 45,622,655 0 Discussion: Total Franchise Tax 28,434,888 28,366,228 (68,660) Discussion: Franchise Fee for Public Utilities is lower than budgeted due to a cooler and wetter summer. License and Permits: 18,452,058 18,379,780 (72,278) Discussion: Intergovernmental Revenue 5,426,994 5,426,994 0 Discussion: Interest income 780,000 780,000 0 Discussion: Total Fines& Forfeiture 10,988,815 10,567,259 (421,556) Discussion: Parking Ticket revenue is down due to parking ticket issuance being down. Parking Meters 1,651,000 1,651,000 0 Discussion: Charges and Services 4,118,852 4,126,197 7,345 Discussion: Miscellaneous Revenue 3,020,641 3,020,641 0 Discussion: Interfund Reimbursement 9,907,993 9,907,993 0 Discussion: Transfers 3,535,420 3,535,420 0 Discussion: SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET AMENDMENT No. 2— FISCAL YEAR 2011-12 DATE: December 6, 2011 SUBJECT: Budget Amendment No. 2-Follow-up Information for Unfinished Business- Council consideration STAFF REPORT BY: Jennifer Bruno,Russell Weeks,Karen Halladay,Lehua Weaver CC: David Everitt,Gina Charmless,Gordon Hoskins,Frank Gray,Mary De La Mare-Schaefer, LuAnn Clark,Chief Chris Burbank,Chief Kurt Cook,Rick Graham,Kay Christensen,Shannon Ashby,and Sherrie Collins Based on the Council's November 22nd Work Session discussion,staff has provided follow-up information and draft legislative intent language. A draft motion sheet is also included beginning on page 6. Item A-3 Parking Pay Stations: Follow-up Information: The Administration provided the following information during a November 30th meeting with Tim CDougan of Aparc Systems. With regard to any possible reductions to the ongoing operational costs,specifically related to the communications system,there do not seem to be any ways to reduce the City's annual expense. Council Member Christensen had inquired whether the City might develop a wireless communications system that would reduce the City's expenses,but according to Mr. Dougan(Aparc),this is not an option. The pay stations utilize a cellular communications technology at a rate of$19 per month per station. (344 stations in full roll out=$6,536 per month or$78,432 per year.) Development or use of another communication network would be problematic due to the pay station software as currently developed,and the requirements related to credit card approval security. The other ongoing expenses are related to ticket enforcement software,station software and hardware maintenance including a warranty for repairs and replacements, and graffiti removal,etc. With regard to the merchant validation program,there may be some options. The Council may wish to identify this as an item to explore further through a public process involving citywide business representatives. Mr. Dougan explained that the$1,200 per year was based on a quote to provide software support at$99 per month to each business. This would be an agreement with each merchant for upkeep, maintenance,and tech support. There are options,including setting up merchants on a cell phone app. If the Council would like an intent statement for future study on this issue,staff could include this: It is the intent of the Council that the Administration would work with the Downtown Alliance and Business Advisory Board to explore the options for a merchant validation system and identify a proposal that would work best for businesses in -.Salt Lake City. At the November 30th small group meeting with the Administration,Council Member Christensen requested more information about how revenues may increase based on what has been already observed in Page 1 the test period,and whether any assumptions could be made to increase anticipated revenue budgets. The Administration indicated that they would provide this in advance of the December 6 briefing. It should be reiterated that the current budget request does NOT include the purchase of"pucks"or sensors for every parking stall.This limits the features of the pay stations from what the Council had originally hoped to procure.Most notably,drivers will not be able to view available parking spaces from a cell phone application.Another impact is a limit to targeted enforcement. The Council may wish to direct staff to include an intent statement requesting periodic reviews of the cost of installing the pucks(to monitor how technology and costs change)and a follow-up discussion for possible next steps.The following intent language could be included in the updated Motion Sheet: It is the intent of the Council that the Administration prepare a proposal for incorporating the pucks into the Pay Station program in the most cost effective way. With regard to the electric vehicle charging stations,the Administration provided information that indicates the current vehicle charging stations are not highly utilized.The Council may wish to direct staff to include another intent item for whether and how the current stations could be used more before adding more. (This budget includes$27,500 to purchase five more.If the Council wants to move forward with the purchase,funding for installation would need to be identified.) Motion Options: The Council may wish to consider action based on which decisions should be made more immediately and which items can be identified as follow-up discussions. Staff suggestion would be that the decision currently before the Council is: 1)generally whether to support this proposal for parking pay stations,and if so, 2)whether to approve the budget as currently requested so that Parking Pay Stations " can be purchased and installed with the hopes of being in use by the opening of City Creek malls,and if so, s 3)whether to support the Administration's recommendation to split the funding between use the CIP Capital Asset placeholder($2.7 million)and a financing option for the remainder of the capital costs (approx$1.8 million).The follow-up discussion items have been listed below in the intent statements. Staff drafted the following motion and intent language(also included on the Motion Sheet)based on the November 22 discussion.The Council may wish to direct staff to make any changes: Motion: ("I move that the Council")Adopt item A-3 as proposed,including: a. Approving use of the$2.7 million CIP Capital Asset placeholder toward the upfront capital costs associated with Parking Pay Stations. b. ("I further move that the Council")Approve a financing plan for the remainder of the upfront capital costs in an amount not to exceed$1,814,298,for a 7-year term, with debt service payments to come from future years'CIP Capital Asset placeholder. And c. ("I further move that the Council")Appropriate$292,770 in operating expenses that may be incurred related to the pay stations for the remainder of 2011-12. J Legislative Intents: Page 2 • It is the intent of the Council that a briefing on revenue options be held in January to allow time for public input and consideration of ordinance amendment(s). Options may include updating anticipated revenues,adjusting the hours for enforcement, increasing hourly rates and/or establishing a graduated rate for renewing or refilling time,etc. • It is the intent of the Council that the Administration increase the minimum amount for credit card charges from$0.50 to$1.00 in order to recover costs incurred by the City. • It is the intent of the Council that the Administration preserve maximum flexibility in the contract with the vendor to allow the City to benefit from advancements in technology and reductions in the cost of that technology. • (more depending on discussion above) Item A-4 Way Finding Signage: Follow-up information: The Administration and Downtown Alliance have confirmed that the Master Plan will address signage Citywide,including all business districts or nodes,the University,and a preliminary look at residential neighborhoods. It should be noted that the request for proposals process to select a consultant may extend the timeline by a few months. Motion Options: Staff drafted the following motion and intent language(also included on the Motion Sheet)based on the November 22 discussion.The Council may wish to direct staff to make any changes: Motion: {"I move that the Council"}Adopt item A-4 to appropriate$470,000 toward way finding signage that would allow$200,000 to fix the existing way finding signage system, $70,000 to replace aging cloth banners,and$200,000 to prepare a master plan for a citywide review of way finding signage that includes a first round review of options for residential neighborhood identification and way finding. Of the$470,000,$250,000 would come from CIP as originally proposed by the Administration,and$220,000 would come from Fund Balance. Legislative Intents: • Public Input-It is the intent of the Council that the Master Plan process include an in-depth opportunity for the City's Boards and Commissions to review the plan and provide feedback to be incorporated into the Plan. • Trail signage-It is the intent of the Council that the Master Plan address signage along the City's expanding trail system to link users with Downtown landmarks. Page 3 • Future Budget item - phasing in new signs: It is the intent of the Council that the Administration include funding in the 2012-13 fiscal year budget for a first phase of installing new signs. • Future Budget item - neighborhood identification& neighborhood way finding: It is the intent of the Council that the Administration include funding in the 2012- 13 fiscal year budget to support an initiative within neighborhoods for residents to develop and pay for way finding signage and neighborhood identification signs. This could be in the form of a neighborhood matching grant program. *New Item I-1 Center for Documentary Expression &Art (CDEA): Follow-up Information: The Council expressed interest in appropriating funding that would be used more directly to enable Salt Lake City school children to attend the exhibits,rather than to offset the costs associated with the general outreach through developing and distributing materials. CDEA has provided a letter in response to some of the Council's discussion. CDEA representatives will be in attendance at the December 6th Council meeting to respond to questions. In CDEA's letter dated November 28,2011,the he funding would be used to offset the costs of: developing audio guides,an exhibit brochure,and curriculum guide which is intended to be a tool for broader engagement of students in experiencing the exhibit before,during,and after attendance. In addition to the developing of these supporting materials,CDEA intends to purchase cell phones to beC3/ available at the exhibit for people and students to view the audio guides. CDEA also indicates that they will pursue press coverage and develop email and hardcopy invitations for marketing purposes. CDEA indicates that their efforts to distribute the supporting materials will be statewide,and that "funds from Salt lake City Corporation will primarily be used in education outreach efforts in the Salt Lake City School District(SLCSD) and in Salt Lake City itself." The Council may wish to ask about the emphasis placed on the Salt Lake City School District and how private schools will be included in the outreach and assistance. The Council may wish to revisit the option of having the contingent appropriation reviewed and monitored by a City Board. At the November 22nd briefing,the Council suggested that the Human Rights Commission may be able to perform this duty. Although the Commission and Mayor's staff would be able and willing to take one this function,the Council may consider identifying the Arts Council as the forum to work with CDEA.The Arts Council has an established process for reviewing grant requests,and has also worked with CDEA on previous grant applications. (The Council may wish to know that CDEA has received Arts grant funding for other projects,but not this one.) As an alternative, the Council could serve as the review and monitoring body.The Council could reserve sign-off authority until a final proposal that focuses exclusively on Salt Lake City school children is received. Motion Options: Staff drafted the following motion and intent language (also included on the Motion Sheet) based on the November 22 discussion.The Council may wish to direct staff to make any changes: Page 4 • Motion: ("I move that the Council") Adopt item I-1to appropriate $25,000 to support the Civil Rights exhibit put on by the Center for Documentary Expression & Art (CDEA) at The Leonardo, contingent upon the following items: o that the primary use of this funding be to increase the number of students who attend the exhibit through direct outreach and assistance, rather than primarily for the development of materials, and o that the funding be directed toward the participation of students in public and private schools within Salt Lake City,and o following the exhibit,the CDEA provide a report on the use of the funding and attendance rate of City school children. o that the Human Rights,Cot usston{or Mts C a ci kr,City Council}would work with the CDEA to review their plan for use of the funding and approv- release of the City's funds consistent with the terms of the appropriation. c MOTION SHEET for the Council's Consideration Budget Amendment No. 2 FY 2011-12 December 6, 2011 (Please note: this is the packet version of the motions and updates will be made as identified by the Council, and an updated Motion Sheet will be distributed prior to the formal meeting.) MOTIONS: This motion adopts the whole budget amendment except for various items to be considered separately: ["I move that the Council"] Adopt an ordinance amending the fiscal year 2011- 2012 budget as proposed by the Administration, with the exception of items: A- 3 regarding the Parking Pay Stations and item A-4 regarding the Way Finding signage and Master Plan. II. Separate Items: (identical language to what's listed above) Motion: {"I move that the Council") Adopt item A-3 as proposed, including: d. Approving use of the $2.7 million CIP Capital Asset placeholder toward the upfront capital costs associated with Parking Pay Stations. e. {"I further move that the Council") Approve a financing plan for the remainder of the upfront capital costs in an amount not to exceed $1,814,298,for a 7-year term, with debt service payments to come from future years' CIP Capital Asset placeholder. And f. {"I further move that the Council") Appropriate$292,770 in operating expenses that may be incurred related to the pay stations for the remainder of 2011-12. Legislative Intents: • It is the intent of the Council that a briefing on revenue options be held in January to allow time for public input and consideration of ordinance amendment(s). Options may include updating anticipated revenues, adjusting the hours for enforcement, increasing hourly rates and / or establishing a graduated rate for renewing or refilling time, etc. • It is the intent of the Council that the Administration increase the minimum amount for credit card charges from$0.50 to$1.00 in order to recover costs incurred by the City. Page 6 • It is the intent of the Council that the Administration preserve maximum flexibility in the contract with the vendor to allow the City to benefit from advancements in technology and reductions in the cost of that technology. • (more depending on briefing) Item A-4: Way Finding Signage and Master Plan Motion: {"I move that the Council") Adopt item A-4 to appropriate $470,000 toward way finding signage that would allow$200,000 to fix the existing way finding signage system, $70,000 to replace aging cloth banners, and$200,000 to prepare a master plan for a citywide review of way finding signage that includes a first round review of options for residential neighborhood identification and way finding. Of the $470,000, $250,000 would come from CIP as originally proposed by the Administration, and $220,000 would come from Fund Balance. Legislative Intents: • Public Input-It is the intent of the Council that the Master Plan process include an in-depth opportunity for the City's Boards and Commissions to review the plan and provide feedback to be incorporated into the Plan. • Trail signage - It is the intent of the Council that the Master Plan address signage along the City's expanding trail system to link users with Downtown landmarks. • Future Budget item- phasing in new signs: It is the intent of the Council that the Administration include funding in the 2012-13 fiscal year budget for a first phase of installing new signs. • Future Budget item-neighborhood identification& neighborhood way finding: It is the intent of the Council that the Administration include funding in the 2012- 13 fiscal year budget to support an initiative within neighborhoods for residents to develop and pay for way finding signage and neighborhood identification signs. This could be in the form of a neighborhood matching grant program. *New Item I-1: Center for Documentary Expression and Art Motion: ("I move that the Council") Adopt item I-1to appropriate $25,000 to support the Civil Rights exhibit put on by the Center for Documentary Expression& Art (CDEA) at The Leonardo, contingent upon the following items: o that the primary use of this funding be to increase the number of students who attend the exhibit through direct outreach and assistance,rather than primarily for the development of materials,and Page 7 o that the funding be directed toward the participation of students in public and private schools within Salt Lake City,and o following the exhibit, the CDEA provide a report on the use of the funding and attendance rate of City school children. o that the Human Rights Commission {or Arts Council or City Council) would work with the CDEA to review their plan for use of the funding and approve release of the City's funds consistent with the terms of the appropriation. III. Additional Intent Statements: Fleet Audit: It is the intent of the Council to move forward with an audit of the management and financial controls of the Fleet Division. The Council anticipates including a funding proposal in Budget Amendment No. 4. November 28, 2011 Hi Jennifer: Thank you for sending the Council's questions. I've repeated them below and responded one at a time: "The Council would like to know how this request will get more school children physically through the doors of the Leonardo. Some members expressed concern that if the focus is on an educational book for teachers, this may not result in those teachers actually bringing children to the Leonardo. Are there more details you could provide that could shed light on exactly how this would work?" We appreciate the Council's concern about getting"children...through the doors of The Leonardo." We believe the varied aspects of our education outreach program will succeed in getting school children into The Leonardo. First, though, a little clarification: the curriculum guide is not an educational book. It is a tool to help teachers and students understand and engage with the exhibit's layout,photographs, major themes, and larger meanings. The guide provides teachers the means to prepare their students for the exhibit before a visit, to engage students (via a variety of suggested activities) during a visit, and to follow up and deepen their understanding of the exhibit and the movement after a visit. Our plans to get students through the door are as follows: first, we will complete the curriculum guide in social studies and fine arts for grades 4-12 (this will happen within the next ten days); second, we will disseminate these guides statewide through the Utah State Office of Education(USOE)and in our immediate geographic area through the four school districts we are working with(Salt Lake City, Granite, Canyons, and Davis); third, with the four districts acting as facilitators, we'll offer in-service trainings for teachers in January and February. These trainings will familiarize teachers with the guides and prepare them for an exhibit visit. CDEA also will train The Leonardo staff—full and part time—and volunteer docents in the usage of the guide; fourth, we also will reach out to media (newspaper and television) for stories about the education outreach program and will prepare an e-card as well as hard copy postcard(advertising the exhibit and its educational resources) for additional marketing; and fifth, we will purchase cell phones for use by low income students to make sure all exhibit visitors can enjoy the full impact of the exhibit's educational outreach features. Finally, our audio guides and six-page brochure will enhance visitor experience and support word-of-mouth marketing to increase visitation. The handsome exhibit brochure will enrich visitor understanding of the exhibit,provide tips for how to use the audio guides, and offer analysis of exhibit content that's compelling enough for people to take home, reread, and ponder. • "A few questions were also raised regarding if there will be a special focus on SLC , public and private schools. Because these funds come from Salt Lake City taxpayers, �> there is a little bit of sensitivity towards using these funds to benefit those in the Davis and further Salt Lake County school districts. Is there a way to ensure that the City funds are used to benefit children in Salt Lake City schools primarily?" Funds from Salt Lake City Corporation will primarily be used in education outreach efforts in the Salt Lake City School District(SLCSD) and in Salt Lake City itself. CDEA has a close and productive working relationship with administrators and educators at all grade levels of the SLCSD. These relationships will help us carry out extensive outreach efforts in the city. SLC funds also will help support CDEA's oversight and monitoring of education field trips to the exhibit over the next five months. We are committed to maintaining a hands-on relationship with school tours in the SLCSD to make sure that teachers and students have a positive learning experience during their visit and we can support teachers and students over the course of their follow-up efforts. Postscript: CDEA's curriculum guide will remain relevant for Salt Lake City teachers for years to come. The guide will offer teachers enhanced access to the exhibit publication, a 256-page book,published by the University Press of Mississippi that contains essays by Julian Bond, Matt Herron(exhibit curator), and movement historian Dr. Clayborne Carson. Set to be released in January 2012, the publication has been designed to accompany the exhibit—that is, to function as an exhibit catalogue—and to work as a stand-alone volume on the Civil Rights Movement. Item A- 7 See A- 7 from 11/22/ 11 „ : SCANNED l SCANNED BY:Cl--1--ef RALPH BERCKER :..:` ` ” 0,P ORI IO j DATE. E.MAYO L� OA'// OFFICE OF THE MAYOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL .11 I i NOV '7 2011 Date Receive,: David veritt, Chief of Staff Date sent to Counci ,��j;,ja t - ----� TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: November 17, 2011 Jill Remington Love, Chair FROM: David Everitt, Chief of Staff SUBJECT: Cultural Core Conversations results STAFF CONTACT: Helen Langan, Senior Advisor to the Mayor DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing RECOMMENDATION: The Administration is requesting that the Council schedule a briefing to discuss the results of the Cultural Core Conversations. BUDGET IMPACT: None at this time BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: During 2010-2011, Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County developed a Cultural Arts Interlocal Agreement to provide approximately$500,000 per year for the next 20 years to be spent on the marketing, branding, development and improvement of arts and cultural activities in Salt Lake's Cultural Core. The cross-sector"Cultural Core Conversations"project convened between April and November included over 100 participants form 70 local organizations who worked on strategies to best utilize the funding provided in the Interlocal Agreement. The project brought together representatives of diverse interests and backgrounds—the business community, regional arts and cultural organizations, city, county and state government, educators, leaders of faith-based and ethnic groups and others—to participate in a series of innovative meetings to zero-in on how best to enrich and enhance the downtown core with an active and vital arts and cultural component. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306 P.O.BOX 145474,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5474 TELEPHONE:801-535-7704 FAX:801-535-6331 www.slcgov.com This transmittal contains the final report on the Cultural Core Conversations created by AMS, which includes a summary of the conversations and work that took place over the course of the four meetings. Its purpose is to provide a framework for the Cultural Core Budget Committee created by the Interlocal Agreement. This transmittal also contains a power point presented at the final Cultural Core Conversation meeting, which synthesizes the many great ideas generated into a few key categories and priorities as described in the final report mentioned above. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Final Report on the Cultural Core Conversations created by AMS 2. Power Point Presentation by Steve Woolf of AMS 3. Overview video of the Cultural Core Conversation process can be viewed at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KZ4MpWNIwU&noredirect=1 A PLANNING & RESEARCH for the Arts and Entertainment Industries Activating , h cultural , ore, City of Salt Lake and Salt Lake County November 2011 SILi t., ,▪ -. SALT LAKE . -ii r '.....s/1"; S -IA • • 14- .7 COUNTY •,,,. ,11„,,, $ •,,,e / i\''‘" ©2011 AMS Planning&Research Corp. ACTIVATING THE CULTURAL CORE IN SALT LAKE: A SERIES OF COMMUNITY CONVERSATIONS 5) Reinforce the identity of downtown Salt Lake City as the During 2010-11, "cultural core"for the City,County,state and region. representatives from Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County Following execution of this Agreement,the Mayors of Salt Lake City successfully developed a and Salt Lake County convened a series of cross-sector Cultural Core Cultural Arts Interlocal Conversations, between April and November of 2011,to help Agreement that creates a sales . • establish a shared vision of a successful downtown core with an tax-based fund to be spent on � * active and vital arts and cultural component. This series of . the marketing, branding, v : Conversations sought to bring focused input to policy direction development and _ -° around the use of funds that will be generated by the Cultural Arts improvement of arts and Interlocal Agreement. cultural activities in Salt Lake's Cultural Core. The agreement is on the project website: www.slcgov.com/culturecore While the Interlocal Agreement has specific limitations with regards to the areas of investment and support that it can fund,the The Agreement provides for investments totaling nearly$10 million conversations themselves were not constrained. The report dollars over the next 20 years and is envisioned to achieve the summarizes the input of citizens of Greater Salt Lake who following objectives: participated in three"conversations"over the course of three months. It presents a consolidated overview of the perspective and 1) Serve as a catalyst for long-term development of downtown priorities of representatives of the community's different sectors, Salt Lake arts and culture. which come together in the cultural core. The report is intended to 2) Promote maximum impact and activation of the Cultural serve as a point of reference to guide investments to be made with Core. resources generated by the Interlocal Agreement and managed by 3) Encourage new participation among patrons in Salt Lake's its coordinating entity. An "Interlocal Budget Committee"will be established and emerging cultural and economic life. established by Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County to develop an 4) Explore and activate new arts-related revenue-generating implementation and management structure to guide the use of opportunities. these funds. ©2011 AMS Planning&Research Corp. page 2 November 2011 Over 100 invited participants, representing regional arts and already in the Cultural Core to drive increased success(you can cultural organizations, business leadership,community review their remarks on the project website). organizations,educational institutions,government leaders,tourism representatives and leadership from Salt Lake's various ethnic and AMS Planning& Research,a national arts management consulting faith communities have been engaged in the process. The full list of firm engaged to help facilitate the series of meetings, made a participants is on the project website: presentation around the major challenges facing the arts and www.slcgov.com/culturalcore. cultural sector and some strategies to leverage opportunities in Salt Lake City's Cultural Core to address them,which is also documented In addition,the appendix to this report contains many of the on the Cultural Core Conversations website. verbatim suggestions that were recorded during the working session;they are provided as documentation of the contributions of AMS also those that participated. Defining Success(April) outlined the sequence of Setting the Stage Strategies for Success(May) tasks to be accomplished In an introduction to the first Cultural Core Conversation in April, Measuring succetsl Implementation(iui,e) over the course Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker and Salt Lake County Deputy of the four Mayor Nichole Dunn shared their vision for a successful Cultural Celebration(November) Cultural Core Core. Their remarks emphasized that building on the community's Conversations, cultural assets and leveraging the resources from the Interlocal which were planned as hands-on workshops to encourage dialogue Agreement are essential elements "to support a vibrant cultural and participation,with the assistance of local facilitators and scene and help make the Cultural Core one key to the region's recorders. success." Recognizing that"when a City becomes a desired destination for workers, it attracts new businesses looking to relocate,as well as regional visitors...Additionally,arts and culture offerings serve as an important connection between the many social,ethnic and religious groups who consider the arts to be the very stitching that sews our community together. All of these effects translate into a thriving, revitalized community and economy that creates jobs, increases street level vibrancy and enhances the long-term planning goals of the community,"the representatives of the City and County encouraged the assembled leaders to think broadly about the opportunities to build on the strength of the arts and cultural assets ©2011 AMS Planning&Research Corp. page 3 November 2011 Cultural Core Conversation #1 (April 2011) Communicating the Opportunity. At the heart of each and every Defining Success conversation was the importance of increasing awareness of programming that already exists and new opportunities that might be developed with a goal of broad audience development. During the first workshop, participants in four breakout groups were asked to help DEFINE SUCCESS through a brainstorming exercise to Coordinated cross-arts programming,ticketing, marketing and gain consensus on what makes(and would make)downtown Salt mobile applications are ideal ways to promote all of the arts and Lake(the Cultural Core)a win and how the arts sector does and can cultural assets within the downtown Core area. contribute. After the brainstorming was completed,the facilitators, recorders and project leadership reviewed the input of the working Acknowledging the difficulty in creating broad awareness in a groups and synthesized their input. The recommendations of the crowded entertainment market, participants encouraged participants can be summarized in three overarching themes: partnerships with local schools,colleges/universities, new business sectors,restaurants,creative industries and retailers to help extend 1. Create a dynamic "place" the reach of arts and culture impact. These partnerships and the 2. Communicate the opportunities participation of organizations and individuals beyond the Core were 3. Enable diverse content cited as highly important as well,to bring a focus to activity downtown. A Dynamic Place: The Cultural Core should be an accessible, walkable, beautiful,arts-rich urban place. This builds naturally on Diverse Content: Vibrant,inviting arts and culture experiences Salt Lake's already keen sense of civic pride,as well as its identity as should pull people into the downtown area. Building on the broad both the seat of a major worldwide religion and a world-class alpine array of program opportunities already in the Cultural Core, sports destination. enabling excellence and diversity in all arts programming is considered a must,with special focus on local art and artists. Much conversation revolved around developing the"in-between Recognizing a changing marketplace, innovative and cutting edge areas"—small parks,arts venues, pedestrian corridors—at a more programming,and increased opportunities for audience human,accessible scale. engagement and participation should be encouraged and supported. Of the highest importance, programs in the Cultural There should be spaces for artists to work and live in the Core. Core should be welcoming and accessible to everyone in the community. Making it easy for people to get downtown,along with easy access to information about arts venues and events, is highly desirable. The Cultural Core should be dense,easy to navigate,fun,emotional, social, new,traditional and unique--a series of distinct experiences. ©2011 AMS Planning&Research Corp. page 4 November 2011 Cultural Core Conversation #2 (May 2011) PLACE-MAKING: Strategies for Success • Develop aesthetically wonderful, people-friendly arts and With success defined by the goals as noted above,the working culture corridors throughout the Core. groups reconvened for Conversation#2 in May to identify key • Create small,vibrant arts spaces within the Core. opportunities to achieve these outcomes and develop strategies • Improve information about transportation to,from and both within and beyond the context of the Interlocal Agreement for within the Core,while also developing Cultural Core-specific systems. implementation. • Effect needed changes to policies, laws,and ordinances for Each group engaged in a hands-on exercise to build a "Map of restaurants, bars, housing,etc.to enable a richer arts and Success"that helped them visualize a successful Cultural Core and culture Core. share their strategies with others. Participants used a variety of tools,from magazine clippings, markers and post-it notes on very PROMOTION: large maps of the downtown Cultural Core • Develop a coordinated internal and external arts and area to help delve culture communications strategy. creatively and • Target arts and culture marketing to local and visitor interactively into thinking interests. about programming • Create a strong arts and culture brand for Salt Lake City. options, place-making • Use social media,advanced ticketing options,and ticketing and promotional efforts kiosks in the downtown areas to help create easier access to that would provide the arts and culture information and events. most effective changes toward the Cultural Core PROGRAM: goals. • Enliven the downtown area by increasing serendipitous Then,each of the four working groups brainstormed strategies and arts and culture experiences in small spaces throughout the identified those most likely to succeed by leveraging the resources Core. provided through the Interlocal Agreement. At the end of the • Enable and promote high quality programming that reflects second session,the desired outcomes could be grouped in three and attracts the diverse local community. distinct categories,aligned with the success measures: Place- • Establish a mechanism to support existing and encourage making, Promotion and Program. For each goal category,the new collaborative programming among arts organizations. following strategies (in ranked order by the participants)emerged • Support the presence of arts and culture events with a goal as top priorities. of around the clock and throughout the year activity. ©2011 AMS Planning&Research Corp. page 5 November 2011 This broad list of goals was intended to serve as the basis for the Cultural Core Conversation #3 (June 2011) third conversation,which would focus on implementation and Implementation & Measuring Success means to measure success. Again, it is important to note that all or some of the ideas may be eligible for investment using the funds generated by the Interlocal Agreement and others may be During the third conversation in June, participants were asked to candidates for support for other public and private sources. help take the planning work to one more level of detail, by designing specific strategies to accomplish the goals for each of the recommended strategies noted above. For the third conversation,the attendees were asked to divide themselves into three self-selected groups to focus on each of the thematic groups: PLACE-MAKING, PROMOTION and PROGRAM. Each group then worked to determine an implementation process for the emergent strategies that had been developed for each area in Conversation#2. • What are the necessary steps to implement the strategy? • Who are the key players, participants and essential partners? • What are potential resources to support the strategy? The summary below identified the key projects,which are detailed in the"roadmap"attached to this report. Again, it is important to note that some projects will be eligible for funding from the Interlocal Agreement and others will need different sources. ©2011 AMS Planning&Research Corp. page 6 November 2011 Place-making Promotion The essential outcome of the Place-making projects is to create As noted previously, communicating the breadth of activity now connections and build identity for the Cultural Core. The working taking place in the Cultural Core and creating awareness of new group's four strategies are addressed as follows: opportunities is an essential strategy for success. The community is fortunate to have a broad range of activities, performances, • Leverage"in-between"spaces to improve amenities exhibitions,festivals and celebrations already in place. throughout the Cultural Core by making security more visible, increasing the number of public restrooms, The"promotion"working group stressed the need to create an arts developing plazas and outdoor seating and improving and culture brand for Salt Lake by developing and implementing a lighting.This will develop aesthetically wonderful, people- coordinated arts and culture communication strategy focused on friendly arts and culture corridors throughout the Core. internal and external audience development, leveraging existing • Activate underutilized storefronts, parking lots,and the resources and developing new shared strategies broadly across the sides of buildings around key downtown plazas and other Core and the arts and culture sector. It is a priority to continue to locations in the Core,as locations for informal performance explore and invest in effective,online solutions, including push and visual art. technologies,for calendaring, information, promotion and ticketing • Enhance wayfinding in the district. This has already begun as part of a holistic promotional strategy for the Core. Specific through collaboration with the Downtown Salt Lake City recommendations include: Alliance to support the development of creative naming- conventions and clear identifiers for places and spaces • Constant investment in comprehensive consolidated online within the Cultural Core to communicate the concept of a information resources about activity in the Cultural Core to cohesive,active and exciting part of the community. meet the rapidly changing environment. Creating one, • Improve transportation to and within the district. Explore effective,central, "go-to"website for providing information tested and experimental strategies. and promoting activity in the Cultural Core is an important • Finally,convene the region's many regulatory agencies to priority,and building on the existing'Now Playing Utah' develop code, policies and regulations that support could provide that tool. The website should serve as a increased activity and patronage in the Cultural Core. consolidated information resource and eCommerce destination for residents,visitors and other information seekers. • Effective use of social media, push technologies, sophisticated ticketing systems,and a branded website would together result in a repository of information about potential customer buying patterns and purchase decision ©2011 AMS Planning&Research Corp. page 7 November 2011 factors.This information could be"mined"and broadly • Develop audiences through collaborations supplemented shared to increase marketing efficiency and effectiveness. with expanded program opportunities. Authentic,year- round and round-the-clock opportunities for'family- • Periodic planning roundtables,convened by the City and the focused'experiences and programs that engage the region's County,to develop thematic program opportunities,share diverse audiences were emphasized. and as appropriate,coordinate calendars, and combine resources to bring greater scale to marketing initiatives and • Leverage existing agencies to provide a centralized calendar other similar efforts. and convene planning roundtables to develop shared programming ideas and community-wide agendas. The • Developing and disseminating a strong arts and culture City's and County's arts agencies,with professional support, brand for the Salt Lake region,together with other interests should take a leadership role in this area. like the Downtown Alliance,Visit Salt Lake and tourism entities. Next 5,e n s Program The four working groups developed a set of priorities and initiatives to inform policy direction to be developed by Interlocal Agreement At the very center, literally and figuratively,of a successful Cultural Budget Committee. The immediate next steps in implementing this Core are programs that enliven the Core, reflect the region and program include organizing the Budget Committee,establishing attract audiences. Greater Salt Lake is alive with programs across their charge,and providing professional support for their work. the spectrum of arts forms,engaging diverse communities in many locations and at many different scales. Support for program development will certainly continue to draw on existing programs like the County's ZAP initiative,but new programs,especially innovative collaborations, may be eligible projects for Interlocal support. The "program"working group identified four strategies for success.These include: • Enliven the Cultural Core by leveraging existing,developing and promoting new thematic and ethnic and/or collaborative festivals and events. The group emphasized making use of smaller and informal spaces throughout the Core to facilitate these opportunities and encouraged building on strategies deployed by the retail and culinary sectors,such as informal pop-up opportunities. ©2011 AMS Planning&Research Corp. page 8 November 2011 tur ''''''''' ;://„1---s • SALT LAKE �� O. COUNTY alive lila- iv us The planning process has identified three key areas of investment to activate the Cultural Core that can be supported by funding from the Interlocal Agreement: 1. Place-making that creates connections and builds identity. 2. Promotional initiatives that leverage existing tools to build the region's cultural brand and deliver actionable information to local residents and visitors. 3. Programs that enliven the Core and attract and reflect the region's audiences and visitors. Through the effort,the Cultural Core Conversation processes working groups identified the following key strategies, priorities and implementation steps: PLACE 1. Develop aesthetically wonderful, people-friendly arts and culture corridors throughout the Core Project Key Players Resources/Constraints Create better connections throughout City, County agencies, RDA, property • Identify convener the Core leveraging"in-between"spaces owners • Partner to fund improvements to improve amenities(more visible • Complex/overlapping p pp' g governance security, public restrooms, plazas/ outdoor seating,enhanced lighting...) Create better wayfinding throughout the Downtown Alliance • Underway Core ©2011 AMS Planning&Research Corp. page 9 November 2011 2. Create small,vibrant arts spaces within the Core Project Key Players Resources/Constraints Explore opportunities to develop the City, County agencies, RDA, property • Inventory spaces "in-between," underutilized owners,arts organizations,artists • Planning forum storefronts, parking lots and alleyways • Convener between established activity centers • Implementer throughout the Cultural Core for arts and • Fund master plan cultural opportunities 3. Improve transportation to,from and within the Core Project Key Players Resources/Constraints Improve transportation in the Core by City, County agencies, RDA, property • Identify convener developing bike valet, bus or trolley loop, owners • Partner to fund planning efforts vehicle-sharing program,Arts Bus • Complex/overlapping governance connection from outside the Core Improve information about City,County agencies, RDA,Visit Salt Lake • Designate lead agency transportation for residents and visitors 4. Effect needed changes to policies,laws and ordinances for restaurants, bars, housing,etc.to enable a richer arts and culture Core Project Key Players Resources/Constraints Develop planning,zoning and code City,County agencies, RDA, property • Identify convener development policies that support owners,arts organizations,artists increased activity and patronage in the Core - Inventory currents law,code and policy - Document and inventory cultural assets:venues, programs and activities ©2011 AMS Planning&Research Corp. page 10 November 2011 PROMOTION The primary objective of the working group is to create a strong arts and culture brand for Salt Lake City 1. Develop a coordinated internal and external arts and culture communications strategy Project Key Players Resources/Constraints Continue to invest in resources and social Visit Salt Lake,content providers, media • Visit Salt Lake as Convener media tools to provide a "go-to"online partners,destination marketers • Funding for design and content destination for information and to development(see calendar above promote activity in the Cultural Core. —Program 3) Convene periodic planning roundtables Arts organizations,artists,arts agencies • Identify professional convener (City,County and State), Downtown • Support professional convener Alliance 2. Target arts&culture marketing to local and visitor interests Project Key Players Resources/Constraints Develop an expanded, centralized online "Now Playing Utah,"Visit Salt Lake, • Convener resource for information about and content providers, media partners, • Fund for design and content promotion of the Cultural Core destination marketers development(see master calendar above—Program 3) 3. Use social media and advanced ticketing options to help create easier access to arts and culture information and events Project Key Players Resources/Constraints Integrate social media, push technologies "Now Playing Utah,"Visit Salt Lake, • Convener and ticketing with other online resources content providers, media partners, • Fund for design and content destination marketers development(see master calendar above—Program 3) ©2011 AMS Planning&Research Corp. page 11 November 2011 PROGRAM 1. Enliven the downtown area by increasing serendipitous arts and culture experiences in small spaces throughout the Core Project Key Players Resources/Constraints Develop and promote thematic,ethnic Local artists, producing organizations, • Funding for planning, program and/or collaborative festivals and events presenters enhancement, promotion • Existing and newly created spaces Create/expand informal "pop-up" Local artists,existing producers and • Fund convener/planning effort programming opportunities presenters • Identify,"fit-out"spaces for activity 2. Enable and promote high quality programming that reflects and attracts the diverse Salt Lake City population Project Key Players Resources/Constraints Expand family-focused experiences Arts organizations,visual artists • Identify leadership and convener • Funding for collaborative activity Develop/expand programs to engage Arts organizations,artists,school • Identify mentors and partnerships diverse audiences leadership,teachers • Fund planning and innovative initiatives Activate an effective and authentic Arts organizations, producers, presenters, • Planning and convening support engagement strategy marketers • Funding for collaborative implementation 3. Establish a mechanism to support existing and encourage new collaborative programming among arts organizations Project Key Players Resources/Constraints Improve centralized calendar resource Arts organizations,artists,arts agencies • Funding systems to support for arts activity for use by both (City and County) knowledge sharing programmers and information seekers Convene periodic planning roundtables Arts organizations,artists,arts agencies • Assign convener role (City and County) ©2011 AMS Planning&Research Corp. page 12 November 2011 1 4. Support the presence of arts and culture events with a goal of"around the clock and throughout the year"activity Project Key Players Resources/Constraints See above ©2011 AMS Planning&Research Corp. page 13 November 2011 Activating the Cu Itu rat Core Appendices October 2011 ©2011 AMS Planning&Research Corp. page 14 November 2011 The Cultural Core Conversations 2011 Facilitators: Nancy Boskoff, Kelly Colopy,Julie McAdams,Jason Yocum Recorders: Marin Decker, Michelle Schmitt, Amanda Thurman, Vanessa Vicente Community Participants: Tori Baker Salt Lake Film Society DJ Baxter Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City Scott Beck Visit Salt Lake Jeffrey Berke Corporate Staging Solutions Bruce Bingham Hamilton Partners Steve Boulay Magic Space Vicki Bourns Salt Lake County, ZAP Program Dee Brewer City Creek Center Jennifer Bruno Salt Lake City Council Cynthia Buckingham Utah Humanities Council Max Burdick Salt Lake County Council Dale Carpenter Salt Lake County Business & Economic Development Melinda Cavallaro Salt Lake County Carlton Christenson Salt Lake City Council Amy Coady Salt Lake Brewing Co. Trish Coughlin Goldman Sachs Carol DeCaria Clark Planetarium Geralyn Dreyfous Salt Lake City Film Center Nichole Dunn Salt Lake County Mayor Administration ©2011 AMS Planning&Research Corp. page 15 November 2011 Derek Dyer Utah Arts Alliance Lisa Eichers ArtTix Beth Elder Salt Lake City Public Library Nan Ellin University of Utah Fred Esplin University of Utah Maria Farrington Discovery Gateway Bob Farrington Salt Lake City Mayor Administration Lori Feld Steele McCann Cynthia Fleming Salt Lake Acting Company Maria Garciaz Salt Lake Neighborhood Housing Services David Gee Parr Brown Gee & Loveless Greg Geilman Kingsbury Hall Peter Giles The Leonardo Kurt Graham Church History Museum, Director Bruce Granath NewSpace Entertainment Rebecca Guevara Salt Lake City Arts Council Board Cindy Gust-Jenson Salt Lake City Council Tay Haines Advocate for Individual Artists Karen Hale Salt Lake City Mayor Administration Christian Harrison Downtown Community Council Lisa Harrison-Smith Adobe Ryan Holyoak ArtTix Kirk Huffaker Utah Heritage Foundation/Exec Dr. Jani Iwamoto Salt Lake County Council AllysonJackson Salt Palace Convention Center(SMG) Johann Jacobs Ballet West Seth Jarvis Clark Planetarium Michael Johnson Utah Hotel Lodging Association Phil Jordan Salt Lake County Helen Langan Salt Lake City Mayor Administration Zach Lassiter University of Utah Athletics Willy Littig Visual artist ©2011 AMS Planning&Research Corp. page 16 November 2011 � a Erin Litvack Salt Lake County Mayor Administration Carter Livingston Consultant Tim Loftis EDU Utah Jason Mathis Downtown Alliance Joseph Mayo Cathedral of the Madeleine Molly Mazzolini Infinite Scale Design Group Kaye Mickelson Salt Lake City John Milliken Milcom, Inc. Prescott Muir Prescott Muir Architects Teri Mumm Bombshell Music Cami Munk Salt Lake County Keven Myhre Salt Lake Acting Company Elizabeth Nebeker Magic Space Jessica Norie Artspace Ann Ober Salt Lake County Mayor Administration Sarah Pearce Sundance Institute Stan Penfold Salt Lake City Council Jason Perry University of Utah Steven Peterson Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Katherine Potter Arts patron Adam Price Salt Lake Art Center Valerie Price Salt Lake County Kevin Rusch Salt Lake Community College Byron Russell Byron Russell LLC Ryen Schlegel ArtTix Lisa Sewell Utah Arts Festival John Shaffer Children's Media Work Rebecca Sosa Children's Media Work Kandace Steadman Grand Theatre Steve Swisher Swisher Garfield Traub Development John Taylor Commerce CRG Melia Tourangeau Utah Symphony and Opera ©2011 AMS Planning&Research Corp. page 17 November 2011 Kasandra VanBrrueggen Spy Hop Productions Alexis Verson ArtTix Leigh von der Esch Utah State Board of Tourism Greg Walker AIA Young Architects Forum Linda Wardell City Creek Center Brent Watts Struck Axiom Russell Weeks Salt Lake City Council Jeff Whitley Excellence in the Community Cynthia Yeo Repertory Dance Theatre Sheila Yorkin Economic Development Corporation of Utah Crystal Young-Otterstom Utah Cultural Alliance ©2011 AMS Planning&Research Corp. page 18 November 2011 Output of Cultural Core Conversation #1 — April 2, 2011 Defining Success Participants in Conversation#1 were asked to imagine a successful Cultural Core of Salt Lake 20 years from now and consider the following questions: a) What's happening? What does it look like? b) What is the mix of activity that makes the Cultural Core a bustling and thriving place? c) Describe the people in and around the Cultural Core. Do they work there,live there,play there,teach there,learn there;all of the above? d) How is it different from today? How will they engage with the Cultural Core,its facilities,activities,programs? e) What do we need to get there? Note: This compendium of ideas out of the four working groups on April 2,2011 represents,in some instances,a summary and synthesis that occurred both during the meeting and afterwards. General: • We have amazing arts and cultural attractions at the"edge of greatness"—literally at the edge of the best skiing, best hiking, an international airport,a huge university,the seat of a major religion—all in a world-class City that doesn't always get the reputation for being such. • People should start to"break the edges"of places like the Gateway and visit other parts of the City. • A healthy core will be: dense,proximate,fun,experimental, unique, provide social and emotional experiences that people can't get at home. Place: • Develop the"in-between"spaces. Our City blocks are very big and the cultural "hot spots"are in pockets throughout the Core that are spread out and not always easy to get to from another pocket. Parking and transportation can be difficult. The"in-between"walking and travelling spaces are not appealing—they are parking lots,closed businesses, restaurants that aren't open when the Symphony ends,etc. • Difficult to get from one part of town to another;our"Core" is large and we need better transportation options, e.g.street car, more bike racks. • Develop half-block areas,including paths,sitting areas,trees,flowers. • It's about the look and feel of our City: street vendors,well-lit streets,flower pots,etc. ©2011 AMS Planning&Research Corp. page 19 November 2011 • There are no playgrounds-the City should have"pocket parks", like in other parts of Salt Lake where cultural events can also take place. • Move beyond "buildings"as performance spaces—outside screenings, plazas, use of amphitheaters,street venues;fill them with different kinds of arts. • Provide a map of arts locations. • Work with parking vendors. • Plan opportunities for other activities before and after specific arts programming,so that people aren't all coming and leaving at the same time. • The Core area should be a walkable,accessible,visually active place. • Change the reality AND the perception about the ease of getting downtown; make sure people and organizations outside of the Core know that this initiative is intended to encourage and welcome their participation. • People are coming into the Core to go to work;arts and cultural activities and spaces should encourage them to walk around at lunch, stay after work and come back on the weekends with their families and friends. Promotion: • Salt Lake needs to build a reputation as a cultural center;the marketing aspect is really important. • A lot of people don't know about the really good stuff we have to offer here;we need to work on the perception of SLC,through marketing. • Recognize two different audiences in our marketing: o Inside the state o Outside of the state • Connect tourists to arts events and exhibits when they come to town. • Provide information and ticket kiosks located around downtown to make it easier to participate in the arts on short notice. • Create cross-arts opportunities—either in the same venue or through ticket structures that allow access to multiple arts agencies in one season's pass or a punch pass. • Tell the"art story"of Salt Lake—get the message out about what we have, how to access it and highlight local artists demonstrating local arts. • New business sectors (financial,energy,digital media)are bringing new residents to the area—include them in targeted arts marketing. • Incorporate and embrace the demographics of the whole Salt Lake area. • Incorporate a broader definition of"arts and culture",such as sports events,farmer's market,bars and other night life,sidewalk cafes/restaurants. • Take advantage of new technologies to market the arts. • Foster a sense of ownership in the arts and cultural offerings of Salt Lake. ©2011 AMS Planning&Research Corp. page 20 November 2011 Program • We need something to draw crowds every day and night. • We need to"convert"audiences or get them to"bleed over"to other cultural activities—for instance,we have huge crowds come downtown for the free outdoor concerts at the Gallivan or Pioneer Park, but how do we get those same audiences to come back the next night for the symphony,theater or a gallery stroll? • We need people doing their art/music in little pockets so we can connect and enhance the cohesiveness of arts offerings in the City. • We should grow audiences beyond current clientele—focus on suburban populations,youth,different ethnic populations,tourists. • Provide arts experiences that appeal to all community members—cool,cutting edge areas, more traditional, inexpensive,expensive, casual. • Improve audience experience: seat comfort, performance length,adequate restrooms. • Need more innovative,cutting-edge programming. • Focus on the audience:What do they want? Identify arts program interests that are currently unmet. ©2011 AMS Planning&Research Corp. page 21 November 2011 Output of Cultural Core Conversation #2 — May 18, 2011 Strategies for Success Participants in Conversation#2 were given large maps of the Cultural Core area and asked to work in small groups to highlight key assets in the Cultural Core,as well as develop a collage of images to suggest what success in"filling in the spaces"might look like. They then shared their ideas with the rest of their larger working group. They were also asked to imagine headlines,ten years into the Interlocal Agreement, that would describe successes today in creating a stronger arts and Culture Core in downtown Salt Lake. Note: This compendium of ideas out of the four working groups on May 18,2011 represents,in some instances,a summary and synthesis that occurred both during the meeting and afterwards. Place: • Develop aesthetically wonderful,people-friendly arts and cultural corridors throughout the Core. o Color and nature to inspire o Beautify the dead areas o A welcoming gather place—for all ages and people of diverse background o Develop runners routes—3K,5K, 10K o Connect the gathering places;hub and spoke concept and model o Pedestrian walkways and nodes o Address logistical challenges of connectivity o Green streets—nature and ecology focus o Encourage more walking o Dining in the street o More local retail boutique shopping areas—fashion;antiques,galleries o Gathering place hubs with connection to other hubs in the Core o Create a more pleasant pedestrian experience o Think of the Core as a "Civic Campus" o Safe pedestrian access o Water features o Enhance the"personality"of downtown Salt Lake City o Need excellent signage and maps o Core needs a deliberately enhanced visual aesthetic—"thematic"visual cues throughout that you are in the arts and culture core ©2011 AMS Planning&Research Corp. page 22 November 2011 • Create small,vibrant arts spaces within the Core. o Little pockets of organic activity o Younger, hip area o Pocket parks o Leverage large events to drive activity in smaller arts spaces o Enable with performance technology hubs&Wi-Fi • Improve transportation to,from and within the Core. o Transit-oriented development along Trax Line o "U.Boulevard" (connection to University) o Minimally invasive trolley lines to help move people around the Core o Downtown bike paths o Bicycle exchanges o Hop on/hop off transit options o Better parking options o Close some streets to cars o Enable easy people circulation within the Core • Effect needed changes to policies, laws,and ordinances for restaurants, bars, housing,etc.to enable a richer arts and culture Core. o Better support for downtown living o Create a dining district o Create more housing density downtown o Replace surface parking lots with apartments and condos Promotion: • Develop a coordinated internal and external arts and culture communications strategy. o Feature all arts and culture offerings downtown o Unify communications o Messaging should be developed that can be used both inside and outside of the Core o Begin with current participants and spread organically o Develop strategies for collaborative marketing that connects the same types of arts experiences or thematically connects things ©2011 AMS Planning&Research Corp. page 23 November 2011 • Target arts and culture marketing to local and visitor interests. o Signage, maps,walking tours o Develop comprehensive and unified way finding o Directional and informational kiosks o SLC history storytelling tour—landmark orientation and narratives o Market to non-English speakers;reach out to get input on what is needed o Feature diverse cultural experiences in the Core in marketing o Market family-friendly options o Tie arts marketing to other successful local marketing campaigns—e.g.skiers,quality of life o Make sure those in the local hospitality industry have easy access to local arts information • Create a strong arts and culture brand for Salt Lake City. o Create a brand hierarchy that large and small arts groups can use • Use social media and advanced ticketing options to help create easier access to arts and culture information and events. o Touch screen informational and ticketing kiosks o Tailor communications for personal predilections(digital,apps,etc.) o Now Playing Utah.com—redesign or re-energize to make it more relevant and integrate into unified communications o More accessible ticketing options,including for visitors Program: • Enliven the downtown area by increasing serendipitous arts and culture experiences in small spaces throughout the Core. o Street music o Street artists o Public art o Memory grove o Farmer's market o Scattered sites for impromptu performances; public pianos and other instruments o Street food o Pop-up food options o Serendipity as key to awareness o Unique downtown experiences o Places to go dancing o Spontaneous art ©2011 AMS Planning&Research Corp. page 24 November 2011 • Enable and promote high quality programming that reflects and attracts the diverse Salt Lake City population. o Bring students to experience downtown o Street festivals o Stuff for all ages o Jazz o Youth performances in the Core o Choices/diversity of programming o Array other arts opportunities around anchor venues o Celebrate Salt Lake City's family-centric culture o Program with local authenticity o Invest in the already-vibrant live music scene • Establish a formal mechanism to support collaborative programming among arts organizations. o Take current assets—connect the dots—add energy • Expand arts and culture events to around-the-clock and throughout the year. o Need after performance venues to eat, drink and converse o Concentrate on what happens after 10 p.m. ©2011 AMS Planning&Research Corp. page 25 November 2011 Output of Cultural Core Conversation #3 — June 22, 2011 Implementation & Measuring Success Using the"strategies for success"developed in Conversation#2,participants were asked to: a) Develop an implementation process for the emergent strategies in each area(Place,Promotion,Program) b) Define appropriate"measures of success"for each strategy c) Brainstorm strategies to explore opportunities and partnerships beyond those that can be supported by the Interlocal Agreement d) Indicate actions/developments/changes that would be most valuable to happen first Note: This compendium of ideas out of the three working groups on June 22,2011 represents,in some instances, a summary and synthesis that occurred both during the meeting and afterwards. Place: • Spaces o Address amenities(restrooms,water,changing tables,seating...) o Address security—crime,vandalism—"eyes on the street" o Spaces between places are more interesting o Main Street between 100-200 South o European piazza model—little storefronts,seating,wine, not constricted o Like Regent Street—potential existing, underused, high access o Old DV8, Kilowatt commons, Regent Street to State Street on 200 South o Cultural Core—overlap with other districts,clarify, identify flavor, how to make diverse and right through multiple layers o Preserve existing sub-cultures o Public/private development opportunities o There is no cookie-cutter approach—must reflect Salt Lake • Transportation o Bike valet—multiple locations o Loop—bus,trolley,shuttles o Better access to taxis o "Art bus"—like St. Louis o Car, bike and Segway sharing programs ©2011 AMS Planning&Research Corp. page 26 November 2011 o Designated car-free blocks o Encourage walking • Players o Restaurants and hospitality sector o Civic/County leadership and relevant agencies o Private property owners of vacant spaces o Form block associations,including artists(like 300 South) o Small business owners o LDS Church o Internet Properties o Artists o Non-profits o State and federal funding opportunities o Sundance Festival o Local colleges and universities • Projects o Tax or other incentives for private property owners o Lighting and public art—aesthetic and functional o Identify available spaces,owners, restrictions,etc. o Way finding—address and figure out how to keep it fresh • Temporary and permanent • Identify walking district in minutes • Unique identifiers in cultural core o Pop-up shops and galleries—temporary,themes (back-to-school,for example) • Success measures(in relative priority order) o Create a baseline inventory of cultural assets o List,analyze,evaluate and clarify current ordinances, laws and statues, incentives and obstacles before moving forward o Names and naming—inclusion/exclusion, neutral names that can ebb and flow • Naming is now an element of confusion • Boundary discussions—formal and informal • Mechanism to discuss naming conventions,track change,etc. o Involve private property owners ©2011 AMS Planning&Research Corp. page 27 November 2011 o Public must be aware of and have access to what's generated from this process • Communication,marketing, branding,dissemination • Involve public from the beginning; how will they catch the vision? o Maintain and develop authenticity—distinctive, unique, legitimate o Engage players in vision of success o Address liquor issues o People choose to walk o Revisit and ensure a vibrant Main Street o Measure increase in participation,attendance,sales tax collection • Must refer to baseline o Regional, national recognition for arts and culture o Formal actions to adopt strategies for success of multiple parties Promotion: • Build on existing tools o Systematic tools—radio, print,TV,direct marketing, internet,outdoor ads,testimonials,word of mouth,visitor information center o Now Playing Utah—how can we build on it? 1,800 events listed;40,000 people per month are coming to site. Better traction with residents than specialized marketing people. It functions as the default calendar for other event calendars. o Educate broader potential of users—make information sources easy for them to use o Content providers need to be involved in development o Consider use of Destination Marketing Organizations(DMOs) o Conduct market research,as needed,to determine which communication tools are most effective for different user groups o Connect with front liners—people who sell tickets, users,concierges,etc. o PR/marketing/design firm input could help o Need leadership and specific goals o Success measures: • More people are downtown in the Cultural Core because of the online information that is easily available to them • People feel better:smiles per mile • Increased unique visits and return visits to website • Increased ticket sales • Increased sales tax revenue within the cultural core ©2011 AMS Planning&Research Corp. page 28 November 2011 • Coordinating promotion efforts within the Salt Lake City arts community o Arts organizations need to be more strategic in working with one another o Those in the arts community need to come together and develop an ethos of collaboration rather than competition—"grow the pie"—develop crossover opportunities o Need a mechanism to communicate and coordinate with one another:arts leaders,content providers, business owners o Needed resources: • Consistent meeting structure • Downtown Alliance • Funding would promote participation • Leadership—structured goals o Success measures: • All content participants contribute to discounted experience that is merged in some fashion for"day of"activities • Within a year there is a mechanism for coordination • Strategies for attracting visitors to the Core o People go downtown if they have a reason to go there o Create an organization or mechanism to market to local residents o Partner with the Downtown Alliance,City/County government,Visit Salt Lake o Work with member/professional organizations,the Cultural Alliance,small chamber music groups, new media programs—not always just the likely suspects o Success measures: • Increased percentage of people coming in from outside of the City Core Program: • Small "pop-up" programming o Identify and fund a person responsible for coordinating artists in the Core;connecting small performances to larger events; dealing with use/risk management issues;audience promotion for small events;outreach to diverse communities o Develop thematic/collective events o Pull together existing resources to support each other in and through larger"theme"gatherings. (e.g.,family,food/beverage, cultural,youth performers,dance festivals) o Identify individual/small group artists for spaces; identify spaces and invite local theater/artists o Identify spots that will be known for frequent performances ©2011 AMS Planning&Research Corp. page 29 November 2011 o Performance measures: • #of people identifying the Core as a Cultural Core(survey of perception) • Increased sales tax revenue in Core • Increase in event attendance • Artist retention (do they come back to perform?) • #of events in the Core • Audience return rates—did they enjoy their experience enough to come back? • #of communities interested in "Cultural Core"concept/developing own Cultural Core • Diverse Culture o Develop an "authentic engagement"strategy that involves people at all levels of,e.g.strategic planning, leadership,small community engagement,school involvement. Start small within a community and engage into larger conversations o Develop a partnership/mentoring program that reaches out to communities and school o Identify location for small ethnic festivals in the Core—they operate around the SL Valley, but not well promoted and generally not in Core o Engage diverse members for arts/cultural boards o Performance measures: • #of cultural events stemming from schools in the downtown area • #of ethnically diverse members on boards of cultural and community organizations • #of new ethnically diverse cultural arts group created • #of performance in the Core • Collaboration o One person/organization tasked with pulling together information on all arts programming and completing the one-stop shop for information (building on Now Playing Utah?). Calendar updated and planned into the future o Large scale regular(quarterly?) meetings—heads of arts organizations coming together to plan,share,determine overlap,team and engage in long-range planning opportunities o Theme-based events—many arts organizations supporting a specific theme-based timeframe o Performance measures • #of large scale meetings(at least five in five years) • #of collaborative events in the Core • Utilization of common calendar • Increase in funding opportunities—leveraging • Increase in "vitality index" ©2011 AMS Planning&Research Corp. page 30 November 2011 • Year Around o Ensure arts programming is available every night of the week,year-around,across the different arts venues and spaces o Heavy promotion of programming to summer and winter visitors o Incorporate art offered outside the Core o Performance measures • #of events • #of nights annually with performances in the Core • Spaces (needed and existing) o Existing plazas near the symphony o Washington Square o Indoor winter month space(e.g.,salt palace) o Connect to new City Creek pavilion o Under-utilized spaces • Parking lots • Sides of buildings • Closed down street locations • Resources Needed Overall o Personnel—funding for one or more staff people to identify and coordinate programming; upkeep of common calendar o Organization to convene multi-agency leadership meetings o Skilled community outreach people to engage diverse communities in planning and performance o School personnel for program planning and access to students o Funding for individual artists(to assist in "pop-up" programming) o Underwriting of performance spaces-ensure the spaces are affordable o Access to space— ability to book it o Funding for identification/upkeep of small performance spaces o Identifying resources/partnering to leverage current resources — allows for programming sustainability and advancement o Comfortable spaces—grass,shade,seating ©2011 AMS Planning&Research Corp. page 31 November 2011 o Scale • Large— large planning efforts;small— constantly going • Large enough to be noticed(e.g.,gallery stroll, regular, predictable) • Combination of small things —fill in the time • Each day something • Weekend festivals • Bridge existing time(e.g., afternoon after farmers marker) • Other Thoughts o Address booking costs so small-scale artists can afford space o Mixed service policies — some locations provide a high-level of service,while others provide nearly none. Costs for use are reflected in level of service. For example,one site may offer set-up, lighting, and food/beverage. Another will offer a location with no amenities o Shorten the Interlocal to ten years and double the funding for those years to have a stronger, more immediate impact o Family-focused experiences through the year;activities for youth ©2011 AMS Planning&Research Corp. page 32 November 2011 u r For further information, please contact: Steven A. Wolff, CMC, Principal Karen Nagy, Associate Principal AMS Planning & Research Corp. 2150 Post Road Fairfield, CT 06824 USA (203) 256-1616 info@ams-online.com www.ams-online.com ©2011 AMS Planning&Research Corp. page 33 November 2011 .. ,. ek .••* ,* .. .. r ., ., , li^ AR . el It •.,..,..: it ..::. it .. ove • v.; . . ; ,-„,,,,,. • - or-' .,. % . Cultural Core Conversations Final Report November 2 , 2011 , ,sk -„, m kolho.***04 flowmfoimtkisik*10. Our Goal " . . to support a vibrant cultural scene and help make the Cultural Core one key to the region ' s success " Cultural Core Conversations ► 102 Participants ► 70 Organizations ► 1,000+ person-hours of workshop time ► 3 key goals ► 11 strategies ► $ 10.0 million investment over 20 years 1111 .. :::iii4i - - . . . -•----N, al) II NINO r --, ,,,-;,-,::::2----. ,-\ '/ 44 ., 4•1/ an - E w .... , - 1 ..A7, C "CI -: C : > f;'• iss. . .. = ft; 1.., kl CL 40110 LIM '' •-•,...' / ,., .• 0 Qs .y- --- \- s 4...; C . DI C 4..,: . (10 E 0 4-+ CU 3— al ilt q •-•'a 0. 0 Eft CI / 1111111110111111 IL) 0 " 111111111111111111 LIM 0.) C 1111101111111 "oft. Idi 10 Beyond the " Interlocal " 1 . Catalyst for long-term development 2 . Promote maximum impact and activation of the Cultural Core . 3 . Encourage new participation 4 . Explore and activate new arts- related revenue-generating opportunities . .....- ..........., CD C = .....n ..........., C «-.0 7 CO +.1 C 0) ...... E 1.- OJ 0) -a 4010k., ...... a E E cu >3/4 ...... Co -..„. 2 0 z 0 tri a) c a) u o(..) 4..." VI .......... _ ...._ ,..... L.) U = (i) co L._ail c,_ . (,) t., ...,: . cL, I..) < ,.... ..... ........ 0 ,....... c,„, 0 v) U ms CU a)m L) •.... DA ii t4 4-I lbw b.0 CO si. = C C 4-0 (I)0 Li:: 0) ....00.4, 0 Defining Success Diverse Content o Vibrant, inviting arts and cultural experiences ° Excellence and diversity o Focus on local art and artists Engaged audiences ° Innovative programming o Active participation � a. .:x� ° +y � , ..+* � 1 ® Defining ► Creating " Place" a Connected - join the "in - between" places a Accessible O Walkable ► Civic Pride O Welcoming O "Arts- rich" - live , work, perform , showcase . . . O Human scale Defining ► Marketing Q An increased focus on communication and information 0 Cross promotion • Within the arts and cultural space • Leveraging other community assets ► Partnerships DeventownSalt City Extending the reach r Week .1 Key Investments 1 . Place-making that creates connections and builds identity. 2. Promotional initiatives that leverage existing tools to build the region ' s cultural brand and deliver actionable information to local residents and visitors . 3. Programs that enliven the Core and attract and reflect the region ' s audiences and visitors . Place - making Strategies ► Develop aesthetically wonderful , people - friendly arts and culture corridors throughout the Core ► Create small , vibrant arts spaces within the Core ► Improve transportation to, from and within the Core ► Effect needed changes to policies , laws and ordinances for restaurants , bars , housing , etc. to enable a richer arts and culture Core Develop aesthetically wonderful , people- friendly arts and culture corridors Project Key Players Resources / Constraints low Create better City, County • Identify convener connections throughout agencies, RDA, • Partner to fund the Core leveraging "in- property owners improvements between" spaces to • Complex / overlapping improve amenities governance (more visible security, public restrooms, plazas /outdoor seating, enhanced lighting .) R 1 ,11 Create better Downtown Alliance • Underway wayfinding throughout the Core Create small , vibrant arts spaces Project Key Players Resources / Constraints .- Explore opportunities City, County • Inventory to develop the spaces agencies, RDA, • Planning forum "in-between," property owners, • Convener underutilized arts organizations, • Implementer storefronts, parking lots artists • Fund master plan and alleyways between established activity centers throughout the Cultural Core for arts Fi „ and cultural opportunities ter; Improve transportation Project Key Players Resources / I} £j Constraints f111) 4. -: ''. Improve transportation City, County • Identify convener R i1 . k in the Core by agencies, RDA, • Partner to fund planning `;' . ' zs..--i ,' `. developing bike valet, property owners efforts *• R p • Complex/overlapping ` At ` bus or trolleyloop, vehicle-sharing governance � 'program, Arts Bus connection from outside the Core Improve information City, County • Designate lead agency about transportation agencies, RDA, for residents and Visit Salt Lake visitors �" Effect needed changes to policies , laws and ordinances . .. to enable a richer Core Project Key Players Resources / if fi.. r } + Constraints Develop planning, City, County • Identify convener "> tYa" zoning and code agencies, RDA, development policies property owners, P. that support increased arts organizations, activity and patronage artists in the Core 4 3 - Inventory currents •..,, , �� f t�UU `" i` 4 law, code and , ;" policy K , .,,, »; .. r wtRa - Document and . ° y - L i1fLYs inventory cultural assets: venues, programs and activities Promotion Strategies ► Develop a coordinated internal and external arts and culture communications strategy ► Target arts & culture marketing to local and visitor interests ► Use social media and advanced ticketing options to help create easier access to arts and culture information and events c ) Develop a coordinated internal and external arts and culture communications strategy BUY Project Key Players Resources / Constraints Continue to invest in Visit Salt Lake, • Visit Salt Lake as ART resources and social content providers, Convener media tools to provide media partners, • Funding for design a "go-to" online destination and content destination for marketers development (see information and to calendar above - uPCurvE .4(f. • promote activity in the Program 3) Cultural Core. Convene periodic Arts • Identify professional planning roundtables organizations, convener artists, arts • Support professional agencies (City, convener County and State), Downtown Alliance Target arts & culture marketing to local and visitor interests Project Key Players Resources / he► r, )fo►some Constraints 1/2 price tun/ Develop an expanded, "Now Playing • Convener �.,�� centralized online Utah," Visit Salt • Fund for design and resource for Lake, content content development information about and providers, media (see master calendar promotion of the partners, above — Program 3) Cultural Core destination marketers Use social media and advanced ticketing options to help create easier access q T1�. �'.e,,. �,..v'7+.'.m.';l'+y'nr ai'"S„Y+ CaG"^+'"4a r .'% s"'YS4C":!i '$T .eaE2,.a!;�i.,.SnS !'%�.�. '?,'? r,9 in Y I 2,a , Like-us ors ''-' 5y.: Faze oo '''" ::, . . , . . ��7q:;dH ,x: 04 ��.'��ro4 *�.:a 3. p ,;fir. ,ti, P Project Key Players Resources / Constraints Integrate social media, "Now Playing • Convener push technologies and Utah," Visit Salt • Fund for design and ticketing with other Lake, content content development online resources providers, media (see master calendar partners, above — Program 3) destination marketers Program Strategies ► Enliven the downtown area by increasing serendipitous arts and culture experiences Enable and promote high quality programming that reflects and attracts the diverse Salt Lake City population ► Establish a mechanism to support existing and encourage new collaborative programming Support events with a goal of "around the clock and throughout the year" activity Enliven the downtown area by increasing serendipitous arts and culture experiences , . ...... ...., .. ,... Project Key Players Resources / Constraints Develop and promote Local artists,producing • Funding for planning, SC/ra',r thematic,ethnic and/or organizations, program enhancement, .iii ''il ---.... collaborative festivals and presenters promotion — '�„�!='-_ events • Existing and newly created spaces Create/expand informal Local artists,existing • Fund convener/planning "pop-up" programming producers and effort opportunities presenters • Identify, "fit-out"spaces for ' . activity ! / r, 't,. ,1, AO ' is '' fir` g,. Enable and promote high quality programming that reflects and attracts the diverse salt Lake City population �t 4v, wy.. '; .� Project Key Players Resources / t I .' Constraints k Expand family-focused Arts • Identify leadership experiences organizations, and convener x ,. „ - visual artists • Funding for 1 collaborative activity , ,f i Develop /expand Arts • Identify mentors and programs to engage organizations, partnerships diverse audiences artists, school • Fund planning and leadership, innovative initiatives i teachers Activate an effective Arts • Planning and r1. and authentic organizations, convening support • Fundingfor i �` � � engagement strategy producers, ` presenters, collaborative marketers implementation r 1 Establish a mechanism to support existing and encourage new collaborative programming Support events with a goal of "around the clock and throughout the year" activity Project Key Players Resources / Constraints Improve centralized Arts organizations, • Funding systems to calendar resource for artists, arts support knowledge '''"" ' "' arts activity for use by agencies (City and sharing ' both programmers and County) information seekers «.. Convene periodic Arts organizations, • Assign convener role planning roundtables artists, arts agencies (City and County) What ' s Next? ! _E MAYOR RALPH BECKER silri MAYOR PETER coRRooN SALT LAKE COUNTY Interlocal budget Committee ► Salt Lake County O David E. Gee, Parr Brown Gee & Loveless • Lori Feld , McCann Erikson • Leigh von der Esch , Utah Office of Tourism ► Salt Lake City O Lisa Harrison Smith , Adobe • Beth Levine, SmartMouth Communications • Nan Elin , University of Utah • erm. •:,..2r•:;rg tt,,,,,:.- ,ION:c.: ',4-,,,V, vr4v7 ,C, g.,;, :•, :',e,••:,- t•t•rv• IT-:TA- 0 "i:-.5.': (:•:'S'-' C.-4---- ;'..t. 1"144'7,, _ 17 444., ,,.•,..,e eIlt;•:: '4'*g• '"". .vg-• 1 t i (t• Ct, ''''''Ir'. CD. „:;•1,4, • •-.... - _ firm t:C",•!, 0.,,,,„ia ,,' 'e..`:.:.?...0 _. r,q sm, t-.:.%, ',s,,,,,,-, .•,?"'''' .., •,.mA, ,...: - -- 0 LI2tt,''' •' ... 'I‘ V ."..,.,-, litwo'k pfl,cti:*, ,4,..,,,,-... .4..... ,... , . — ..... ,.......-. '..'' •,,''' f4,), ',:..:, (1) (D' '..::..„ _. ...--......., i''' -.- ,....., 0 - ., --......., t: .::'•Z ..',.'4,,e.L E ..,. ......... . ,,.. . , c,,,.,....:, .,,,,...:,.... „...., . _ -- 0_., . (..) rrA6:5, • - 't:,,,V, .......-. .-. . , • i• ,,'' -1!..,:r;..,. ---. t'•::::?. ‘,-;),:i:'.. . ..• I lag) -... Of,17.; . , C ....gh%.,.. ,---- LL. — . ............ (l) ................. C :"1---- 0 i (if) E ....._.. 0 ..--_ ,-2 t-1 '' '''' • , , ... ' . , . .. ..... -,,- • .•- ....- . . : . . - . . . . - '. - . _. .._, ....._... ...... ...... __, -- •,• .:..0' e° . .• . . A - lU Please See Item D - l ( a ) - ( c ) Sister Cities Board Appointment: Nicole Gallo INTRODUCTION: Mayor Becker is recommending Nicole Gallo, be appointed to the Salt Lake City Sister Cities Board. If appointed, Ms. Springmeyer will serve a term extending through July 1, 2014. APPLICANT INFORMATION: Nicole Gallo resides in Salt Lake County. Ms. Gallo is currently working with the City of Torino on art, environment and cultural projects. She is a board member of the Italian Culturarcenter of Utah and member of the Utah Council for Citizen Diplomacy. Nicole is interested in serving on the Sister Cities Board to promote relationships between Italy, specifically Torino, and Salt Lake City through cultural exchanges. RESPONSE DEADLINE: If you have any objection to this appointment, please let Mellisa know by Friday December 2, 2011. CURRENT COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD: Sister Cities Board Members must be a Salt Lake County resident and the terms last 3 years. There may be a maximum of 15 Board Members. Board members include: Geoffrey Brugger; Father Patrick F. Carley; Anne Erickson; Etsuko Oqura Freeman; Rosemary A. Holt; Jinger LaGuardia; Nia Sherar, Karen Wiley and Margaret Yee. BOARD STRUCTURE: The Sister Cities Board is created and governed in accordance with Utah law. The mission of the Sister Cities Board is to promote peace and unite local and global communities through friendship, economic opportunities and cultural and educational exchange, particularly through Salt Lake City and selected cities in other countries. APPLICATION Salt Lake City Boards& Commissions OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 451 S.STATE STREET,ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111 NOTE: PLEASE ATTACH YOUR RESUME. Name: I'l Ptca4 t Ps C_c l.-,PO_L_C) Home •R �L_)7k-\ LSO E. Cf;fJ' _._ -?.D Address: Street L L \ J Cam-- 84 12Ci City Zip Council District Phone: c - -Ici'IC-D - CPCI 'cR LEI, es 'i oalinl Home Work Cellular# ,E-Mail Address Occupation: Prl_ A4,' Committee(s),Board(s),Commission(s)or Authority in which you are interested: _A-7-0cLA tJ CC1--t t V'h ir(Ci L3C_c..D vc\3sm r Reason for your interest in this particular committee/board/commission or authority: .'r � �c`-ncm he k t C'Cf l � S k t unf- '1 -i-- -Prl cI f c-ti �c-t'i v, o" Ste_ ), cV C'�� tQ Q .% '�hC< 1 Are you currently serving on any other City committees? If so,which committee(s)/board(s)/commission(s)/authority? L3 Have you had previous contact with the committee/board/commission/authority for which you are making application? If so,when,and the circumstances? � ► ,-Ins cick--c — (OVER) Community Service/Activities(past and present): L)r1 l 9r1t cli *bb � i11cQo- C) , l ��Qi�� C a 9-ksisf-- N rrIf -i c`cn Z-4) (k o c^t -ice- C44 4\Cyr l 9.3i*n �CX— 1`t YYJ fcr G i Professional Activities: �-c�c'vve c Y*- Sic C) \)-; ecY\ \ASJJ a-- C Q tr 18 (ass-- 9 \s Civic/Professional Organization Memberships: Ethnic Group(to assure fair and equal representation—answer optional): Other Pertinent Information: e cr \) i tztr��nnc�9'1� r �° '9 c Q 0 ov-. 1k C Please list three references and phone numbers: C }��-v 1) =_ Rci? — V@c� 1 2) )\ — &=( - -0S4 3) CI: c �v-k1 - oSy- DATE: ::)/q/ i.Q SIGNATURE 01/00 BOARDS & COMMISSIONS CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT This statement is to be filed by all applicants for positions on regular or special committees, boards, authorities, and commissions of Salt Lake City. I, < ) (Name),being first duly sworn, certify that I am applying to serve on the c.4--.(List Board or Commission) and that the following statements of my financial interests are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. A. EMPLOYMENT Section 2.44.o5o, Salt Lake City Code,requires that every person holding any position with Salt Lake City Corporation who is also an officer,director,or employee of any other (non-city) business entity disclose such position and the nature of such position or employment. A "business entity" means a sole proprietorship,partnership,association,joint venture, corporation, firm,trust, foundation, or other organization or entity used in carrying on a business. The following questions refer to your primary non-city job: i. Are you presently employed? t -Yes No If you answered "yes" to the above question,please list each of your employment interests: a. The name of the business entity: ( 1 b. The address of the business entity: Th L.pCSD c. The principal activity engaged in by the business entity: L. f�SSSSSISC CAI d. Your job title in the business entity: St 51 3t e. The length of time employed by the business entity: 2 l(11(-S If you answered"no" to the above question,please state if you are retired, unemployed,etc: B. BUSINESS INTERESTS Section 2.44.o50,Salt Lake City Code,requires that all substantial interests you may have in any(non-city)business entity be disclosed. Please fill out only if separate from the above employment information,unless self-employed. • t. Do you engage in a business in which you are the sole proprietor(owner)?_Yes No z. Do you,your spouse or your children own stock in any corporation which,when considered in any combination,comprises ten percent(to%)ownership of the outstanding shares of said corporation? Yes 1/ No 3. Do you,your spouse,or your children have any interests in any limited partnerships or other business entity which,when considered in any combination,exceeds a ten percent(to%)interest in such business? Yes No 4. Do you own any interest in any business for which Salt Lake City issues a business license, i.e.,a restaurant,an apartment building with three or more units,tavern,etc.? Yes r✓No 5. If you answered"yes"to question 4,does the business entity have a Salt Lake City Business License? Yes No If you have answered"yes"to any of the above questions,please state for each business interest: a. Name of the business: b. Address of the business: c. The principal activity engaged in by the business: d. The nature of your interest in the business: e. The length of time associated with the business: f. If you answered"yes"to question 4 above,state whether the value of your interest is: Under Sz5,000 Over$25,000 (attach additional sheets if necessary) I certify that no conflicts of interest exist or that all conflicts have been disclosed in writing on this statement. Dated this Ci day of U LQSY\e_ ,zo l b(Signature of App icant or Board Mem ) STATE OF UTAH ) :ss COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) Subscribed and sworn to(or affirmed)before me by filar`&{-J t\ (,r,,\1 h on this (ApiiCicant or Board Member) /0 day of ,luyl ,20 11 . TOBY PACK ► �_�� a Notary Public a State of Utah (Notary Public,residing in Salt Lake County,Utah 1 ;.titiet� ` ai • Comm.No.580066 My Comm..Expires Sep 1,2013 (This is a conflicfrirernisc osure sta ement on y. Additional disclosures or restrictions may apply if your financial,business,or professional activities conflict with your city responsibilities.) Library Board Appointment: Hikmet Loe INTRODUCTION: Mayor Becker is recommending Hikmet Loe be appointed to serve on the Library Board. If appointed, Ms. Loe will serve the term extending through June 30, 2014. APPLICANT INFORMATION: Hikmet Loe resides Council District One and is a Adjunct Faculty Coordinator and Adjunct Faculty for Westminster College. Ms. Loe was a former City staff member for 27 years and former president of the Utah Library Association. She has the background and ability to work towards positive and progressive change within a library setting. RESPONSE DEADLINE: If you have any objections to this appointment, please let Mellisa know by Monday, November 28, 2011. CURRENT COMPOSITION OF LIBRARY BOARD: All members of the Salt Lake City Library Board are required to be City residents. Board members include: Hugh Gillilan, District 6; Ella Olsen, District 6; Mark Alvarez, District 4; Ila Rose Fife, District 2; Kevin Werner, District 5; Elizabeth Barlow Gupta, District 4; Luana Chilelil, District 3 and Emilie Charles, District 3. BOARD STRUCTURE: The mission of this nine-member board is to make and adopt rules for the operation and care of the libraries and branches; control expenditures of the library fund; purchase, lease and sell land; purchase, lease and erect or sell buildings; establish policies for operation of the library and appoint a Librarian/Director. APPLICATION Salt Lake City Boards & Commissions OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 451 S.STATE STREET,ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84114-5474 NOTE: PLEASE ATTACH YOUR RESUME. Name: Hikmet Loe Home Address: 947 Sterling Drive Salt Lake City UT, 84116 Council District: 1 Phone: (Primary) 801.699.7812 (Secondary) Email: hikmetloena,comcast.net Occupation: Adjunct Faculty Coordinator, and Adjunct Faculty, Westminster College Committee(s),Board(s),Commission(s) or Authority in which you are interested: The City Library Reason for your interest in this particular committee/board/commission or authority: I have lived in District 1 since 2000 and take pride in my neighborhood and its potential. As a 27 year career librarian, former City Library staff member, and former president of the Utah Library Association, I have the background to be able to work towards positive and progressive change within a library setting. Are you currently serving on any other City committees? If so,which committee(s)/board(s)/commission(s)/authority? No Have you had previous contact with the committee/board/commission/authority for which you are applying? Yes If so,when,and the circumstances? Please see attached resume. Community Service/Activities (past and present): Please see resume. Professional Activities: Please see resume. Civic/Professional Organization Memberships: Please see resume. Ethnic Group (to assure fair and equal representation—answer optional): Caucasian (ethnic background split between British and Turkish) Other Pertinent Information: I believe my commitment to my neighborhood and District 1, and the strong commitment I have towards public service(specifically within public library settings)make me an ideal candidate to sit on the Library Board of Directors. Thankyou for reviewing my application. (Please give me a contact to forward my resume - there isn't an attachment button on this page.) Please list three references and phone numbers: 1)Vicki Bourns,ZAP Program Manager 801.468.3517 2) Jim Cooper, Salt Lake County Library Director 801.944.7504 3)Kevin Werner, The City Library Board of Directors Chair 801.478.0353 DATE: 10/31/2011 HIKMET SIDNEY LOE 947 Sterling Drive Salt Lake City,UT 84116 801.699.7812 hikmetloe@comcast.net EDUCATION Hunter College,City University of New York Master of Arts,Art History,May 1996 Thesis:An Intermittent Illusion:Local Reaction to Robert Smithson's Spiral Jetty University of California,Berkeley Master of Library and Information Studies,June 1986 Pennsylvania State University Bachelor of Arts,Art History,May 1980 PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES in TEACHING Adjunct Faculty Coordinator,Westminster College School of Arts&Sciences(8/10-present) Art History Adjunct Faculty,Westminster College School of Arts&Sciences(1/06-present) Courses: Art 110,Survey of Art Art 310,Art History:Emergence to Renaissance Art 311,Art History:Renaissance to Contemporary Art Art 312,Art History:Contemporary Art Spring 2011,Summer 2008:Westminster Student Directed Study in Art History May Term 2007,Art Since 1945 May Term 2006,Earthworks of the American West Activities: March 2011,Great Salt Lake Institute Artful Afternoons at Utah Museum of Fine Arts February 2008,Winter Weekend,Art District Tour Guide Fall 2006,Portfolio Day,Gallery Guide Art History Adjunct Instructor,Weber State University Department of Visual Arts(6/10-8/10) Course: Art 1090,Art and Architecture of the World:Paleolithic—AD 1000 Art History Associate Instructor,University of Utah Department of Art&Art History(8/09-8/10) Courses: ARTH 2500,Introduction to the History of Art and Visual Culture PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES in the ARTS Center for Land Use Interpretation,Los Angeles,CA 2010 Spiral Jetty,Sun Tunnels tour consultant and guide for Museum of Contemporary Art(L.A.)staff/council members 2007 Spiral Jetty tour consultant and guide for University of Missouri,St.Louis art students;Spiral Jetty,Sun Tunnels tour consultant and guide for Columbia University Professor and colleagues;Spiral Jetty,Sun Tunnels tour consultant and guide for Contemporary Museum(Baltimore)Art Explorers members 2005 Spiral Jetty tour consultant and guide for Los Angeles County Museum of Art staff/council members 2004 Spiral Jetty,Sun Tunnels tour consultant and guide for Museum of Contemporary Art(L.A.)staff/council members Dia Art Foundation,New York,NY 2004-present SLC tour guide for Dia-owned,Utah-based earthwork,Spiral Jetty KRCL Radio Station,Salt Lake City,UT 1987-88 "Women Aloud"Interviewer,programming producer for National Women's Month 1986-88 "Our Arts"Co-host,interviewer and programming producer on local artists Resume:Hikmet Sidney Loe Museum of Utah Art&History,Salt Lake City,UT 2004-2005 Museum Advisory Board;Curatorial Consultant for unrealized Spiral Jetty Gallery Salt Lake County Government,Salt Lake City,UT 2011- Salt Lake County Art Collection Committee Member 2001-03 Development of updated Salt Lake County Art Collection catalog;editor 1999-00 Public Arts Jury,South Towne Exposition Centre,Sandy 1997-2003 Salt Lake County Art Collection Committee Member Utah Arts Festival,Salt Lake City,UT 1983 Visual Arts Jury Member ART in EXHIBITION/PUBLICATION 2012 From Above:Facets of Great Salt Lake,Chapman Branch,The City Library 2011 Westminster College Faculty and Staff Art Exhibition,Westminster College Sun Tunnels,photograph,Nancy Holt:Sightlines(Alena Williams,ed.) The Spiral Jetty,photograph,Land Art(Gilles Tiberghein) 2010 Hipstamatic Photography Show,Phillips Gallery,December "The Spiral Jetty:Strata of Water"artistsofutah.org "Marking Time at Sun Tunnels"artistsofutah.org 2009 photographs,Mirror Images: Great Salt Lake 2006 The Spiral Jetty,photograph,Friends of Great Salt Lake 13(Fall 2006) 2005 The Spiral Jetty,photographs,Whitney Museum of American Art ART HISTORY LECTURES/PAPERS 2011 "Robert Smithson and the Spiral Jetty:The Center and the Circumference"Lecture,Utah Museum of Fine Arts,Salt Lake City "Art Beyond the Gallery Walls"KUER,Radio West interview with Doug Fabrizio 2010 "Slide Jam:Modern Marvels"Panelist,Salt Lake Art Center,Salt Lake City "Earth Art:Evening for Educators"Keynote Speaker,Snow College,Ephraim,Utah 2009 "Feminine:Constructive"Gallery Lecture,Central Utah Art Center,Ephraim,Utah "Rotating through time and place:The Spiral Jetty at Rozel Point"Lecture,College of Mining and Engineering,University of Utah,Salt Lake City 2008 "Robert Smithson's Spiral Jetty"Lecture,International Society of Salt Lake Research and Friends of Great Salt Lake Conference,Salt Lake City "Present Tense:A Post-337 Project"Panel Discussion,Salt Lake Art Center,Salt Lake City 2005 "On Spiral Jetty"Panelist,Whitney Museum of American Art,New York City 2005 The News Hour with Jim Lehrer;television interview on Spiral Jetty(broadcast 5.6.05) 2003-06 Radio interviews related to Spiral Jetty(NPR,WNYC,etc.) 2004 "Spiral Jetty:A Visual History"Lecture,Great Salt Lake Issues Forum,Salt Lake City 2003 "Robert Smithson's Spiral Jetty"Lecture,Friends of Great Salt Lake,Salt Lake City 2002 "Art in the Environment:Art on the Great Salt Lake"Lecture,Great Salt Lake Nature Study Series, Salt Lake City Public Library,Salt Lake City 2002 "Robert Smithson's Spiral Jetty:An Interdisciplinary Approach"Lecture,Utah Museum of Fine Arts,Salt Lake City 2000 "Robert Smithson's Spiral Jetty"Lecture,Center for Land Use Interpretation,Los Angeles 1998 "Entropy and Evolution:Retracing the Continual Construction of Robert Smithson's Spiral Jetty" Session paper,ULA/MPLA Joint Conference,Salt Lake City 1998 "Art in the Middle of Nowhere,Timeless Earthworks in Utah"Lecture,Salt Lake City Public Library,Salt Lake City 1996 "Entropy and Evolution:Retracing the Continual Construction of Robert Smithson's Spiral Jetty" Session paper, l' Regional ARLIS/Mountain West Conference,Flagstaff,AZ ART HISTORY PUBLICATIONS 2012 The Spiral Jetty and Rozel Point:Rotating through Time and Place(Utah State University Press) 2011 Staff writer for artistsofutah.org/15bytes online art magazine: Resume:Hikmef Sidney Loe "Now You See It:Edward Burtynsky's Industrial Sublime at Weber's Shaw Gallery" 2010 "Roderick Coover,Larry McCaffery,Lance Newman and Hikmet Loe:A Dialogue about the Desert.Critical Ecologies;www.Electronicbookreview.co/thread/criticalecologies/econnected Staff writer for artistsofutah.org/15bytes online art magazine: "Marking Time at Sun Tunnels" "Visual Cues:Paul Reynolds at Finch Lane Gallery" "Alternative Venue Spotlight:Alumni House of Art" "The Spiral Jetty:Strata of Water" 2009 Staff writer for artistsofutah.org/15bytes online art magazine: "Salt Lake Reconsidered:Diane Tuft at the Kimball Art Center" "The Truth of Abstraction:Non-Objective Art at Patrick Moore Gallery" 2008 Staff writer for artistsofutah.org/15bytes online art magazine: "25 Years of the Tree of Utah" "Noticing the Blooming Cactus:Wendover's Center for Land Use Interpretation" "News from Nowhere:Richard Zimmerman at Sam Wellers" 2006 "Spiral Jetty and the Romantic Landscape of Great Salt Lake"Friends of Great Salt Lake 13(Fall 2006):pp. 16-17 2003 The Salt Lake County Art Collection(editor,author),Salt Lake County 2002 "Robert Smithson's Spiral Jetty"and"Nancy Holt's Sun Tunnels"(co-authored with Nancy Holt)in,Great Salt Lake:An Overview of Change(Utah Geological and Mineral Survey,Utah Department of Natural Resources,2nd ed.) CURATORIAL PROJECTS 2010 Mirror Images: Great Salt Lake,Westminster College,SLC,UT 2004,2007-08 LUR/Lower Urban Room Gallery Manager,The City Library 2002 JUXTAPOSITIONS: The Artist and The Environment Curator for 2002 Olympics Exhibition,Finch Lane Gallery/Art Barn,SLC,UT 1990 New York City:Selections from the Artists'Book Collection of the Museum of Modern Art Library Curator,The Museum of Modern Art Library 1988 Beyond the Book:Artists'Books in Utah Co-Curator;Finch Lane Gallery/Art Barn,SLC,UT AFFILIATIONS Artists of Utah CLUI,Center for Land Use Interpretation Dia Art Foundation FOGSL,Friends of Great Salt Lake Great Salt Lake Institute Salt Lake Art Center UCA,Utah Cultural Alliance Resume:Hikmet Sidney Loe PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES in the HUMANITIES&LIBRARIES Utah Humanities Council Literature Program Director(6/08-1/10) Administration of annual statewide Utah Humanities Book Festival in Salt Lake City and venues statewide;development of statewide literature programs and library initiative The City Library,Salt Lake City Public Library Manager,Level 4 and Audiovisual Departments(7/04-6/08) Administration and management of Level 4(arts,history,Special Collections,Gallery at Library Square,LUR Gallery)and Audiovisual departments;24 staff(15 FTE)and volunteers;public service,collections,programs,exhibitions Manager,Day-Riverside Branch Library(9/03-7/04) Administration and management of Branch, 14 staff(9 FTE)and volunteers,public service,collections,programs,outreach,and facilities Manager,Technical Services Department(4/99-9/03) Administration and management of department, 18 staff and volunteers,budget,planning,acquisitions,cataloging,processing, and vendor relations;collection development committee chair Trainer/Staff Development Coordinator(7/97-4/99) Coordination and implementation of system-wide staff training and development; Professional Collection Associate Librarian,Fine Arts Department(10/81-8/84) Davis County Library Manager,Central Branch,Layton(1/95-7/97) Administration and management of Branch, 19 staff(10 FTE)and volunteers,public service,collections,programs,outreach, and facilities Parsons School of Design,New School for Social Research Director,Adam&Sophie Gimbel Design Library,New York(4/92-12/94) Administration and management of Library,staff(9 FTE),budget,collections,programs,faculty liaison,and facilities a The Metropolitan Museum of Art Reader Services Librarian,Thomas J.Watson Library,New York(1/91-3/92) Supervision of reference activities for Museum's main library,including 4 professional FTE and volunteers The Museum of Modern Art Associate Librarian,Reference,The Museum of Modern Art Library,New York(4/88-1/91) Supervision of reference activities for main library,including 3 professional FTE and volunteers;Interlibrary Loan University of Utah Manager,Fine Arts Division,Marriott Library(7/86-3/88) Management of Division,staff(1 FTE and work study students),collections,budget,faculty liaison PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES in LIBRARIES ARLIS/NA,Art Libraries Society of North America 1994 Art and Design School Library Division Moderator 1993 Art and Design School Library Division Vice-Moderator 1992 "Space and Time,Part I:An Evening of Performance Art,""Space and Time,Part II:Video Documentation and Preservation"Session Moderator,20`h Annual Conference;New Art Round Table Moderator;George Wittenborn Memorial Book Award Committee 1991 "Preservation of the Avant-Garde:Contemporary Art Archives"Session Co-moderator, 190h Annual Conference 1990 "On the Wall,Off the Wall:The Librarian as Exhibition Curator"Session Co-moderator, 18th Annual Conference;Book Arts Facilities in Lower Manhattan Tour Guide, 18th Annual Conference; New Art Round Table,Co-moderator ARLIS/NY,New York Chapter,Art Libraries Society 1994 Chair,Executive Board Committee 1993 Vice-Chair/Chair-Elect,Executive Board Committee 1989-90 Chapter Newsletter Editor Coordinator Resume:Hikmef Sidney Lae Utah Library Association 2005-09 Liaison to Utah Nonprofit Association 2007-08 Legislative Committee 2006-07 Past-President;Executive and Board of Directors;Bylaws Committee Chair 2005-06 President;Executive Board and Board of Directors;Program Board; Strategic Planning Committee Chair 2004-05 Vice-President;Executive Board and Board of Directors;Program Board Chair;Membership Committee Chair 2003-04 Executive and Board of Directors;Program Board Chair 2002-03 Executive and Board of Directors;Program Board Vice-Chair 2001-02 Conference Program Committee Chair,Program Sponsor,Speaker,ULA Conference,2002 2001 Speaker,ULA Conference,2001 1998-99 Co-Chair&Conference Program Committee Chair,ULA Conference, 1999 1997-98 Conference Program Committee Co-Chair,ULA/MPLA Joint Conference, 1998 1997-98 Legislative Committee 1995-96 Strategic Planning Committee LIBRARY LECTURES/PAPERS 2004 "Is Your Library Speaking the Right Languages?"Panel speaker,ULA Annual Conference "Memoir Noir"Panel Speaker,ULA Annual Conference 2003 "It's All in the List:Innopac as the Public Librarian's Premier Collection Development Tool"Speaker, Innovative Users Group Conference,San Jose,CA 2003 "The City Library's New Main Library"Speaker/Tour guide,ULA Annual Conference 2003 "Memoir Noir"Panel speaker,Great Salt Lake Book Festival,Salt Lake City,UT 2002 "Utah Center for the Book"Panel speaker,ULA Annual Conference 2001 "Libraries as Customers in the New Millennium"Panel speaker,Publishers of the West Association, Snowbird,UT 2001 "Technical Services Outsourcing"Panel presentation,ULA Annual Conference 1994 "Memories,Methods,Materials:Developing Archives at Parsons School of Design"Session paper,22nd Annual ARLIS/NA Conference,Rhode Island LIBRARY PUBLICATIONS 2010 "Utah Bookstores and More:Books,and the Utahns who love them, live on."Salt Lake City Weekly,January 4,2010 1990-1998 contemporary art and artists'book reviews for Art Documentation(list available upon request) 1990 New York City:Selections from the Artist Book Collection of the Museum of Modern Art Library,January- March, 1990(exhibition catalog) 1989-90 ARLIS/New York News Editor,quarterly newsletter publication 1989 "Exhibiting Library Books in an Art Gallery"C&RL News 50(March 1989):pp.210-212 1988-91 Art Libraries and Resources in New York City;Art Bookstores in Manhattan Editor,annual MoMA Library Bulletin publication 1988 Beyond the Book:Artists'Books in Utah,March 4-April 8, 1988(exhibition catalog) GRANTS,HONORS,INTERNSHIPS 2003 Utah Humanities Council,Governor's Awards in the Humanities(2003 Great Salt Lake Book Festival) 1994 New York State Discretionary Grant of$16,500 for conservation of archival collection,Adam&Sophie Gimbel Design Library,Parsons School of Design 1988 Utah Arts Council Matching Grant of$1,500 for development of exhibition Beyond the Book:Artists'Books in Utah,Finch Lane Gallery/Art Barn 1985 Internships: Thomas J.Watson Library,Metropolitan Museum of Art,New York,NY Louise Sloss Ackerman Fine Arts Library, San Francisco Museum of Modern Art,CA Bancroft Library,University of California,Berkeley,CA 1979 College of Arts&Architecture Award for Creative Achievement Pennsylvania State University,University Park,PA Resume:Hikmet Sidney Loe MEMORANDUM DATE: December 1, 2011 TO: City Council FROM: Neil Lindberg RE: Proposed Text Amendments to Conditional Use Permit Approval Requirements CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson,Jennifer Bruno,Janice Jardine,Nick Tarbet,David Everitt, Ed Rutan, Paul Nielson, Frank Gray, Wilf Sommerkorn, Cheri Coffey, Ray Milner BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION This memorandum pertains to an ordinance proposed by the Community and Economic Development Department to modify requirements for approving conditional use permits. In July,2008, the City Council changed these requirements after substantial study. A principal reason for the change was to incorporate specific standards in the ordinance in order to make conditional use approvals less discretionary and thus more predictable. Now, after having had experience in applying these new standards,the Department wants to significantly modify them because it has "encountered a number of issues and problems in applying them to specific projects and applications." The intent of the proposed amendments is to clarify and resolve these problems. The attached transmittal details the changes and Department's rationale for doing so. KEY POINTS • The proposed ordinance will collapse several existing specific approval standards into four general "Standards for Review."The remainder of the 2008 standards will be deemed"Factors to Consider"in applying the general standards. It is unclear whether the Factors to Consider would be mandatory, as is the case with the present standards,or are discretionary. • Several other technical amendments are proposed which will improve the ordinance. Council staff has suggested minor refinements to the proposed ordinance language which have been agreed to by Community Development staff. ISSUES/QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION • Will the proposed changes make the conditional use permit process more predictable and hence less frustrating for applicants, neighbors, and the City? • If the now required standards are changed to"factors"that must simply be"considered," will the process be improved? • Although the use tables were substantially amended in 2008, should they be further modified to remove potentially detrimental conditional uses from particular zoning districts? 1 OUTLINE OF EXPECTATIONS Council and Community Development staff have discussed possible amendments to the proposed ordinance that will resolve the concerns of the Community Development Department as well as retain the specific standards adopted by the Council in 2008. It is proposed that the Council and Community Development staff work together to prepare an amended ordinance for Council consideration. This could be completed for a January, 2012 Work Session. OPTIONS • Confirm that the Community Development Department staff supports clarifying revisions to the draft ordinance. • Direct Council staff to amend the ordinance as may be discussed in the Work Session. • Proceed with the proposed ordinance as drafted. 2 SCANNED TO: SCANNED B . Sla.= a4 Mt On IIO j TE: 51Y/)OI0 Pm FRANK B. GRAY M ^ M-'1u'(y 1A ," DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 'IVu ' OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR M. .OE LA MARE-SCHAEFER MAR 6 2010 DEPUTY DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL J ROBERT FARRINGTON, J DEPUTY DIRECTOR u J j_ Date Received: 0312tp David Everitt, C f of Sta /1.) Date Sent to City Council: 04 ( ( C) TO: Salt Lake City Council ., DATE: February 23, 2010 JT Martin, Chair FROM: Frank Gray, Community&Eco omic Development Department Directo RE: Petition# PLNPCM2009-00174 Conditional Use City Code Text Amendments initiated by Mayor Becker STAFF CONTACTS: Ray Milliner, Principal Planner(801) 535-7645 or ray.milliner@slcgov.com RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a briefing and schedule a Public Hearing DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION Issue Origin The rewrite of Chapter 21A.54, Conditional Uses, of the zoning ordinance is another step in the ongoing effort to amend and update the document and bring it into conformance with State regulations, best planning practices and to improve the efficiency of the regulation process. Chapter 21A.54 was modified most recently by the City Council in July of 2008. The changes were most specifically with regard to the standards and criteria necessary for approval. Staff has applied these criteria for approximately 1 and %2 years and has encountered a number of issues and problems in applying them to specific projects and applications. These amendments are an attempt to clarify and resolve those problems. Petition#PLNPCM2009-00174 Conditional Use Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 P.O. BOX 1454E16, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114.5486 Page 1 of6 TELEPHONE: 801-535-6230 FAX: 801-535-6005 WWW.SLCGOV.COM/CED Accvceo rwPcn Analysis There are a number of significant changes proposed in this chapter, as well as general fine tuning designed to clarify language and facilitate understanding and application of the regulations. Below is a summary of the changes proposed, with a brief analysis of the rationale for the amendment(Petition# PLNPCM2009-00174). Planned Developments All substantive references to Planned Developments have been removed from this chapter, as the criteria, and process for a Planned Development will be moved to its own chapter. The Planning Commission recommended approval of these changes and they have been transmitted to the City Council. Administrative Conditional Use Changes to this section feature consolidating language from other areas of the chapter into one section. This will enable better understanding of the process and eliminate mistakes as all language will be located in one specific place. Standards for Review Staff has significantly modified the standards of review necessary for approval. The standards of review adopted in July 2008, included 5 standards with approximately 20 sub categories of standards, many of which seem repetitive when conducting an analysis of a Conditional Use. The proposed standards have been designed to reduce the repetition and better focus on impacts. One primary change to this section is the elimination of the "Detrimental Concentration" criteria from the existing ordinance. This provision required a review of all conditional uses and nonconforming uses within a radius of 1/4 mile of the proposed use with the purpose of determining whether or not the use is appropriate. The language reads: "f. Whether detrimental concentration of existing nonconforming or conditional uses substantially similar to the use proposed is likely to occur, based on an inventory of uses within one-fourth('/4)mile of the exterior boundary of the subject property." After applying this requirement for approximately one year, staff has determined that this criterion should be eliminated for the following reasons: 1. When the City Council adopts the use table, a determination of the appropriateness of a use in the zone is made, and it is assumed that the use is compatible with surrounding uses provided the standards and factors for consideration are met. Therefore, there should not be a detrimental concentration because each approved conditional use, with associated conditions of approval, has been found to not impact the area. 2. There is no standard to determine what number (how many) of a certain type of conditional use would tip the scales to create the detrimental concentration. Petition#PLNPCM2009-00174 Conditional Use Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Page 2 of 6 3. If policy-makers determine that there is too large a concentration of a certain conditional use, then the appropriate action would be for the City Council to eliminate this use from the use table, rezone properties and/or modify the future land use map in the applicable master plan. Standards for Review have been separated from Factors to Consider, with the idea that the standards are the findings that the Planning Commission or administrative hearing officer must make in order to approve the use, and the factors to consider are the apparatus used to make said findings. There are 4 standards proposed and 14 factors to consider. State Code requires that any Conditional Use be approved unless the impact of the use on surrounding properties cannot be mitigated through the application of the standards and conditions of approval. Proposed standards include: 1. The use complies with all applicable provisions of this zoning ordinance, state and federal law; 2. The use is compatible or, with conditions of approval, can be made to be compatible with surrounding uses; 3. The use is consistent with applicable adopted City planning policies, documents and Master Plans; and 4. The anticipated detrimental effects of any differences in use or scale have been reasonably mitigated through careful planning. If a finding of compliance with these standards cannot be made, then denial of the project would be appropriate. Adversely, if a finding of compliance can be made for each,then the use must be approved. Factors to Consider When reviewing the application for compliance, the Planning Commission or administrative hearing officer will consider 14 factors for approval. These factors though general, are designed to address the general issues and impacts of a use on neighboring properties while providing sufficient leeway to address the unique issues and problems related to each specific location and use. 1. The proposed use is one of the Conditional Uses specifically listed in this title. 2. Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance Compliance: The use is consistent with policies set forth in the adopted citywide, community, and small area master plan and future land use map where the use is located. 3. Use Compatibility: The use is well-suited to the character of the site, and adjacent uses. The analysis shall evaluate the intensity, size, and scale of the use compared to existing uses in the surrounding area. 4. Building Form and Scale: The mass, scale, style, design and architectural detailing of the surrounding structures as they relate to the proposed use shall be considered. 5. Access. Whether access points and driveways are designed to minimize grading of the natural topography, direct vehicular traffic onto major streets, and not impede traffic flows. Petition#PLNPCM2009-00174 Conditional Use Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Page 3 of 6 6. Internal Vehicular and Pedestrian Circulation: Whether the internal circulation system is designed to mitigate adverse impacts on adjacent property from motorized, non-motorized, and pedestrian traffic. Sites shall be designed to enable access and circulation for pedestrians and bicycles. 7. Traffic: The proposed means of access to the site shall be carefully considered to determine the impact of the use on the service level to the street or any adjacent street; 8. Parking: The location and design of off-street parking complies with applicable standards of this Ordinance; 9. Utility Access: Whether there is sufficient utility capacity to support the use at normal service levels; 10. Buffering and Screening: Whether appropriate screening, buffering or other means to separate the use from adjoining dissimilar uses and mitigation of the potential for conflict in uses is provided. 11. Environmental Impact: Whether the use significantly impacts the quality of the surrounding air and water, encroaches into a river or stream, or introduces any hazards or environmental damage to any adjacent property. 12. Operation and Delivery: Whether the hours of operation and delivery of the use are compatible with surrounding uses. 13. Signs and Lighting: Whether signs and lighting proposed are compatible with, and do not negatively impact surrounding uses. 14. Historic Preservation: Whether the proposed use takes into consideration the preservation of historic resources and structures. Conditional Use Revocation Currently, the standard to revoke a conditional use is unclear. Staff has drafted language allowing the Mayor or the Mayor's designee to initiate a revocation hearing requesting that the Planning Commission revoke or modify a conditional use, provided the following findings are met: 1. A material detrimental change in the conditional use approval without authorization or an amendment; or 2. Material noncompliance with the conditions prescribed upon issuance of the conditional use or with representations by the permittee as to the nature of the conditional use to be conducted; or 3. Operation of the conditional use in such a manner as to create an ongoing nuisance for neighboring persons or property. The language further provides hearing and appeal information relating to the use. Alterations or Modifications The proposal clarifies language relating to the modification of an existing conditional use or a nonconforming conditional use. Petition#PLNPCM2009-00 174 Conditional Use Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Page 4 of 6 1. Alterations or modifications to an existing legal conditional use that increase the floor area by one thousand (1,000) gross square feet or less and meets the standards for a conditional use may be approved by the Planning Director without a public hearing. 2. Alterations or modifications to an existing legal conditional use that increase the floor area by more than one thousand (1,000) gross square feet shall be reviewed as a new conditional use pursuant to the requirements and standards of the conditional use chapter. Fine Tuning There are a number of additional changes proposed to the document; nonetheless, they are not substantive in nature. These changes are designed to facilitate understanding and clarify, not to change meaning. Master Plan Considerations The community master plan land use policies generally define neighborhood, community and regional land use locations and characteristics. They do not specifically address the level of detail that code maintenance addresses. The purpose of this rewrite is another step in the ongoing effort to amend and update the document and bring it into conformance with State regulations, best planning practices and to improve the efficiency of the regulation process. All of these goals are consistent with the purposes and goals of the respective City Master Plans and the Zoning Ordinance. These amendments are an attempt to clarify and resolve problems encountered while applying the current standards of review in the Ordinance. PUBLIC PROCESS: This application was reviewed by the Zoning Amendment Project Task Force on August 10, 2009, and again on September 28, 2009. Summary notes are included as an attachment in 5.B of the Planning Commission staff report. The issue of concentration was reviewed and commented on by the ZAP task force, who had a number of comments and issues, including: • If it is discovered that there is a significant concentration of a negative use in an area, policy makers need to change the ordinance and not allow the use. • Need to ensure that the zoning map mirrors the applicable master plan. If the master plan calls for residential but the zoning map does not allow it, then that is a problem. • The zoning needs to be supported by the uses in the area. • In some areas you cannot rely on the zone, because the zoning does not match what is on the ground or in the plan. The project was also reviewed at an open house on July 21, 2009. No public comments were received. Petition#PLNPCM2009-00174 Conditional Use Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Page 5 of 6 Staff has received comments from members of the Sugar House Community Council expressing concern that the proposed changes will limit the amount of review available to Community Councils. Specifically, they were concerned that the following language would be removed from the document: 1. A signed statement that the applicant has met with and explained the proposed conditional use to the appropriate neighborhood organization entitled to receive notice pursuant to title 2, chapter 2.62 of this code; This language requires that an applicant present a project to the Community Council in which the project is proposed prior to any hearing in front of the Planning Commission. This draft does not alter that requirement. The Planning Commission held public hearings on October 14, 2009 and again on November 18, 2009. The Commission passed a motion to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. The vote passed unanimously with Commissioners Gallegos, Fife, Dean, Muir, Chambless, Woodhead, and Algarin voting. Commissioner Woodhead was the chair and therefore did not vote. RELEVANT ORDINANCES: Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Maps are authorized under Section 21A.50 of the Salt '4 Lake City Zoning Ordinance, as detailed in Section 21A.50.050: "A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council and is not controlled by any one standard." It does, however, list five standards, which should be analyzed prior to rezoning property (Section 21 A.50.050 A-E). The five standards are discussed in detail starting on page 5 of the Planning Commission Staff Report(see Attachment 7). Petition#PLNPCM2009-00174 Conditional Use Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Page 6 of 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. CHRONOLOGY 2. ORDINANCE 3. CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE 4. MAILING LABELS 5. PLANNING COMMISSION 5.A. POSTMARK OF PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE NEWSPAPER 5.B. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT FOR OCTOBER 14, 2009 5.C. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT FOR NOVEMBER 18,2009. 5.D. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 14, 2009 AND NOVEMBER 18, 2009 6. OPEN HOUSE INFORMATION 7. PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED AT OR AFTER THE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING 8. ORIGINAL PETITION PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition #PLNPCM2009-00174 June 8, 2009 Petition Assigned to City Planner June 11, 2009 Petition Routed to City Departments June 17, 2009 Petition reviewed at Public Open House. August 10, 2009 Petition reviewed by "ZAP" task force. September 28, 2009 Petition reviewed by "ZAP" task force for a second time. September 30, 2009 Planning Commission hearing notice was published in the paper and notices were mailed to adjacent property owners. October 14, 2009 Planning Commission held public hearing, provided staff direction. November 18, 2009 Planning Commission held public hearing and voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. December 9, 2009 Planning Commission ratified minutes for November 18, 2009 meeting. December 9, 2009 Staff requests ordinance from City Attorney's office. December 17, 2009 Staff received draft of proposed ordinance from City Attorney's Office. SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2010 (An ordinance amending portions of Section 21A.54 of the Salt Lake City Code concerning conditional uses) An ordinance amending portions of section 21A.54 (Zoning: Conditional Uses) of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2009-00174 pertaining to conditional uses. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission ("Planning Coriiaission") held a public hearing on November 18, 2009 to consider a request made by the Salt Luke City Council ("City Council") (petition no. PLNPCM2009-00174) to amend certain portions of section 21A.54 of the Salt Lake City Code to ensure consistency:with state law provisions, to clarify the intent of certain provisions, and to adjust some standards for conditional use approval; and WHEREAS, at its November 18, 2009 hearing, tie Planning Commission voted to transmit a positive recommendation to the City Council on said application; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that the following ordinance is in the City's best interests, NOW, THEREFORE,"be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. `Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.54.010. That section 21A.544)10 of the Salt Lake City Code (Conditional Uses: Purpose Statement), shall be, and hereby is, amended as follows: 21A.54.010: PURPOSE STATEMENT: A conditional use is a land use which, because of its unique characteristics or potential impact on the municipality, surrounding neighbors or adjacent land uses, may not be compatible or may be compatible only if certain conditions are required that mitigate or eliminate the negative impacts. Conditional uses are allowed unless appropriate conditions cannot be applied which, in the judgment of the Planning Commission, or administrative hearing officer, would mitigate adverse impacts that may arise by introducing a conditional use on the particular site. Approval of a conditional use It requires a careful review of its location, design, configuration and speeial impact to determine the desirability of allowing it on a particular site. Whether it the use is appropriate in a particular location requires a weighing of,in each case, of the public need and benefit against the local impact, taking into account the applicant's proposals amelio tin to mitigate adverse impacts through special site planning, development techniques and, contributionstr provision of public improvements, rights of way and services. SECTION 2. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.54.020. That section 21A.54.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Conditional Uses: Authority) shall be, and hereby is, amended as follows: 21A.54.020: AUTHORITY: The Planning Commission, or in the case of administrative conditional uses, the Planning Director or designee, may, in accordance with the procedures and standards set out in this chapter, and other regulations applicable to the district in Ask which the property is located, approve uses listed as conditional uses in the tables of permitted and conditional uses t endof-eA h " rer or tf part ITT of this title for each category of zoning district or districts. SECTION 3. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.54.030. That section 21A.54.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Conditional Uses: Categories), shall be, and hereby is, amended as follows: .:;- 21A.54.030: CATEGORIES OF CONDITIONAL USES: Conditional uses shall consist of the following categories of uses: `Uses Impacting Other Property: Uses that may give rise to particular as a whole, including their-pact on public facilities; and Requests considered and decided by the Planning Commission. B. Planned Developments: The uses which fall within these categories are sok Requests considered and decided by the Planning Director or designee as an administrative conditional use. C. Administrative Consideration Of Conditional Uses: Certain conditional uses may b�:e c^ sidered to be low: ct due to their particular locatio d 111U ll G hereby authorized to be ro e red administratively . ording to tl aav1 L. LLLa L1aV11L�VM LV VV 1V r1V rY VLL LLL.{1111111J Ll CLL1YV3, LIVVVl Ulll� LV T contained in section 21A.54.155 of this chapter. Conditional uses that arc authorized to be reviewed administratively are: 1. Applications for low power wireless telecommunication facilities that are listed as conditional uses in subsection 21A.'10.090E of this title:. ar0 by ^ e thousand (l 000) e f et ^ . :ncre the parking requirement. conditional uses for each zoning district, except three that: a. Are listed as a "residential" land use in the tablet of permitted and conditional uses for each zoning district; b. Are located within a residential zoning district;' c. Abut a residential zoning district or residential use; or c. Public/private utility buildings and structures in residential and nenresidential-zoning-distrie4 SECTION 4. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.54.040. That section 21A.54.040 of the Salt Lake City Code"(Conditional Uses: Site Plan Review), shall be, and hereby is, amended as follows: 21 A.54.040: Site plan review of development proposals is required for all conditional uses in all districts;JRepealed]. $ECTTON<5. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21 A.54.050. That section 21A.54.050tfthe Salt Lake City Code (Conditional Uses: Initiation), shall be, and hereby is, amended as follows: 21A.54.050: INITIATION: An application for a conditional use may be filed with the Planning Director zoning-ate by the owner of the subject property or by an authorized agent. 3 SECTION 6. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.54.060. That section 21A.54.060 of the Salt Lake City Code (Conditional Uses: Procedures), shall be, and hereby is, amended as follows: 21A.54.060: PROCEDURES: A. Application: A complete application shall contain at least the following,,,, information submitted by the applicant, unless certain information determined by the Planning Director to be inapplicable or unnecessary to appropriately evaluate the application: 1. The applicant's name, address, telephone number and interest in the property; 2. The property owner's name, address and telephone"number, if different than the applicant, and the property owner's signed consent to the filing of the application; 3. The street address and legal description of the subject property; 4. The zoning classification, zoning'district boundaries and present use of the subject property; 5. A complete description of the proposed conditional use; 6. Site plans, as required pursuant to section 21A.58.060 of this title; 7. Traffic impact analysis,where required by the City Transportation Division; 8. A signed statement that the applicant has met with and explained the proposed conditional use to the appropriate neighborhood organization entitled to receive notice pursuant to title 2, chapter 2.62 of this code; 9. ;Maili g lal*Is and first class a fee to cover postage for all persons required to be notified of the public hearing on the proposed conditional use pursuant to chapter 21A.10 of this title; >,. 10. Such other and further information or documentation as the Planning =- Director • may deem necessary for proper review and analysis of the application. to be necessary for a full and proper consideration and disposition of the particular application. 'f. Determination of Completeness: Upon receipt of an application for a conditional use, the O ng admin Planning Director shall make a determination of completeness of the application pursuant to section 21A.10.010 of this title. C. Fees: The application for a conditional use shall be accompanied by the fee Amok established on the fee schedule. 4 D. Staff Report; Site Plan Review Report: Once the Planning Director zoning administtator has determined that the application is complete a staff report evaluating the conditional use application shall be prepared by the planning division and forwarded to the applicant and the Planning Commission, or, in the case of administrative conditional uses, the Planning Director or designee in accordance with state law. along with a site plan review report prepared by the.levelopme t r „team E. Public Hearing: The Planning Commission, or, in the case of administrative conditional uses, the Planning Director or designee shall schedule and holda public hearing on the proposed conditional use in accordance with the,; standards and procedures for conduct of the public hearing set forth inchapter 21 A.10 of this title. (See sections 21 A.54.150 and 21 A.54.155 of;this`ehapter for additional procedures for public hearings in connection with planned developments-and administrative conditional uses). F. Notice of Applications for Additional Approvals: Wlettever, in connection with the application for a conditional use approval, the`applicant is requesting other types of approvals, as required by this titlessuth ^ variance or special exception, all required notices shall include reference to the request for the conditional use as well as for all other applicable required approvals. G. Planning Commission and Planning Director or Designee Action: At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission, or, in the case of administrative conditional;uses, the Planning Director or designee shall either: 1) approve the conditional use; 2) approve the conditional use subject to specific modifications; or 3) deny the conditional use. SECTION 7. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.54.070. That section 21A.54.070 of the SaltLake,City Code (Conditional Uses: Sequence of Approval for both a Conditional Use and a Variance), shall be, and hereby is, amended as follows: 21A,54:4170:""SEQUENCE OF APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR I OTH A CONDITIONAL USE AND A VARIANCE: Whenever the applicant indicates pursuant to subsection 21 A.54.060A9 of this chapter that a variance will be necessary in connection with the proposed conditional use(other than a planned development), the applicant shall at the time of filing the application for a conditional use, file an application for a variance with the board of adjustment. A. Combined Review: Upon the filing f., mbinea plication For a conditional use and a variance, at the initiation of the Planning Commission or 5 the board of adjustment, *' C `' rd hol ' """� simultaneettsly, 137 Actions By Planning Commission And Board of Adjustment: Regardless of whether the Flann' The Board of Adjustment shall not take any action on the application for a variance until the Planning Commission has acted shall `+ d appro a - on the conditional use. SECTION 8. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.54.080',.' That'section 21A.54.080 of the Salt Lake City Code (Standards for Conditional Uses), shall be,"and hereby is, amended as follows: 21A.54.080: STANDARDS FOR CONDITIONAL USES: A. General Standard For Approval: A conditional use shall'be approved if reasonable conditions are proposed, or can be imposed, to mitigate the reasonably anticipated detrimental effects of the proposed use in accordance with applicable standards set forth in this section. If the reasonably anticipated detrimental effects of a proposed conditional use cannot be substantially mitigated by the proposal or the imposition of reasonable conditions to achieve compliance with applicable standards, the conditional use shall be denied. evidence prece i .i . ft . .,a , ; set ertl� in this sub C t b rn . T1, Plate Co scion, er, in the case of determine whether the standards of this subsection can be met. 1. `Muster Plan And Zoning Ordinance Compliance: The proposed conditional use shall be: � r small area master plan and future land use map applicable to the site use will be4ecated, and b. Allowed by the zone where the conditional ll b ' ented or by 2. Use Compatibility: The proposed conditional use shall be compatible with the character of the site, adjacent properties, and-existing development compatibility, th 6 p \\Thether the street or other means of access to the site where the proposed conditional use will be located will provide access to the site materially the service level on such street or any adjacent street; b. Whether the type of use and its location will create unusual pedestrian or vehicle traffic patterns or volumes that would not be expected with the development of a permitted use, based on: (4)-0Fientatien-ef-dfiveways-and-whether-they-difeet-traffie-te--majer-er local streets, and, if directed to local streets, the impact on the, safety, purpose, and character of these streets; (2) Parking area locations and size, and whether parking plan ar& : uwhich adjacent pr (3) Hours of peak traffic to the proposed use and wh • taffic will unreasonably impair the use and enjoynent.of adjant property'; and „ (4)-Hetir-S-ef-eperatieii-oaf-the--prepesesd-use-aS-c-ein;Par-ed-viith4he-lieurs ef_aetivity,zepeFatiim+.44_ether_neartt used iether_theii' during hours of operation, will be dikely to create noise, light, or other nuisances that unreasonably imp the use and enjoyment of adjacent property; c. Whether the internal circulation system of any development associated wit44he_vrepeseci_use,m41_43e_4emo4e_mitigate_advefse4ffireets_on adjacent property' from motorized, nomnotorized, and pedestrian traffic; d. Whether existing or proposed utility and public services will be adequate to support the proposed use at normal service levels and will be designed in a manner to avoid adverse impacts on adjacent land uses, public seryi&e$; and-utility-reseurees e. iethet appropriate buffering or other mitigation measures, such as, but not limited to, landscaping, setbacks, building location, sound attnutthon?Odor control, will be pros ided to protect adjacent land uses from excessive light, noise, odor and visual impacts and other unusual disturbances from trash collection, deliveries, and mechanical equipment resulting from the proposed use; and f;'Whether detrimental concentration of existing nonconforming or conditional uses substantially similar to the use proposed is likely to occur, based on an inventory of uses within one fourth(4/4) mile of the exterior boundary of the subject property. 3. Design Compatibility: The proposed conditional use shall be compatible with the character of the area where the use will be located with respect to: a. Site design and location of parking lots, accessways, and delivery areas b. Whether the proposed use, &Fdeveleipmera-asseeiated-witli-the-use7 will result in loss of privacy, objectionable views of large parking or storage areas; or views or sounds of loading and areas; and 7 c. Intensity, size, and scale of development associated with the use as d. If a proposed conditional use it 't construction o_ the design of the premises where the usewill b ' * d hall of n% chapter 21A.59 of this title. /i. Detriment To Persons Or Property: The proposed conditional use shall , r shal b. Not encroach on any river-Or-stream, �- streat • property; and 5. Compliance Wit • B. Standards for Review A conditional use'hall be approved unless the Planning Commission, or, in the case of administrative,conditional uses, the Planning Director or designee conclude thattlbeolrlo`�"`mg standards of this subsection cannot be met. 1. Theuse'complies with all applicable provisions of this title; 2. The iise is compatible or, with conditions of approval, can be made to be temgatible with surrounding uses; . The use is consistent with applicable adopted City planning policies, documents and Master Plans; and `4. The anticipated detrimental effects of any differences in use or scale have been reasonably mitigated through careful planning. Factors to Consider The Planning Commission, or in the case of administrative conditional uses, the Planning Director or designee shall consider each of the following factors when Amik 8 considering whether or not the proposed Conditional Use meets the standards listed in Section 21A.54.080B: 1. The proposed use is one of the Conditional Uses specifically listed in this title. 2. Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance Compliance: Whether the use is consistent with policies set forth in the adopted citywide, community, and small area master plan and future land use map where the use is located. 3. Use Compatibility: The use is well-suited to the character of the site,and adjacent uses. The analysis shall evaluate the intensity, size, and s afe-.of the use compared to existing uses in the surrounding area. 4. Building Form and Scale: The mass, scale, style,:,;d6Sin and architectural detailing of the surrounding structures as they ' at lto$'the use shall be considered. proposed ;v„., 5. Access. Whether access points and driveways are;desjgned tcf minimize grading of the natural topography, direct vehicular traffic onto major streets, and not impede traffic flows. 6. Internal Vehicular and Pedestrian Circulation': Whether the internal circulation system shall be designed to mitigate adverse impacts on adjacent property from motorized, non-niytorized,'and pedestrian traffic. Sites shall be designed to enable access and circulation for pedestrian and bicycles. 7. Traffic: The proposed means of access to the site shall be carefully considered to determine the impact of the use on the service level to such street or any adjacent street; 8. Parking: The location and design of off-street parking complies with applicable standards of fttis Ordinance; 9. Utility Access: Whether there is sufficient utility capacity to support the use at normal service levels; 10. Buffering.and Screening: Whether appropriate screening, buffering or other means to separate the use from adjoining dissimilar uses and mitigatiou'of tl potential for conflict in uses is provided. 11. Envronpental Impact: Whether the use meet City sustainability plans, significantly impacts the quality of the surrounding air and water, encroaches into a river or stream, or introduces any hazards or / ' uironmental damage to any adjacent property, including cigarette smoke. 1'LOperation and Delivery: Whether the hours of operation and delivery of the use are compatible with surrounding uses. 13. Signs and Lighting: Whether signs and lighting proposed are compatible with, and do not negatively impact surrounding uses. 14. Historic Preservation: Whether the proposed use takes into consideration the preservation of historic resources and structures. Decision on Conditional Use Application 9 The Planning Commission or in the case of administrative conditional uses, the Planning Director or designee shall provide written notice of the decision, and all conditions imposed to the applicant and local community council within ten (10) days of the final action. This notice shall be recorded against the property by the City Recorder. C. Imposition Of Conditions Of Approval: The Planning Commission, or, in the case of administrative conditional uses, the Planning Director or the director's designee, may impose on a conditional use any conditions necessary to make conformthe proposed use compatible with the uses on adjacent properties "such conditions may include, but are not limited to, conditions on the scope of the use; its character or location; architecture; signage; construction;�lit.d "craping; access; loading and parking; sanitation; drainage and utilities;,.,feneing and screening; setbacks; natural hazards; public safety; environmental impacts; hours and methods of operation; dust, fumes, smoke and odor; noise, vibrations; chemicals, toxins, pathogens, and gases; and heat, light, and radiation. 1, nditions shall: 2. Not be used as a means to authorize _ _o_ a ti____l_ _ _nte„ded t by to nl yq 3. Be within the police powers of Salt Lake City; 4. Substantially further a legitimate public purpose; 5. Further the same public,purpose for which the condition is imposed; 6. Not require the applicant/owner to carry a disproportionate burden in crrrha-n � bli rp f th ondition; and 7 i th f l&s .a .a di 6t' n .a tl, contrib'utions of ro er ve rP P which tl dit' 1 tL d 1-=) -14en-iftl7-01"-GenititIlliefitilmi--The--fel-ba-wing—f-ffidings--shall--' be cause fob dcnial:of a conditional use application: The proposed use is unlawful; and 2,. '`1The reasonably anticipated detrimental effects of the proposed conditional itse-eannet-be-substantiall-jz-nii4ipted as proposed in the conditional use 'application or by the imposition of reasonable conditions to achieve SECTION 9. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.54.090. That section 21A.54.090 of the Salt Lake City Code (Conditional Uses: Violations/Revocation), shall be, and hereby is, amended as follows: ,a,,,,,6 10 21A.54.090: VIO ATION OF CONDITIONS CONDITIONAL USE REVOCATION: for revocation of the nditional vat Conditions of Revocation: The holder of the conditional use shall be responsible for the operation of the use in conformance with the ordinances of the city, Any conditional use issued by the city may be suspended or revoked by the Mayor or the Planning Commission, upon a finding by the Mayor or the Planning Commission of a violation of any of the following with respect to the holder of the use or its operator or agent: 1. A material detrimental change in the conditional use approval„without authorization or an amendment; or 2. Material noncompliance with the conditions prescribedupon issuance of the conditional use or with representations by the permittee as to the nature of the conditional use to be conducted; or 3. Operation of the conditional use in such a manner as to create an ongoing nuisance for neighboring persons or property. Upon making a decision to suspend or revoke the conditional use, the Mayor or Planning Commission shall send written notice of the suspension or revocation to the holder of the conditional use and post it on the Planning Division web site unless an appeal is filed. If there is an existing business license associated with the use, said license will be suspendedalong with the use. SECTION 10. Amending tex,of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.54.100. That section 21A.54.100 of the Salt Lake City Code (Conditional Uses: No Presumption of Approval), shall be, and hereby is, amended as follows: 21A.54.100: NO PRESUMPTION OF APPROVAL: The'listing of a conditional use in any table of permitted and conditional uses foui4"d tit the end of each chapter of part III of this title for each category of zoning ':„,,,,,;,,district or districts found in this title does not constitute an assurance or presumption that such conditional use will be approved. Rather, each proposed conditional use shall be evaluated on an individual basis, in relation to its compliance with the standards and factors conditions set forth in this chapter and with the standards for the district in which it is located, in order to determine whether the conditional use is appropriate at the particular location. 11 SECTION 11. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.54.130. That section 21A.54.130 of the Salt Lake City Code (Conditional Use Related to the Land), shall be, and hereby is. amended as follows: 21A.54.130: CONDITIONAL USE RELATED TO THE LAND: <;•pig%;,: . A Conditional Use is " '' transferable with the title to the underlying property so that an applicant ay 'a , conveyor assign an approved use without losing the approval. The appl nt'nAy g pp not transfer the use from the site on which the approval was granted. NW applicant changes the use on the property, the existing conditiona4use,be&;omes null and void. SECTION 12. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code,section 21A.54.135. That section 21A.54.135 of the Salt Lake City Code (Alterations or Modifications'to a Conditional Use), shall be, and hereby is, amended as follows: 21A.54.135: ALTERATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS TO A CONDITIONAL USE: Any modification to a legally non conforming land use currently listed as a conditional use under existing current zoning regulations is first required to shall bto obtain conditional use approval subject to the provisions of this chapter if the floor area increases by more than 25% of the gross floor area, or one thousand (1,000) gross square feet whichever is less or more and/or the parking requirement increases, • ri'�.a, •:...y,� :.:4. - 4 .a•4• � �.o •o v� .a• ^J A- • A1terati ns or modifications to an existing legal conditional use that increase the floolittrea by less than 25% of the gross floor area or one thousand (1,000) gross =,,square feet, whichever is less may be approved by the Planning Director without a Public hearing_ Alterations or modifications to an existing legal conditional use that increase the floor area by more than 25% of the gross floor area or one thousand (1,000) gross square feet whichever is less, shall be reviewed as a new conditional use pursuant to the requirements and standards of this chapter. , ,, 12 SECTION 13. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.54.140. That section 21A.54.140 of the Salt Lake City Code (Conditional Use Approvals and Planned Developments), shall be, and hereby is, amended as follows: 21A.54.140: CONDITIONAL USE APPROVALS AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS: When a development is proposed as a planned development pursuant to the,,; procedures in section 21A.54.150 21A.55 of this title chapter and also itcluctes an application for conditional use approval, the Planning Commission shall decide the planned development application and the conditional use applicatid:t together. In the event that a new conditional use is proposed after a planned development has been approved pursuant to section 21A.54.150 21A.55 of this title chapter, the proposed conditional use shall be reviewed and approved, approved with conditions, approved with modifications, or denied under the standards set forth in section 21A.54.080 of this chapter. SECTION 14. Amending text of Salt Lake City Ccyde section 21A.54.155. That section 21A.54.155 of the Salt Lake City Code (Administrative Consideration of Conditional Use Approvals), shall be, and hereby is, amended as follows: 21A.54.155: ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED CONDITIONAL USES: The purpose of this section is to establish an administrative hearing process for certain categories of low impact conditional uses as authorized by subsection 21 A.54.030EB""of this chapter. Conditional uses that are authorized to be reviewed adn in s atively are: 1. Applications for low power wireless telecommunication facilities that are listed as'conditional uses in subsection 21A.40.090E of this title. 2. Public/private utility buildings and structures in residential and nonresidential zoning districts that are listed as conditional uses. 3. Any conditional use as identified in the tables of permitted and conditional uses for each zoning district, except those that: a. Are located within a residential zoning district; b. Abut a residential zoning district or residential use; or c. Require planned development approval. A. Preapplicatio., and Application Requirements: 13 Administrative conditional use applications shall be subject to the standards found in section 21 A.54.080 of this chapter. 1. Prcapplicatior C -f . Th rr l t shall first meet with,-a a.,m",embe of the Salt Lake City plannin a 2. Community Council Review: The applicant shall meet with the respective Applicatie ,yu,, 'iiviaiau r. wy r C ission B. Administrative Hearing: 1. Noticing and Posting Requirements: Notice of the proposed conditional use shall be conducted mailed " YY' r�':� 'ale " perty r ownes and the pursuant to subsection 21 A.10.020B of this title. 2. Administrative Hearing: After consideration of the information received from the applicant and concerned residents, the Planning Director or designee may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the conditional use request. At the administrative hearing, the Planning Director or designee may decline to hear or decide the request and forward the application for Planning Commission consideration, if it is determined that there is neighborhood opposition, if the applicant has failed to adequately address the conditional use standards, or for any other reason at the discretion of the Planning Director or designee. The Planning.Director or designee may grant the conditional use request only if the proposed development is consistent with the standards for conditional uses linedn section 21 A.54.080 of this chapter and any specific standards listed in ,tiT[ls title-that'regulate the particular use. a tiv, mac conditional use rule t-m est n hearing 4011/4, pl J 14 objection to the administrative hearing. Upon receipt of such an objection, the matter will be forwarded to the Salt Lake City Planning Commission for consideration and decision. A al Of A dministrative Consideration• Any persona ed by the decision made by the Planning Director or designee at an administrative hearing may appeal that decision to the Salt Lake City Planning Commission by filing notice of an appeal within fourteen (11) days after the Planning Director's administrative hearing. The notice of appeal shall specify, in detail, the reasons) for the appeal. Reasons for the appeal shall be based upon procedural error or use: SECTION 15. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section21A.54.156. That section 21A.54.156 of the Salt Lake City Code (Conditional Uses: Appeal of Administrative Decision), shall be, and hereby is, amended as follows: 21A.54.156: APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION: Any person aggrieved by the decision made by the Planning Director or designee at an administrative hearing may appeal that decision to the Salt Lake City Planning Commission by filing notice of an appeal within ten (10) days after the date of the written administrative decision. The notice of appeal shall specify, in detail, the reason(s) for the appeal. Reasons for the appeal shall be based upon procedural error or compliance with the standards for conditional uses listed in section 21A.54.080 of this,chapter or any specific standards listed in this title that regulate the particular use. SECTION.16. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.54.160. That section 21A.54.160 of theSaltLake City Code (Conditional Uses: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision), sha' e,and hereby is, amended as follows: 21A54.160: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION: Any party aggrieved by a decision of the Planning Commission on an application for a conditional use, including a planned development, may file an appeal to the land use appeals board within ten (10)thirty (30) days of the date of the written decision. The filing of the appeal shall not stay the decision of the Planning Commission pending the outcome of the appeal, unless the Planning Commission takes specific action to stay a decision. 15 SECTION 17. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.54.170. That section 21A.54.170 of the Salt Lake City Code (Conditional Uses: Appeal of Land Use Appeals Board Decision), shall be, and hereby is, amended as follows: 21A.54.170: APPEAL O LAA,rl USSE APE AALS BOARD DECISION. APPEAL OF REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE: 9 JF. r. If the Planning Commission suspends or revokes any conditional.use under section 21A.54.090, the holder of the use shall have a right to appeaL,the suspension or revocation decision to the Land Use Appeals13ciard. The holder must file the appeal with the Planning Director within ten (10) days of the record of decision that the City has revoked the Conditional Use. SECTION 18. 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 2010. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY R 'CORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. 16 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council will hold a public hearing regarding Petition PLNPCM2009- 00174, a request by Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker for a text amendment modifying Chapter 21A.54. Conditional Uses, of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of the amendment is to bring the chapter into compliance with state code, to clarify the intent of certain sections, and to revise the standards and factors to consider necessary for conditional use approval. These text changes are citywide. As part of its review, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, anyone who would like to address the City Council about this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held: Date: Time: 7:00 p.m. Place: Room 315 (City Council Chambers)* Salt Lake City and County Building 451 S. State Street Salt Lake City, UT *Please enter building from east side. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the petition on file, please contact Ray Milliner, Principal Planner, at (801) 535-7645 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at ray.milliner@slcgov.com. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodations no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this public hearing. Accommodations may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. The City & County Building is an accessible facility. For questions, requests, or additional information, please contact the City Council Office at (801) 535-7600, or TDD (801) 535-6021. PETE TAYLOR KEVIN JONES SUNNYSIDE EAST ANGIE VORHER EAST BENCH CHAIR 933 SOUTH 2300 EAST JORDAN MEADOWS CHAIR 2500 SKYLINE DRIVE SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84108 1988 SIR JAMES DRIVE ,LT LAKE CITY, UT 84108 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116 GORDON STORRS ELLEN REDDICK RANDY SORENSON FAIRPARK CHAIR BONNEVILLE HILLS CHAIR GLENDALE CHAIR 159 NORTH 1320 WEST 2177 ROOSEVELT AVENUE 1184 SOUTH REDWOOD DR SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 SLAT LAKE CITY UT 84104 ESTHER HUNTER PHILIP CARLSON UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD BILL DAVIS SUGAR HOUSE CHAIR BALL PARK CHAIR 1049 NORRIS PLACE 1917 EAST 2700 SOUTH 332 WEST 1700 SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 TERRY THOMAS a. WESTPOINT CHAIR FOOTHILLJSUNNYSIDE CHAIR 1840 STALLION LANE SALT LAKE CITY UT SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116 D. CHRISTIAN HARRISON JUDITH LOCKE DOWNTOWN CHAIR GREATER AVENUES CHAIR 336 WEST BROADWAY,#308 407 7TH AVENUE SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84101 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103 DEWITT SMITH LOGGINS MERRILL LIBERTY WELLS EAST CENTRAL CHAIR 328 EAST HOLLYWOOD AVE P.O. BOX 521809 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84152 LISETTE GIBBONS MIKE HARMAN YALECREST CHAIR POPLAR GROVE CHAIR 1764 HUBBARD AVE 1044 WEST 300 SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84108 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 BEVERLY NELSON RON JARRETT FEDERAL HEIGHTS ROSE PARK CHAIR 26 SOUTH WOLCOTT STREET 1441 WEST SUNSET DRIVE SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116 PAMELA PEDERSEN EAST LIBERTY PARK POLLY HART SALT LAKE CITY SCHOOL DIST. CAPITOL HILL CHAIR 440 EAST100 SOUTH 355 NORTH QUINCE STREET SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111 SALT LAKE CIYT, UT 84103 MARKTHOMAS MUTTER BRINTON WASATCH HOLLOW CENTRAL CITY NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL CHAIR 1869 LOGAN AVE 228 EAST 500 SOUTH#100 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84108 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111 Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce 175 East 400 South, Suite#100 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Vest Pocket Business Coalition PO Box 521357 Salt Lake City, Utah 84152-1357 Westside Alliance C/O Neighborhood Housing Services VERIZON COMCAST Maria Garcia 2777 S. CORPORATE PARK DRIVE 9602 S. 300 W. 622 West 500 North WEST VALLEY CITY,UT 84102 SANDY, UT 84070 Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER QWEST CEO: RICH WALJE 2064 ALEXANDER ST, STE F 201 S. MAIN STREET SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84119 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111 Amok 'pdated 10/05/04 ADC Eric McCulley Legacy Nature Preserve Scott Sabey SWCA Environ.Consultants David M. & Michelle Liechty Northpoint Duck Club 257 East 200 South ;Suite 200 643 East 540 North 215 South State Street, Suite 1200 SLC, UT 84111 Centerville, UT 84104 SLC, UT 84111 Elliott F. Christensen Cullen Battle 8678 Sugarloaf Circle Harrison Duck Club Sand UT Circle Edward L. Gillmor 215 South State Street y' 3819 South 2000 East 12th Floor SLC, UT 84109 SLC, UT 84111 Roberta Schnicher Elle Sorensen 1236 East Yale Street FedEX National LTL, Inc. Audubon Society SLC, UT 84105 1144 Griffin Road 3868 S. Marsha Drive Lakeland, FL 33805 SLC, UT 84128 Scott Wangsgard Ann Neville Wayne Martinson Rudy Duck Club Kennecott Nature Preserve 549 Cortez Street American Plaza II PO Box 6001 SLC, UT 84103 57 West 200 South, Ste.400 Magna, UT 84044 SLC, UT 84101 Richard D. West 2234 Arosa Circle Sandy, UT 84093 Esther Henrichsen 621 6'h Avenue SLC, UT 84103 Chriis Cole 2891 South 2000 East SLC, UT 84109 SALT LAKE C—'V PLANNING COMMISSION MEETI AGENDA In Room 326 k. _ne City & County Building at 451 South State Street Wednesday, October 14, 21)09 at 5:45 p.m. T eld trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m. Dinner will bc5 served to the Planning Commissioners and Staff at 5:00 p.m., in Room 126. Work Session—The Planning Commission vv;Jl receive a briefing on the Small Neighborhood Business Analysis Project and may discuss other project updates and mil or administrative matters. This portion of the meeting is open to the public for observation. Approval of Minutes from Wednesday, September 9, 2009 Sr.:September 23,2009 Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Report of the Director 1. City Council policy statement regarding civic campus. Vote for the new Chair and Vice Chair Briefing 2. Proposition #1-Public Safety Building--Salt Lake City does not currently have a dedicated Emergency Operations center, leaving residents and businesses .highly vulnerable in the event of an emergency or catastrophic event. Proposition #1 will allocate $125 million in general obligation bonds that will pay for the Public Safety Building, an underground parking structure, and a dedicated Emergency Operations Center. The estimated tax impact is $6.25 per month or $75, per year for the average residential property and $43.52 per month or$522.32 per year for the average business. For additional information go to: www.slcgov.comipsb Pu Hearings 3. PLNPCM2009-00726; Pet Cemetery Zoning Ordinance Amendment a request by the Rival Investments for a zoning text amendment to modify Sections 21A.62.040 (definitions) and 21A.30.080 (Commercial Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to create a new definition for a "Funeral Home" a new definition for an "Animal Cremation Service" and to allow Animal Cremation Services in the Commercial Corridor zoning district as a permitted use. The purpose of the request is to allow a pet cremation service at approximately 1727 East Major Street. The proposed text amendments are City wide. (Staff contact: Ray Milliner at 801.535.7645 or ray.rnillinerAslcgov.com). 4. PLNPCM2009-00174; Conditional Use Chapter Amendments— a request by Mayor Ralph Becker for zoning text amendment approval to modify Chapter 21A.54, Conditional Uses, of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of the amendments is to bring the chapter into compliance with state code,to clarify the intent of certain sections, and to revise the standards and factors necessary for conditional use approval. The proposed text amendments are City wide (Staff contact: Ray Milliner at 801.535.7645 or e ray.;iiillhiei(w.sk o'v.Coin . 5. PLNPCM2009-00784; Dick N' Dixie's Private Club a request by Jason Rasmussen for a conditional use approval to operate a private club at approximately 479 East 300 South (currently "Andy's Place"). The subject property is located in the R-MU (Residential Mixed Use) zoning district in City Council District 4, represented by Luke Garrott(Staff contact: Katia Pace at 801-535-6354 or katia.pace(aslcgov.com). 6. PLNPCM2009; Quest Assisted Living Facility Conditional Use—a request by Quest Services for conditional use approval of a Small Assisted Living Facility in an existing single-family dwelling at approximately 1820 West 800 North. The property is located in the R-1/5000 zoning district in City Council District One, represented by Carlton Christensen (Staff contact: Wayne Mills at 801.535.7282 or wayne.mills(kslcgov.corn). Visit the Planning Division's website at www.s/cgov.coni/CED/planning for'copies of the Planning Commission agendas; staff reports, and minutes. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission. i�:lrrl:tlt!lrttlptnt�rtjt Il••11' EDITOM IMI i iH rjirIalkd t [t78 nA:PD 3V-1 0-2> 5 1e(%,1 od. 08t ct-I xog od .,_177'��' •t 4 90t woo- ` 133'.14S 27iBIS k)nOS l ct U01S1A!Q a LtUUrld a`It'1 )1°S v L Lb II "AOOJdIZ WOdd O3llvb1 ;4 ,_.., _t 500Z 0£dS S£601>Zb000 33 •ti7:rrS4. C)l:•,)1r 131111J - ""_�L•_^ /b.,tV C :I .�~f t..- `:,-�.:w'., ::% :-a�irv,�, 1171 Z t D 1. �b'�SOd S'�=dy5 Anci iSe St•zu an:; p:e t:cner presentations hearings wil! be opened for public comment. Community Councils present their continents at the by ipning of the hearing 3 In order to be considerate of everyone attending the meet,n public ce:nime:as are limited to two(2)minutes per person, per item A spokesperson who has alread, beer:asked by a group to summarize their concerns will he allowed five (5) minutes to speak. Written comments aie welcome and will be provided to the Planning Commission in advance of the meeting if they are submitted to the Planning Division prior to noon the day before the meeting. Written comments should be sent to. Salt Lake City Planning Commission 451 South State Street.Room 406 Sal;Lake City UT 3?11 1 ?. Speakers will be called by die Chair. 5. Please state your name tend your affiliation to the petition or whom you teptesent at time beginning ot you;comments 6. Speakers should address their comments t.,the Chair Planning Commission members may have questions for the speaker Speakers ma) not debate with other mcetir_ attendees. 7 Speakers should focus their comments on the agenda item.Eduanreeus and repetitive comments should be avoided. 8. After those registered have spoken.the Chair will invite other comments. Prior speakers may be allowed to supplement their previous comments at this time. 9. After the hearing is closed, the discussion will be limited among Planning Commissioners and Staff. Under unique circumstances, the Planning Commission ma.• choose to reopen the hearing to obtain additional information 10 The Salt Lake City Corporation compliesivill all ADA guidelines.People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend ibis meeting. A commodations ntav include alternate formats, interpreters. and other auxiliary aids. This is an accessible facility. Cur questions.requests.or additional information,please contact the Planning Office at 535-7757:TDD 535-6220. SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA In Room 326 of the City & County Building at 451 South State Street Wednesday, November 18, 2009 at 5:45 p.m. l"he field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m. Dinner will be served to the Planning Commissioners and Staff at 4:45 p.m., in Room 126. Work Session—The Planning Commission may discuss project updates and minor administrative matters and an update on the North Temple Master Plan and the Downtown Streetcar Project. This portion of the meeting is open to the public for observation. Approval of Minutes from Wednesday, October 28, 2009 Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Report of the Director Public Hearings 1. PLNPCM2009-00726; Pet Cemetery Zoning Ordinance Amendment—a request by Rival Investments for a zoning text amendment to modify Sections 21A.62.040 (definitions) and 21A.30.080 (Commercial Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to create a new definition for a "Funeral Home" a new definition for an "Animal Cremation Service" and to allow Animal Cremation Services in the Commercial Corridor zoning district as a permitted use. The purpose of the request is to allow a pet cremation service at approximately 1727 East Major Street. The proposed text amendments are City wide. (Staff contact: Ray Milliner at 801.535.7645 or ray.milliner(a,slcgov.com). 2. PLNPCM2009-01196 Conditional Use for Utility Box Installation—a request by Rocky Mountain Power, represented by Alene Bentley for the installation of 18 utility boxes between 2830 East and 2940 East Oakhurst Drive, 2849 East and 2927 East Millicent Drive and 1063 South and 955 South Vista View Drive. The purpose of the application is to upgrade a failing electrical system in this neighborhood. The subject property is located in the R-1-12,000 Residential zoning district and is within Council District 6, represented by JT Martin (Staff contact: Ray Milliner 801.535.7645 or ray.milliner(a slcgov.com). 3. PLNPCM2009-00902; Amendments to Regulation of Utility Boxes— a request by the City Council for a zoning text amendment to modify Chapter 21A.40.160, Utility Box Regulations, of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of the amendments is to streamline the process of approvals, to clarify the intent of certain sections, and to revise the standards and factors necessary for conditional use approval. The proposed text amendments are city-wide (Staff contact: Ray Milliner at 801.535.7645 or ray.milliner(a,slcgov.com). 4. PLNPCM2009-00174; Conditional Use Chapter Amendments—a request by Mayor Ralph Becker for zoning text amendment approval to modify Chapter 21A.54, Conditional Uses, of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of the amendments is to bring the chapter into compliance with state code, to clarify the intent of certain sections, and to revise the standards and factors necessary for conditional use approval. The proposed text amendments are city-wide (Staff contact: Ray Milliner at 801.535.7645 or ray.milliner(uslcgov.com). Visit the Planning Division's website at www.slcgov.com/CED/planning for copies of the Planning Commission -endas, staff reports, and minutes. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes l be posted two days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission. fl.t..l..l.l�...�1._.4..E .F. ll �aI,LOM �I�II2I�'�H 1I'-Ia ld i 41017 v' -775- tilts n KID alul DIES • QJkif AP 0J oststi x0g Od iA 90ti WO0 1 ` )0 .11S alu)S LIMOS I c rs► I � UOiSiAl4 Suluutfd t lh8 3000dIZ INO2ld OT UVW a47 600Z £0 r1O1\1 90981 Zt00C h F II.t`• der• S MACAIA1N11d rie 8m u,. C • .�� #o ti • • .f4 06, Oyu 1SOd S-aL 1. Fill out registration card and indicate if you wish to speak and which agenda item you will address. 2. After the staff and petitioner presentations, hearings will be opened for public comment. Community Councils will present their comments at the beginning of the hearing In order to be considerate of everyone attending the meeting,public comments are limited to two(2)minutes per person, per item. A spokesperson who has already been asked by a group to summarize their concerns will be allowed five(5)minutes to speak. Written comments are welcome and will be provided to the Planning Commission in advance of the meeting if they are submitted to the Planning Division prior to noon the day before the meeting. Written comments should be sent to: Salt Lake City Planning Commission 451 South State Street,Room 406 Salt Lake City UT 84111 4. Speakers will be called by the Chair. 5. Please state your name and your affiliation to the petition or whom you represent at the beginning of your comments. 6. Speakers should address their comments to the Chair Planning Commission members may have questions for the speaker.Speakers may not debate with other meeting attendees. 7. Speakers should focus their comments on the agenda item.Extraneous and repetitive comments should be avoided. 8. After those registered have spoken,the Chair will invite other comments.Prior speakers may be allowed to supplement their previous comments at this time 9. After the hearing is closed, the discussion will be limited among Planning Commissioners and Staff. Under unique circumstances, the Planning Commission may choose to reopen the hearing to obtain additional information. 10. The Salt Lake City Corporation complies will all ADA guidelines People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this meeting Accommodations may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. This is an accessible facility For questions,requests,or additional information,please contact the Planning Office at 535-7757,TDD 535-6220. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 21A.54: :° - • CONDITIONAL USE: ISSUES ONLYof Case #PLNPCM2009-00174 •-•713:1 a.u,.f,l�.:•.II i u us October 14 2009 Planning and Zoning Division Department of Community and Economic Development Applicant: City Council REQUEST Staff: Ray Milliner ray.milliner@slcgov.com This petition is part of the City Council "Issues for Further Study" (801)535-7645 request created during the Conditional Use amendment project in Current Zone: 2008. The Council specifically requested that the administration N/A analyze the standards for conditional uses to ensure their appropriateness. Therefore a petition to amend the following sections Master Plan Designation: of the Zoning Ordinance was initiated. As part of that ongoing process City Wide staff has modified Chapter 21A.54 Conditional Use, and is requesting Council District: that the Planning Commission review and provide direction with y Wide regard to the proposed changes. Review Standards The purpose of the amendment is to bring the chapter into compliance 21A.50.050 Standards for General with state code, to clarify the intent of certain sections, and to revise Amendments the standards and factors necessary for conditional use approval. Affected Text Sections Chapter 21A.54. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Notification • Notice mailed on September 28,2009 • Published in Deseret News September Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the proposed 28,2009 modifications to Chapter 21A.54 Conditional Use as an issues only • Posted on City& State Websites item, conduct a public hearing and provide staff with direction. September 28,2009 Attachments Staff is not requesting a decision by the Planning Commission at this A. Proposed Text Amendments meeting. The matter will be scheduled for a future Public Hearing with B. Summary Notes from ZAP task a formal recommendation. force meeting. 1 Background The rewrite of Chapter 21A.54, Conditional Uses, of the zoning ordinance is another step in the ongoing effort to amend and update the document and bring it into conformance with state regulations, best planning practices and to improve the efficiency of the regulation process. Chapter 21A.54 was modified most recently by the City Council in July of 2008. The changes were most specifically with regard to the standards and criteria necessary for approval. Staff has applied these criteria for approximately 1 and 1/2 years and has encountered a number of issues and problems in applying them to specific projects and applications. These amendments are an attempt to clarify and resolve those problems. Public Participation This application was reviewed by the Zoning Amendment Project task force on August 10, 2009, and again on September 28, 2009. Summary notes are attached as exhibit B. The project was also reviewed at an open house on July 21, 2009. No public comments were received. Issue Analysis There are a number of significant changes proposed in this chapter, as well as general fine tuning designed to clarify language and facilitate understanding and application of the regulations. Below is a summary of the changes proposed, with a brief analysis of the rationale for the amendment. When the Planning Commission provides direction to forward the document to the City Council, staff will provide analysis and findings for the standards in Chapter 21A.50.050 Standards for General Amendments. Planned Developments All substantive references to Planned Developments have been removed from this chapter, as the criteria, and process for a Planned Development will be moved to its own chapter. Administrative Conditional Use Changes to this section feature consolidating language from other areas of the chapter into one section. This will enable better understanding of the process and eliminate mistakes as all language will be located in one specific place. Although not final, staff has discussed the possibility of removing the requirement that all administrative conditional uses (those heard by an administrative officer only) be reviewed by Community Councils. This would streamline the time necessary to receive approval as well as free up Community Council agendas for other topics. Community Councils would still receive notice of the application, and be free to provide input at the public hearing, but the applicant would not be required to present to the Community Council. 2 Standards for Review Staff has significantly modified the standards of review necessary for approval. Standards have been separated from Factors to Consider, with the idea that the Standards are the findings that the Planning Commission or administrative hearing officer must make in order to approve the use, and the Factors to consider are the apparatus used to make said findings. State Code requires that any Conditional Use shall be approved unless the impact of the use on surrounding properties cannot be mitigated through the application of the standards, factors to consider and conditions of approval. Proposed standards include: 1. The use complies with all applicable provisions of this zoning ordinance, state and federal law; 2. The use is compatible or, with conditions of approval, can be made to be compatible with surrounding uses; 3. The use is consistent with applicable adopted City planning policies, documents and Master Plans; and 4. The anticipated detrimental effects of any differences in use or scale have been reasonably mitigated through careful planning. If a finding of compliance with these standards cannot be made, then denial of the project would be appropriate. Adversely, if a finding of compliance can be made for each, then the use must be approved. Factors to Consider When reviewing the application for compliance, the Planning Commission or administrative hearing officer will consider 13 factors for approval. These factors though general, are designed to address the eneral issues and impacts of a use on neighboring properties while providing sufficient leeway to address the unique issues and problems related to each specific location and use. 1. The proposed use is one of the Conditional Uses specifically listed in this title. 2. Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance Compliance: The use is consistent with policies set forth in the adopted citywide, community, and small area master plan and future land use map where the use is located. 3. Use Compatibility: The use is well-suited to the character of the site, and adjacent uses. The analysis shall evaluate the intensity, size, and scale of the use compared to existing uses in the surrounding area. 4. Building Form and Scale: The mass, scale, style, design and architectural detailing of the surrounding structures as they relate to the proposed use shall be considered. 5. Access. Whether access points and driveways are designed to minimize grading of the natural topography, direct vehicular traffic onto major streets, and not impede traffic flows. 6. Internal Vehicular and Pedestrian Circulation: Whether the internal circulation system shall be designed to mitigate adverse impacts on adjacent property from motorized, non-motorized, and pedestrian traffic. Sites shall be designed to enable access and circulation for pedestrian and bicycles. 7. Traffic: The proposed means of access to the site shall be carefully considered to determine the impact of the use on the service level to such street or any adjacent street; 8. Parking: The location and design of off-street parking complies with applicable standards of this Ordinance: 9. Utility Access: Whether there is sufficient utility capacity to support the use at normal service levels; 3 10. Buffering and Screening: Whether appropriate screening, buffering or other means to separate the use from adjoining dissimilar uses and mitigation of the potential for conflict in uses is provided. 11. Environmental Impact: Whether the use significantly impacts the quality of the surrounding air and water, encroaches into a river or stream, or introduces any hazards or environmental damage to any adjacent property. 12. Operation and Delivery: Whether the hours of operation and delivery of the use are compatible with surrounding uses. 13. Signs and Lighting: Whether signs and lighting proposed are compatible with, and do not negatively impact surrounding uses. 14. Historic Preservation: Whether the proposed use takes into consideration the preservation of historic resources and structures. One primary change to this section is the elimination of the "Detrimental Concentration" criteria from the previous section. This provision required a review of all conditional uses and nonconforming uses within a radius of a mile of the proposed use with the purpose of determining whether or not the use is appropriate. After applying this requirement for approximately one year, staff has determined that this criterion should be eliminated for the following reasons: 1. When the City Council adopts the use table, a determination of the appropriateness of a use in the zone is made, and it is assumed that the use is compatible with surrounding uses provided the standards and factors for consideration are met. Therefore, there should not be a detrimental concentration because each approved conditional use, with associated conditions of approval, has been found to not impact the area. �"""•" 2. There is no standard to determine what number of a certain type of conditional use would tip the scales to create the detrimental concentration. 3. If policy makers determine that there is too large a concentration of a certain conditional use, then the appropriate action would be for the City Council to eliminate this use from the use table, rezone properties and/or modify the future land use map in the applicable master plan. This issue was reviewed and commented on by the ZAP task force, who had a number of comments and issues, including: • If it is discovered that there is a significant concentration of a negative use in an area, then policy makers need to change ordinance and not allow the use. • Need to ensure that the zoning map mirrors the applicable Master Plan. If the master plan calls for residential but the zoning map does not allow it, then that is a problem. • The zoning needs to be supported by the uses in the area. • In some areas, you can't rely on the zone because the zoning doesn't match what's on the ground or in the plan. Conditional Use Revocation Currently, the standard to revoke a conditional use is unclear. Staff has drafted language allowing the Mayor, or the Planning Commission to revoke or modify a conditional use, provided the following findings are met: 4 1. A material detrimental change in the conditional use approval without authorization or an amendment; or 2. Material noncompliance with the conditions prescribed upon issuance of the conditional use or with representations by the permittee as to the nature of the conditional use to be conducted; or 3. Operation of the conditional use in such a manner as to create an ongoing nuisance for neighboring persons or property. The language further provides hearing, and appeal information relating to the use. This language also was of concern to members of the task force, who stated that it is possible that giving the power to initiate a revocation to the Mayor or Mayor's designee may politicize the process. It was suggested that staff look at the way other licenses such as business licenses are revoked. Staff reviewed the processes and modified the language to mirror that of other revocations in the City', and therefore recommends this language. Alterations or Modifications Staff is proposing to clarify language relating to the modification of an existing conditional use or a nonconforming conditional use. 1. Alterations or modifications to an existing legal conditional use that increase the floor area by one thousand (1,000) gross square feet or less may be approved by the Planning Director without a public hearing. 2. Alterations or modifications to an existing legal conditional use that increase the floor area by more than one thousand (1,000) gross square feet shall be reviewed as a new conditional use pursuant to the requirements and standards of the new chapter. Fine Tuning There are a number of additional changes proposed to the document; nonetheless, they are not substantive in nature. These changes are designed to facilitate understanding and clarify, not to change meaning. 5 Chapter 21A.54 CONDITIONAL USES 21A.54.010: PURPOSE STATEMENT: A conditional use is a land use which, because of its unique characteristics or potential impact on the municipality, surrounding neighbors or adjacent land uses, may not be compatible or may be compatible only if certain conditions are required that mitigate or eliminate the negative impacts. Conditional uses are allowed unless appropriate conditions cannot be applied which, in the judgment of the Planning Commission, or administrative hearing officer, would mitigate adverse impacts that may arise by introducing a conditional use on the particular site. Approval of a conditional use It requires a careful review of its location, design, configuration and special impact to determine the desirability of allowing it on a partisu-lar site. Whether it the use is appropriate in a particular location requires a-weighing of, in each case, of the public need and benefit against the local impact, taking into account the applicant's proposals fe-r to mitigate adverse impacts through special site planning, development techniques and public improvements, rights of way and services. 21A.54.020: AUTHORITY: -he Planning Commission, or in the case of administrative conditional uses, the Planning Director or designee, may, in accordance with the procedures and standards set out in this chapter, and other regulations applicable to the district in which the property is located, approve uses listed as conditional uses in the tables of permitted and conditional uses found-at the end of each chapter of part Ill of this title for each category of zoning district or districts. {Ord. 69 06 § 1, 2006: Ord. 26 95 § 2(27 2), 1995) 21A.54.030: CATEGORIES OF CONDITIONAL USES: Conditional uses shall consist of the following categories of uses: A. Requests considered and decided by the Planning Commission. B. Requests considered and decided by the Planning Director or designee. A. public facilities; and I uses found at the end of each chapter of part Ill of this title for ach category of zoning district or districts. to be 1. Applications for low power wireless telecommunication fasal+tics +"^+ are listed as itional use that increase the floor ar a by one thousand (1,000) gross square feet or more and/or increase the parking requirement. each-zoning district except those that- n n residential zoning district; c. Abut a residential zoning district or residential use; or zoning districts. (Ord. 69 06 § 2, 2006: Ord. 13 04 § 31, 2001: Ord. 81 01 § 2, 2001: Ord. 26 95 § 2(27 3), 1995) 21 n.54.040: SITE PI Awl REVIEW REQUIRED: r �ccv v��c�v_ (Ord. 26 95—§-2(27 A) 1 995) 21A.54.050: INITIATION: An application for a conditional use may be filed with the Planning Director zon-ing administrator by the owner of the subject property or by an authorized agent. (Ord. 26-95 § 2(27-5), 1995) 21A.54.060: PROCEDURES: A. Application: A complete application shall contain at least the following information submitted by the applicant, unless certain information is determined by the Planning Director to be inapplicable or unnecessary to appropriately evaluate the application: 1. The applicant's name, address, telephone number and interest in the property; 2. The property owner's name, address and telephone number, if different than the applicant, and the property owner's signed consent to the filing of the application; 3. The street address and legal description of the subject property; 4. The zoning classification, zoning district boundaries and present use of the subject property; 5. A complete description of the proposed conditional use; 6. Site plans, as required pursuant to section 21A.58.060 of this title; Amok 7. Traffic impact analysis, where required by the City Transportation Division; 8 8. A signed statement that the applicant has met with and explained the proposed notice pursuant to title 2, chapter 2.62 of this code; with the proposed conditional-use; 10.Mailing labels and first class a fee to cover postage for all persons required to be notified of the public hearing on the proposed conditional use pursuant to chapter 21A.10 of this title; 1-1-Such other and further information or documentation as the Planning Director may deem necessary for proper review and analysis of the application. B. Determination of Completeness: Upon receipt of an application for a conditional use, the Planning Director shall make a determination of completeness of the application pursuant to section 21A.10.010 of this title. C. Fees: The application for a conditional use shall be accompanied by the fee established on the fee schedule. D. Staff Report; : Once the Planning Director has determined that the application is complete a staff report evaluating the conditional use application shall be prepared by the planning division and forwarded to the applicant and the Planning Commission, or, in the case of administrative conditional uses, the Planning Director or designee in accordance with state law. along with a site plan review report prepared by the development review team E. Public Hearing: The Planning Commission, or, in the case of administrative conditional uses, the Planning Director or designee shall schedule and hold a public hearing on the proposed conditional use in accordance with the standards and procedures for conduct of the public hearing set forth in chapter 21A.10 of this title. (See sections 21A.54.150 and 21A.54.155 of this chapter for additional procedures for public hearings in connection with administrative conditional uses). F. Notice of Applications for Additional Approvals: Whenever, in connection with the application for a conditional use approval, the applicant is requesting other types of approvals, as required by this title such as a variance or special exception, all required notices shall include reference to the request for the conditional use as well as for all other applicable required approvals. G. Planning Commission and Planning Director or Designee Action: At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission, or, in the case of administrative conditional uses, the Planning Director or designee shall either: 1) approve the conditional use; 2) approve the conditional use subject to specific modifications; or 3) deny the conditional use. (Ord. 69-06 § 3, 2006: Ord. 26-95 § 2(27-6), 1995) 9 21A.54.070: SEQUENCE OF APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR BOTH A CONDITIONAL USE AND A VARIANCE: Whenever the applicant indicates pursuant to subsection 21A.54.060A9 of this chapter that a variance will be necessary in connection with the proposed conditional use {other than a the applicant shall at the time of filing the application for a conditional use,file an application for a variance with the board of adjustment. A. Gembined-Re ' tional use and a variance, at the-initiation of the Planning Commiscion or the board of adjustment, the sly. B.Actions By Planning Commission And Board of Adjustment:Regard-less-et-whether-the ve reviews in a combined session or separately, the The Board of Adjustment shall not take any action on the application for a variance until the Planning Commission has acted shall first act to recommend approval or disapproval of the application for on the conditional use. (Ord. 26- 95§2(27-7), 1995) 21A.54.080: STANDARDS FOR CONDITIONAL USES: A. General Standard For Approval: A conditional use shall be approved if reasonable conditions are proposed, or can be imposed, to mitigate the reasonably anticipated detrimental effects of the proposed use in accordance with applicable standards set forth in this section. If the reasonably anticipated detrimental effects of a proposed conditional use cannot be substantially mitigated by the proposal or the imposition of reasonable conditions to achieve compliance with applicable standards,the conditional use shall be denied. B. Specific Standards: A conditional use permits ss the evidence presented-shows-that-oae-or-mere-of-the-standards set forth in this subsection-Gannet-be met. The-Planning-GornreissionT-or, in the c ve conditional uses, the Planning Director or the director's `esigne^ e est additlenal-information as may be reasonably needed to determine ^teethe the stanch s of th s bsect^^^ ^-be-met- nn�_ro ester olan-And-Z m bance4-The proposed conditional-use shall be: rth ' and future I b. Allowed by the zone--where the conditional use will be located or--by-another applicable previsien-of this title. ter of the willbe-located.'^de'ra�tec inng compatibility,the Planni vide aces-s to the site without materially-degrading the service level on su^"s r et^ ^;y-adjacent street; io )aced on: t i) Orientation of driveways and whether they direct traffic to major or local streets, and, if directed to local streets, the impact on the safety, purpose, and character of these streets; parking for the proposed use which will adversely impact the reasonable use of adjacent property; , light, or other nuisances that unreasonably impair the use and enjoyment of adjacent property; d. Whether existing or proposed utility and public services will be adequate to support the ; , landscaping, setbacks, building location, sound attenua ' protect adjacent land uses from excessive light, noise, odor and visual impacts and other from the proposed use; and (4/4 the area whore the „se will be located with respect to• , , sed use, or development associated with the use, will result in lose of and uses in the surrounding area. chapter 21A.59 of this title. _ /1. Detriment To Persons Or Property: The proposed conditional use shall not, under the safety,aid--general--welfare-ef-persons, nor be injurious to property and improvements in the a. Not emit any known pollutant into the ground or air that will detrimentally affect the subject property or any adjacent property; b. Not encroach on any river or stream, or direct runoff into a river or stream; Not introduce any hazard or potential for damage to an adjacent property that cannot be Aitigatedi d. Bc consistent with the type of existing uses surrounding the subject property; and 11 properties. • 5. Compliancc With Other requirement. B. Standards for Review A conditional use shall be approved unless the Planning Commission, or, in the case of administrative conditional uses, the Planning Director or designee conclude that the following standards of this subsection cannot be met. 1. The use complies with all applicable provisions of this title; 2. The use is compatible or, with conditions of approval, can be made to be compatible with surrounding uses; 3. The use is consistent with applicable adopted City planning policies, documents and Master Plans; and 4. The anticipated detrimental effects of any differences in use or scale have been reasonably mitigated through careful planning. Factors to Consider The Planning Commission, or in the case of administrative conditional uses, the Planning Director or designee shall consider each of the following factors when considering whether or not the proposed Conditional Use meets the standards listed in Section 21A.54.080B: Ask 15.The proposed use is one of the Conditional Uses specifically listed in this title. 16.Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance Compliance: The use is consistent with policies set forth in the adopted citywide, community, and small area master plan and future land use map where the use is located. 17.Use Compatibility: The use is well-suited to the character of the site, and adjacent uses. The analysis shall evaluate the intensity, size, and scale of the use compared to existing uses in the surrounding area. 18.Building Form and Scale: The mass, scale, style, design and architectural detailing of the surrounding structures as they relate to the proposed use shall be considered. 19.Access. Whether access points and driveways are designed to minimize grading of the natural topography, direct vehicular traffic onto major streets, and not impede traffic flows. 20.Internal Vehicular and Pedestrian Circulation: Whether the internal circulation system shall be designed to mitigate adverse impacts on adjacent property from motorized, non-motorized, and pedestrian traffic. Sites shall be designed to enable access and circulation for pedestrian and bicycles. 21 .Traffic: The proposed means of access to the site shall be carefully considered to determine the impact of the use on the service level to such street or any adjacent street; 22.Parking: The location and design of off-street parking complies with applicable standards of this Ordinance; 23.Utility Access: Whether there is sufficient utility capacity to support the use at normal Ask service levels; *wow 12 24.Buffering and Screening: Whether appropriate screening, buffering or other means to separate the use from adjoining dissimilar uses and mitigation of the potential for conflict in uses is provided. 25. Environmental Impact: Whether the use significantly impacts the quality of the surrounding air and water, encroaches into a river or stream, or introduces any hazards or environmental damage to any adjacent property. 26.Operation and Delivery: Whether the hours of operation and delivery of the use are compatible with surrounding uses. 27.Signs and Lighting: Whether signs and lighting proposed are compatible with, and do not negatively impact surrounding uses. 28. Historic Preservation: Whether the proposed use takes into consideration the preservation of historic resources and structures. Decision on Conditional Use Application The Planning Commission or in the case of administrative conditional uses, the Planning Director or designee shall provide written notice of the decision, and all conditions imposed to the applicant and local community council within ten (10) days of the final action. This notice shall be recorded against the property by the City Recorder. C. Imposition Of Conditions Of Approval: The Planning Commission, or, in the case of administrative conditional uses, the Planning Director or the director's designee, may impose on a conditional use any conditions necessary to make conform the proposed use compatible with the uses on adjacent properties with the approval s section. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, conditions on the scope of the use; its character or location; architecture; signage; construction; landscaping; access; loading and parking; sanitation; drainage and utilities; fencing and screening; setbacks; natural hazards; public safety; environmental impacts; hours and methods of operation; dust, fumes, smoke and odor; noise, vibrations; chemicals, toxins, pathogens, and gases; and heat, light, and radiation. Such conditions shall: 1. Be expressly set forth in the approval authorizing the conditional use; 2. Not be used as a means to authorize as a cenditiennal use any use intended to be 3. Be within the police powers of Salt Lake City; 4. Substantially further a legitimate public purpose; related and roughly proportionate to the use of the property for which the conditional use is authorized. • 1. The proposed use is unlawful; and 13 s section. (Ord. 61 08 § 1 (Exh. A), 2008: Ord. 21A.54.090: VIOLATION OF CONDITIONS CONDITIONAL USE REVOCATION: 1 (Ex-h. A), 2-006: Ord. 69 06 § 4, 2006: Ord. 26 95 § 2(27 9), 1995) Conditions of Revocation: The holder of the conditional use shall be responsible for the operation of the use in conformance with the ordinances of the city. Any conditional use issued by the city may be suspended or revoked by the Mayor or the Planning Commission, upon a finding by the Mayor or the Planning Commission of a violation of any of the following with respect to the holder of the use or its operator or agent: 4. A material detrimental change in the conditional use approval without authorization or an amendment; or 5. Material noncompliance with the conditions prescribed upon issuance of the conditional use or with representations by the permittee as to the nature of the conditional use to be conducted; or 6. Operation of the conditional use in such a manner as to create an ongoing nuisance for neighboring persons or property. Upon making a decision to suspend or revoke the conditional use, the Mayor or Planning Commission shall send written notice of the suspension or revocation to the holder of the conditional use and post it on the Planning Department web site unless an appeal is filed. If there is an existing business license associated with the use, said license will be suspended along with the use. 21A.54.100: NO PRESUMPTION OF APPROVAL: The listing of a conditional use in any table of permitted and conditional uses found at the end found in this title does not constitute an assurance or presumption that such conditional use will be approved. Rather, each proposed conditional use shall be evaluated on an individual basis, in relation to its compliance with the standards and factors conditions set forth in this chapter and with the standards for the district in which it is located, in order to determine whether the conditional use is appropriate at the particular location. (Ord. 26-95 § 2(27-10), 1995) 21 A.54.110: EFFECT OF APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE: The approval of a proposed conditional use by the Planning Commission, or, in the case of Ask administrative conditional uses, the Planning Director or designee, shall not authorize the establishment or extension of any use nor the development, construction, reconstruction, 14 alteration or moving of any building or structure, but shall merely authorize the preparation, filing and processing of applications for any permits or approvals that may be required by the egulations of the city, including, but not limited to, a building permit, certificate of occupancy and subdivision approval. (Ord. 69-06 § 5, 2006: Ord. 26-95 § 2(27-11), 1995) 21A.54.120: LIMITATIONS ON CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL: Subject to an extension of time granted by the Planning Commission, or, in the case of administrative conditional uses, the Planning Director or designee, no conditional use shall be valid for a period longer than one (1) year unless a building permit has been issued or complete building plans have been submitted to the Division of Building Services and Licensing within that period and is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or unless a certificate of occupancy is issued and a use commenced within that period, or unless a longer time is requested and granted by the Planning Commission, or, in the case of administrative conditional uses, the Planning Director or designee. Any request for a time extension shall be required not less than thirty (30) days prior to the twelve (12) month time period. The approval of a proposed conditional use by the Planning Commission, or, in the case of administrative conditional uses, the Planning Director or designee, shall authorize only the particular use for which it was issued. 21A.54.130: CONDITIONAL USE RELATED TO THE LAND: ch use or lot. (Ord. 26 95 § 2(27 13), 1995) A Conditional Use is transferable with the title to the underlying property so that an applicant may convey or assign an approved use without losing the approval. The applicant may not transfer the use from the site on which the approval was granted. If the applicant changes the use on the property, the existing conditional use becomes null and void. 21A.54.135: ALTERATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS TO A CONDITIONAL USE: Any modification to a legally non conforming land use currently listed as a conditional use under existing current zoning regulations is first required to shall be required to obtain conditional use approval subject to the provisions of this chapter if the floor area increases by more than one thousand (1,000) gross square feet or more and/or the parking requirement increases. section 21A.54.155 of this chapter. (Ord. 13 04 § 35, 2004) Alterations or modifications to an existing legal conditional use that increase the floor area by one thousand (1 ,000) gross square feet or less may be approved by the Planning Director without a public hearing. 15 Alterations or modifications to an existing legal conditional use that increase the floor area by more than one thousand (1 ,000) gross square feet shall be reviewed as a new conditional use ems, pursuant to the requirements and standards of this chapter. 21A.54.140: CONDITIONAL USE APPROVALS AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS: When a development is proposed as a planned development pursuant to the procedures in section 21A.54.150 21A.55 of this title chapter and also includes an application for conditional use approval, the Planning Commission shall decide the planned development application and the conditional use application together. In the event that a new conditional use is proposed after a planned development has been approved pursuant to section 21A.54.150 21A.55 of this title chapter, the proposed conditional use shall be reviewed and approved, approved with conditions, approved with modifications, or denied under the standards set forth in section 21A.54.080 of this chapter. (Ord. 26-95 § 2(27-14), 1995) • 21 A fit 150 DI AA NED DEVE �1DMENTS• • 21A.54.155: ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED CONDITIONAL USES: The purpose of this section is to establish an administrative hearing process for certain categories of low impact conditional uses as authorized by subsection 21A.54.030B of this chapter. Conditional uses that are authorized to be reviewed administratively are: Amok 1. Applications for low power wireless telecommunication facilities that are listed as conditional uses in subsection 21A.40.090E of this title. 2. Public/private utility buildings and structures in residential and nonresidential zoning districts that are listed as conditional uses. 3. Any conditional use as identified in the tables of permitted and conditional uses for each zoning district, except those that: a. Are located within a residential zoning district; b. Abut a residential zoning district or residential use; or c. Require planned development approval. A. Application Requirements: Administrative conditional use applications shall be subject to the standards found in section 21A.54.080 of this chapter. 1. Preapplication Conference: The applicant s and alternatives. 2. Community Council Review: The applicant shall meet with the -respective community • Amok • 16 schedule an administrative hearing or to forward the application to the Planning Commission. B. Administrative Hearing: 1. Noticing and Posting Requirements: Notice of the proposed conditional use shall be conducted pursuant to subsection 21A.10.020B of this title. 2. Administrative Hearing: After consideration of the information received from the applicant and concerned residents, the Planning Director or designee may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the conditional use request. At the administrative hearing, the Planning Director or designee may decline to hear or decide the request and forward the application for Planning Commission consideration, if it is determined that there is neighborhood opposition, if the applicant has failed to adequately address the conditional use standards, or for any other reason at the discretion of the Planning Director or designee. The Planning Director or designee may grant the conditional use request only if the proposed development is consistent with the standards for conditional uses listed in section 21A.54.080 of this chapter and any specific standards listed in this title that regulate the particular use. considering the conditional use request may reque.,t a hearing before the Planning use request. If no such objections arc received by the forwarded to the Salt Lake City Planning Commission for consideration and decision. by the Planning Director or designee at an administrative h decision to the Sal fourteen (14)—clays of erer the Planning Director's administrative hearing. The notice of appeal shall specify, in detail, the reason(s) for the appeal. Reasons for the appeal shall be based upon procedural error or compliance with the standards for conditional uses listed in section 21A.5'.080 of this chapter or any specific standards listed in this title 21A.54.156: APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION: Any person aggrieved by the decision made by the Planning Director or designee at an dministrative hearing may appeal that decision to the Salt Lake City Planning Commission by tiling notice of an appeal within ten (10) days after the date of the written administrative decision. The notice of appeal shall specify, in detail, the reason(sj for the appeal. Reasons for 17 the appeal shall be based upon procedural error or compliance with the standards for conditional uses listed in section 21A.54.080 of this chapter or any specific standards listed in this title that regulate the particular use. (Ord. 69-06 § 7, 2006: Ord. 81-01 § 3, 2001) 21A.54.160: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION: Any party aggrieved by a decision of the Planning Commission on an application for a conditional use, ' may file an appeal to the land use appeals board within ten (10) thirty (30) days of the date of the written decision. The filing of the appeal shall not stay the decision of the Planning Commission pending the outcome of the appeal, unless the Planning Commission takes specific action to stay a decision. (Ord. 77-03 § 9, 2003: Ord. 83-96 § 6, 1996: Ord. 26-95 § 2(27-16), 1995) 21 a �n 17O• nPPEA OF i e D=USE APPEA S BOARD DECISION: Any party adversely affected by the decision of the land use appeals board on appeal from a . . 21A.54.170: APPEAL OF REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE: If the Planning Commission suspends or revokes any conditional use under section 21A.54.090, the holder of the use shall have a right to appeal the suspension or revocation decision to the Land Use Appeal Board. The holder must file the appeal with the Planning -4111* Director within ten (10) days of the record of decision that the City has revoked the Conditional Use. Amok Now- 18 2009 Zoning Text Amendment Project August 10, 2009 Task Force Meeting Members Present Alene Bentley; Cindy Cromer; Sydney Fonnesbeck; Barbara Green; Jerry Green; Esther Hunter; Bruce Jensen; Jeremy King; Bill Nighswonger; Helen Peters; Vasilios Priskos; Dave Richards; Lon Richardson; Steven Rosenberg; Judi Short; Grace Sperry; Ray Whitchurch Staff Present Wilf Sommerkorn, Planning Director; Cheri Coffey, Planning Manager; Ray Milliner, Principal Planner; Mike Akerlow, Economic Development Division Discussion relating to proposed amendments to Conditional Use Regulations Administrative Conditional Uses • Don't need to go to community council but do require notice to abutting property owners Results of using criteria over the last year Concentration issues • Although the new use is mitigated, the uses that were approved before weren't mitigated so there is an impact when they are concentrated in an area. • What does mitigated mean? Does it mean that 75% of the impacts are mitigated? 100% of the impacts are mitigated? Clarify the criteria. An example would be to have a specific measurement of the noise that cannot be violated. That way it is easier to determine if it will really mitigate the impact and it can be enforced more easily. The below underlined text is clarification language by Esther Hunter relating to this issue. If possible the range of mitigations and the options of how these items can be mitigated be listed rather than just that something needs to be mitigated. Not sure this is possible but it would be extremely helpful. Frank did something similar to this idea for the definition of prisons. Myfeeling is that it is a benefit to get at as much on the table in advance as possible so that business Am% owners know the cost to consider going into a property and residential owners feel a certain level of confidence that mitigation issues will be addressed. 20 It was suggested that staff take the last several controversial areas and by contacting the people involved in order to help identify a potential list of issues to define in advance of many of the problem areas. (Eggs in the City for example had standard issues such as parking but also hours of preparation/smell which could be addressed by the direction of the fans used, etc.) My feeling is the more listed ahead of the time the better off everyone will be in building in less conflict and better system of trust in the ordinance. Also suggested was that each departments criteria and process be identified and documented(that is used in their evaluation process in giving a green light such as transportation, etc.). Housing is a conditional use in commercial zones. Relook at the use tables and determine what should be permitted, conditional use or not allowed. Hard to work through issues (to mitigate impacts when applicant already did the work) Retroactive approval (boarding house issue). When department sign-off on project they should note what standards they are using. What do they base their criteria on? (Best professional practices or adopted regulations for City. ) The concentration of use is in a specific geographic area. Need to change ordinance and not allow the use if there are too many and they have a negative impact as a whole. lave to be able to say something specific relating to concentration such as the roads can't handle more traffic in the area. Need to ensure zoning implements the plan if the master plan calls for residential but not enough housing, then that is a problem. The zoning needs to be supported by the uses in the area. In some areas, you can't rely on the zone because the zoning doesn't match what's on the ground or in the plan. What is revocation process for a Conditional Use? • It is a very difficult process, hard to revoke. • Having it go to the mayor to initiate revocation is political. Put the authority in a less political agency such as the attorney's office. • Why not have the process be similar to other revocations? Where else in the City does there need to be a reliance on mayor to do something like this? Look at business license revocation process and possibly mimic it Not requiring a process for expansions of less than 1,000 square feet is not consistent with ')nconforming regulations. 21 Changing from one conditional use to a different type of conditional use needs public input process. The whole nature of business is changing. In some cases it may be ok to allow without process. In other cases it is not appropriate to not have a process. The underlying zoning can help provide density and intensity, but where allow incremental change of use, it intensifies the use without input. Impacts of smoking outdoors is an issue. Need to have indoor accommodations and separate ventilation. This would violate State Law. 22 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 21A.54: CONDITIONAL USE &IL! vn, Case #PLNPCM2009-00174 • November 18, 2009 Imis Planning and Zoning Division Department of Community and Economic Development Applicant: City Council REQUEST Staff: Ray Milliner ray.milliner@slcRov.com This petition is part of the City Council "Issues for Further Study" (801)535-7645 request created during the Conditional Use amendment project in 2008. The Council specifically requested that the administration Current Zone:N/A analyze the standards for conditional uses to ensure their appropriateness. Therefore a petition to amend the following sections Master Plan Designation: of the Zoning Ordinance was initiated. City Wide ^nuncil District: The purpose of the amendment is to bring the chapter into compliance Wide with state code, to clarify the intent of certain sections, and to revise the standards and factors necessary for conditional use approval. Review Standards 21A.50.050 Standards for General Amendments STAFF RECOMMENDATION Affected Text Sections Chapter 21A.54. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the proposed amendments to Chapter 21A.54 of the zoning Ordinance, conduct a Notification public hearing and forward a positive recommendation to the City • Notice mailed on September 28, 2009 • Published in Deseret News September Council based on the analysis and findings in this staff report. 28,2009 • Posted on City& State Websites September 28,2009 Attachments A. Proposed Text Amendments B. Summary Notes from ZAP task force meeting. C. Minutes from October 14, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting 1 Background The rewrite of Chapter 21A.54, Conditional Uses, of the zoning ordinance is another step in the ongoing effort to amend and update the document and bring it into conformance with state regulations, best planning practices and to improve the efficiency of the regulation process. Chapter 21A.54 was modified most recently by the City Council in July of 2008. The changes were most specifically with regard to the standards and criteria necessary for approval. Staff has applied these criteria for approximately 1 and '/2 years and has encountered a number of issues and problems in applying them to specific projects and applications. These amendments are an attempt to clarify and resolve those problems. These changes were reviewed by the Planning Commission on October 14, 2009. At the meeting, the Commission conducted a public hearing and directed staff to return in November with a recommendation to forward the changes on to the City Council. Public Participation This application was reviewed by the Zoning Amendment Project task force on August 10, 2009, and again on September 28, 2009. Summary notes are attached as exhibit B. The project was also reviewed at an open house on July 21, 2009. No public comments were received. Staff has received comments from members of the Sugar House Community Council expressing concern oak that the proposed changes will limit the amount of review available to Community Councils. Issue Analysis There are a number of significant changes proposed in this chapter, as well as general fine tuning designed to clarify language and facilitate understanding and application of the regulations. Below is a summary of the changes proposed, with a brief analysis of the rationale for the amendment. Staff has also provided analysis and findings for the standards in Chapter 21A.50.050 Standards for General Amendments. Planned Developments All substantive references to Planned Developments have been removed from this chapter, as the criteria, and process for a Planned Development will be moved to its own chapter. The Planning - Commission recommended approval of these changes and they have been transmitted to the City Council. Administrative Conditional Use Changes to this section feature consolidating language from other areas of the chapter into one section. This will enable better understanding of the process and eliminate mistakes as all language will be located in one specific place. dam* 2 Standards for Review Staff has significantly modified the standards of review necessary for approval. Standards have been separated from Factors to Consider, with the idea that the Standards are the findings that the Planning Commission or administrative hearing officer must make in order to approve the use, and the Factors to consider are the apparatus used to make said findings. State Code requires that any Conditional Use shall be approved unless the impact of the use on surrounding properties cannot be mitigated through the application of the standards, factors to consider and conditions of approval. Proposed standards include: 1. The use complies with all applicable provisions of this zoning ordinance, state and federal law; 2. The use is compatible or, with conditions of approval, can be made to be compatible with surrounding uses; 3. The use is consistent with applicable adopted City planning policies, documents and Master Plans; and 4. The anticipated detrimental effects of any differences in use or scale have been reasonably mitigated through careful planning. If a finding of compliance with these standards cannot be made, then denial of the project would be appropriate. Adversely, if a finding of compliance can be made for each, then the use must be approved. Factors to Consider When reviewing the application for compliance, the Planning Commission or administrative hearing officer will consider 13 factors for approval. These factors though general, are designed to address the ?eneral issues and impacts of a use on neighboring properties while providing sufficient leeway to address the unique issues and problems related to each specific location and use. 1. The proposed use is one of the Conditional Uses specifically listed in this title. 2. Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance Compliance: The use is consistent with policies set forth in the adopted citywide, community, and small area master plan and future land use map where the use is located. 3. Use Compatibility: The use is well-suited to the character of the site, and adjacent uses. The analysis shall evaluate the intensity, size, and scale of the use compared to existing uses in the surrounding area. 4. Building Form and Scale: The mass, scale, style, design and architectural detailing of the surrounding structures as they relate to the proposed use shall be considered. 5. Access. Whether access points and driveways are designed to minimize grading of the natural topography, direct vehicular traffic onto major streets, and not impede traffic flows. 6. Internal Vehicular and Pedestrian Circulation: Whether the internal circulation system shall be designed to mitigate adverse-impacts on adjacent property from motorized, non-motorized, and pedestrian traffic. Sites shall be designed to enable access and circulation for pedestrian and bicycles. 7. Traffic: The proposed means of access to the site shall be carefully considered to determine the impact of the use on the service level to such street or any adjacent street; 8. Parking: The location and design of off-street parking complies with applicable standards of this Ordinance; 9. Utility Access: Whether there is sufficient utility capacity to support the use at normal service levels:, 3 10. Buffering and Screening: Whether appropriate screening, buffering or other means to separate the use from adjoining dissimilar uses and mitigation of the potential for conflict in uses is provided. C� C� 1 Svt-S t oti 'ptar'9 11. Environmental Impact: Whether the use significantly impacts the quality of the surrounding air and water, encroaches into a river or stream, or introduces any hazards or environmental damage to any adjacent property. i Ae-lva"'9 0-Alactl.- 12. Operation and Delivery: Whether the hours of operation and delivery of the use are compatible with surrounding uses. 13. Signs and Lighting: Whether signs and lighting proposed are compatible with, and do not negatively impact surrounding uses. 14. Historic Preservation: Whether the proposed use takes into consideration the preservation of historic resources and structures. One primary change to this section is the elimination of the "Detrimental Concentration" criteria from the existing oridiance. This provision required a review of all conditional uses and nonconforming uses within a radius of a mile of the proposed use with the purpose of determining whether or not the use is appropriate. After applying this requirement for approximately one year, staff has determined that this criterion should be eliminated for the following reasons: 1. When the City Council adopts the use table, a determination of the appropriateness of a use in the zone is made, and it is assumed that the use is compatible with surrounding uses provided the standards and factors for consideration are met. Therefore, there should not be a detrimental concentration because each approved conditional use, with associated conditions of approval, has been found to not impact the area. Am% 2. There is no standard to determine what number of a certain type of conditional use would tip the scales to create the detrimental concentration. 3. If policy makers determine that there is too large a concentration of a certain conditional use, then the appropriate action would be for the City Council to eliminate this use from the use table, rezone properties and/or modify the future land use map in the applicable master plan. This issue of concentration was reviewed and commented on by the ZAP task force, who had a number of comments and issues, including: • If it is discovered that there is a significant concentration of a negative use in an area, then policy makers need to change ordinance and not allow the use. • Need to ensure that the zoning map mirrors the applicable Master Plan. If the master plan calls for residential but the zoning map does not allow it, then that is a problem. • The zoning needs to be supported by the uses in the area. • In some areas, you can't rely on the zone because the zoning doesn't match what's on the ground or in the plan. Conditional Use Revocation Currently, the standard to revoke a conditional use is unclear. Staff has drafted language allowing the Mayor or the Mayor's designee to initiate a revocation hearing requesting, the Planning Commission revoke or modify a conditional use, provided the following findings are met: Amok 4 1. A material detrimental change in the conditional use approval without authorization or an amendment; or 2. Material noncompliance with the conditions prescribed upon issuance of the conditional use or with representations by the permittee as to the nature of the conditional use to be conducted; or 3. Operation of the conditional use in such a manner as to create an ongoing nuisance for neighboring persons or property. The language further provides hearing, and appeal information relating to the use. This language also was of concern to members of the task force, who stated that it is possible that giving the power to initiate a revocation to the Mayor or Mayor's designee may politicize the process. It was suggested that staff look at the way other licenses such as business licenses are revoked. Staff reviewed the processes and modified the language to mirror that of other revocations in the City, and therefore recommends the language in the draft ordinance (attachment A). Alterations or Modifications Staff is proposing to clarify language relating to the modification of an existing conditional use or a nonconforming conditional use. G{a, a 62yd i n c(No 1. Alterations or modifications to an existing le 1 conditional use that increase the floor area by one thousand (1,000) gross square feet or less and meets the standards for a conditional use may be approved by the Planning Director without a public hearing. 2. Alterations or modifications to an existing legal conditional use that increase the floor area by more than one thousand (1,000) gross square feet shall be reviewed as a new conditional use pursuant to the requirements and standards of the new chapter. Fine Tuning There are a number of additional changes proposed to the document; nonetheless, they are not substantive in nature. These changes are designed to facilitate understanding and clarify, not to change meaning. 21A.50.050: STANDARDS FOR GENERAL AMENDMENTS: A decision to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance or the Zoning Map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council and is not controlled by any one standard. However, in making its decision concerning a proposed amendment, the City Council should consider the following factors: In making its decision concerning a proposed text amendment, the city council should consider the following factors: 1. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the City as stated through its various adopted planning documents; 5 Analysis: The purpose of this rewrite is another step in the ongoing effort to amend and update the document and bring it into conformance with state regulations, best planning practices and to improve the efficiency of the regulation process. All of these goals are consistent with the purposes and goals of the respective City Master Plans and the Zoning Ordinance. These amendments are an attempt to clarify and resolve problems encountered while applying the current standards of review in the Ordinance. Finding: Staff finds that the proposed amendments to Chapter 54 of the Zoning Ordinance are consistent with the purposes goals, objectives and policies of the various adopted planning documents. 2. Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Analysis: The purpose of Chapter 54 of the Zoning Ordinance is as follows: "A conditional use is a land use which, because of its unique characteristics or potential impact on the municipality, surrounding neighbors or adjacent land uses, may not be compatible or may be compatible only if certain conditions are required that mitigate or eliminate the negative impacts. Conditional uses are allowed unless appropriate conditions cannot be applied which, in the judgment of the Planning Commission, or administrative hearing officer, would mitigate adverse impacts that may arise by introducing a conditional use on the particular site." The proposed changes to the ordinance will further the purpose statement of this chapter by modifying and clarifying the requirements necessary for approval of a conditional use. These modifications create standards and factors for consideration that will facilitate mitigation of adverse impacts on neighboring property owners and will clarify sections of the chapter that were not clear or concise. Finding: Staff finds that the proposed changes to Chapter 54 of the Zoning Ordinance are consistent with the purpose statement of said chapter. 3. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Analysis: The proposed amendments are not specifically tied to any overlay zoning district. Nonetheless,they will be applicable to all conditional uses established in the Zoning Ordinance (unless specifically exempted). When reviewing a project for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, requirements from overlay zoning districts will be a necessary component to the review. No exemption is featured in these amendments. Finding: Staff finds that the proposed amendments will be consistent with all applicable overlay zoning districts as featured on the zoning map. 4. The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements best current, professional practices of urban planning and design. Analysis: The primary purpose of these amendments is to bring Chapter 54 into compliance with current State Code, and to make them more compatible with other chapters and sections of the code that Amok have been changed recently. The standards of review and factors for consideration proposed have been 6 Chapter 21 A.54 CONDITIONAL USES 21A.54.010: PURPOSE STATEMENT: A conditional use is a land use which, because of its unique characteristics or potential impact on the municipality, surrounding neighbors or adjacent land uses, may not be compatible or may be compatible only if certain conditions are required that mitigate or eliminate the negative impacts. Conditional uses are allowed unless appropriate conditions cannot be applied which, in the judgment of the Planning Commission, or administrative hearing officer, would mitigate adverse impacts that may arise by introducing a conditional use on the particular site. Approval of a conditional use It requires a careful review of its location, design, configuration and special impact to determine the desirability of allowing it on a particular site. Whether it the use is appropriate ' requires a-weighing of, in eac;--caseT-of he public need and benefit against the local impact, taking into account the applicant's proposals for ameliorating--any to mitigate adverse impacts through special site planning, development techniques and public improvements, rights of way and services. (Ord. 2-06-§-3,2006: .. a5-§--2(27 1�0-9o5) 21A.54.020: AUTHORITY: -he Planning Commission, or in the case of administrative conditional uses, the Planning Director or designee, may, in accordance with the procedures and standards set out in this chapter, and other regulations applicable to the district in which the property is located, approve uses listed as conditional uses in the tables of permitted and conditional uses fern at the end of each chapter „f port III of this title for each category of zoning district or districts. (Ord. 69 06 § 1, 2006: Ord. 26 95 § 2(27 2), 1995) 21A.54.030: CATEGORIES OF CONDITIONAL USES: Conditional uses shall consist of the following categories of uses: A. Requests considered and decided by the Planning Commission. B. Requests considered and decided by the Planning Director or designee. A. Uses Impacting Other Property: Uses that may give rise to particular problems with respect ty as a whole, including their impact on public facilities; and Administrative Consideration Of Conditional Uses: Certain conditional uses may be rized to-be 9 this chapter. Conditional uses that are authorized to be reviewed administratively are: nn - i�ion I i o in i ih ectinn '�1/� 090E of fhi title requirement. Bach zoning district, except those that: a Are listed as a "residential" land use in the tables of permitted and conditional b. Are located within a residential zoning district; • d. Require planned development approval. ings and structures in -residential and nonresidential zoning districts. (Ord. 69 06 § 2, 2006: Ord. 13 04 § 34, 2004: Ord. 81 01 § 2, 2001: Ord. 26 95 § 2(27 3), 1995) • • 21A.54.050: INITIATION: An application for a conditional use may be filed with the Planning Director zoning administrator by the owner of the subject property or by an authorized agent. (Ord. 26-95 § 2(27-5), 1995) 21A.54.060: PROCEDURES: A. Application: A complete application shall contain at least the following information submitted by the applicant, unless certain information is determined by the Planning Director to be inapplicable or unnecessary to appropriately evaluate the application: 1. The applicant's name, address, telephone number and interest in the property; 2. The property owner's name, address and telephone number, if different than the applicant, and the property owner's signed consent to the filing of the application; 3. The street address and legal description of the subject property; 4. The zoning classification, zoning district boundaries and present use of the subject property; 5. A complete description of the proposed conditional use; 6. Site plans, as required pursuant to section 21A.58.060 of this title; 7. Traffic impact analysis, where required by the City Transportation Division; 10 8. A signed statement that the applicant has met with and explained the proposed conditional use to the appropriate neighborhood organization entitled to receive notice pursuant to title 2, chapter 2.62 of this code; with the proposed conditional use; 10.Mailing labels and first class a fee to cover postage for all persons required to be notified of the public hearing on the proposed conditional use pursuant to chapter 21A.10 of this title; 4-1-Such other and further information or documentation as the Planning Director may deem necessary for proper review and analysis of the application. the particular application. B. Determination of Completeness: Upon receipt of an application for a conditional use, the Planning Director shall make a determination of completeness of the application pursuant to section 21A.10.010 of this title. C. Fees: The application for a conditional use shall be accompanied by the fee established on the fee schedule. D. Staff Report; Site Plan Review Report: Once the Planning Director has determined that the application is complete a staff report evaluating the conditional use application shall be prepared by the planning division and forwarded to the applicant and the Planning Commission, or, in the case of administrative conditional uses, the Planning Director or designee in accordance with state law. along with a site plan review report prepared by the development review team. E. Public Hearing: The Planning Commission, or, in the case of administrative conditional uses, the Planning Director or designee shall schedule and hold a public hearing on the proposed conditional use in accordance with the standards and procedures for conduct of the public hearing set forth in chapter 21A.10 of this title. (See sections 21A.54.150 and 21A.54.155 of this chapter for additional procedures for public hearings in connection with planned developments and administrative conditional uses). F. Notice of Applications for Additional Approvals: Whenever, in connection with the application for a conditional use approval, the applicant is requesting other types of approvals, as required by this title , all required notices shall include reference to the request for the conditional use as well as for all other applicable required approvals. G. Planning Commission and Planning Director or Designee Action: At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission, or, in the case of administrative conditional uses, the Planning Director or designee shall either: 1) approve the conditional use; 2) approve the conditional use subject to specific modifications; or 3) deny the conditional use. (Ord. 69-06 § 3, 2006: Ord. 26-95 § 2(27-6), 1995) 11 21A.54.070: SEQUENCE OF APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR BOTH A CONDITIONAL USE AND A VARIANCE: Whenever the applicant indicates pursuant to subsection 21A.54.060A9 of this chapter that a variance will be necessary in connection with the proposed conditional use (other than a planned development), the applicant shall at the time of filing the application for a conditional use, file an application for a variance with the board of adjustment. • A. B. Actions By Planning Commission And Board of Adjustment: Regardless of whether-the combined session or separately, the The Board of Adjustment shall not take any action on the application for a variance until the Planning Commission has acted on the conditional use. (Ord. 26- 95 § 2(27-7), 1995) 21A.54.080: STANDARDS FOR CONDITIONAL USES: A. General Standard For Approval: A conditional use shall be approved if reasonable conditions are proposed, or can be imposed, to mitigate the reasonably anticipated detrimental effects of the proposed use in accordance with applicable standards set forth in this section. If the reasonably anticipated detrimental effects of a proposed conditional use cannot be substantially mitigated by the proposal or the imposition of reasonable conditions to achieve compliance with applicable standards, the conditional use shall be denied. • ermit shall be approved unlecc the evidence is subsection cannot be , reasonably needed to determine whether the standards of this subsection can be met. • a. Consistent with any policy set forth in the citywide, community, and small area master plan Whether tho +reet or „tho mea of access to the site where the proposed conditional-use • Amok 12 cased on: {1) Orientation of driveways and whether they direct traffic to major or local streets, and, if property; {3) Hours of peak traffic to the proposed use and whether such traffic will unreasonably impair , light, or other nuisances that unreasonably impair the use and enjoyment of adjacent property; c. Whether the internal circulation system of any development associated with the proposed use will be designed to mitigate adverse impacts on adjacent property from motorized, ; , protect adjacent land uses from exce-sive light, noise, odor and visual impacts and other unusual disturbances from trash collection, deliveries, and mechanical equipment resulting from the proposed use; and (4/4) mile of the exterior boundary of the subject property. the area where the „se will be located with respect to: a. Site design and location of parking lots, accessways, and delivery areas; and uses in the surrounding area. d. If a proposed conditional use will result in new construction or substantial remodeling of a 4,_oet-fimo�rrrent To-Persons Ors-rop ' ''e propossed conditional use-shall-n'ot,,-underi-- he , community, existing surrounding uses, buildings, and structures. The proposed use shall: property or any adjacent property; b. Not encroach on any river or stream, or direct runoff into a river or stream; ,nitigated; 13 properties. • associated development shall comply with any other applicable code or ordinance requirement. B. Standards for Review A conditional use shall be approved unless the Planning Commission, or, in the case of administrative conditional uses, the Planning Director or designee conclude that the following standards of this subsection cannot be met. 1. The use complies with all applicable provisions of this title; 2. The use is compatible or, with conditions of approval, can be made to be compatible with surrounding uses; 3. The use is consistent with applicable adopted City planning policies, documents and Master Plans; and 4. The anticipated detrimental effects of any differences in use or scale have been reasonably mitigated through careful planning. Factors to Consider The Planning Commission, or in the case of administrative conditional uses, the Planning Director or designee shall consider each of the following factors when considering whether or not the proposed Conditional Use meets the standards listed in Section 21A.54.080B: 1. The proposed use is one of the Conditional Uses specifically listed in this title. 2. Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance Compliance: Whether the use is consistent with policies set forth in the adopted citywide, community, and small area master plan and future land use map where the use is located. 3. Use Compatibility: The use is well-suited to the character of the site, and adjacent uses. The analysis shall evaluate the intensity, size, and scale of the use compared to existing uses in the surrounding area. 4. Building Form and Scale: The mass, scale, style, design and architectural detailing of the surrounding structures as they relate to the proposed use shall be considered. 5. Access. Whether access points and driveways are designed to minimize grading of the natural topography, direct vehicular traffic onto major streets, and not impede traffic flows. 6. Internal Vehicular and Pedestrian Circulation: Whether the internal circulation system shall be designed to mitigate adverse impacts on adjacent property from motorized, non-motorized, and pedestrian traffic. Sites shall be designed to enable access and circulation for pedestrian and bicycles. 7. Traffic: The proposed means of access to the site shall be carefully considered to determine the impact of the use on the service level to such street or any adjacent street; 8. Parking: The location and design of off-street parking complies with applicable Oak standards of this Ordinance; 14 9. Utility Access: Whether there is sufficient utility capacity to support the use at normal service levels; 10.Buffering and Screening: Whether appropriate screening, buffering or other means to separate the use from adjoining dissimilar uses and mitigation of the potential for conflict in uses is provided. 11 . Environmental Impact: Whether the use significantly impacts the quality of the surrounding air and water, encroaches into a river or stream, or introduces any hazards or environmental damage to any adjacent property. 12.Operation and Delivery: Whether the hours of operation and delivery of the use are compatible with surrounding uses. 13.Signs and Lighting: Whether signs and lighting proposed are compatible with, and do not negatively impact surrounding uses. 14.Historic Preservation: Whether the proposed use takes into consideration the preservation of historic resources and structures. Decision on Conditional Use Application The Planning Commission or in the case of administrative conditional uses, the Planning Director or designee shall provide written notice of the decision, and all conditions imposed to the applicant and local community council within ten (10) days of the final action. This notice shall be recorded against the property by the City Recorder. C. Imposition Of Conditions Of Approval: The Planning Commission, or, in the case of administrative conditional uses, the Planning Director or the director's designee, may impose on a conditional use any conditions necessary to make GOIlf-Offn the proposed use compatible with the uses on adjacent properties section. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, conditions on the scope of the use; its character or location; architecture; signage; construction; landscaping; access; loading and parking; sanitation; drainage and utilities; fencing and screening; setbacks; natural hazards; public safety; environmental impacts; hours and methods of operation; dust, fumes, smoke and odor; noise, vibrations; chemicals, toxins, pathogens, and gases; and heat, light, and radiation. Such conditions shall: 1. Be expressly set forth in the approval authorizing the conditional use; 2. Not be used as a means to authorize as a conditional use any use intended to bo 3. Be within the police powers of Salt Lake City; 4. Substantially further a legitimate public purpose; 5. Further the same public purpose for which the condition is imposed; 6. Not require the applicant/owner to carry a d-iq related and roughly proportionate to the use of the property for which the conditional use is authorized. c' ¶i 1. The proposed use is unlawful; and 15 ted detrimental en of the pFeposed conditional ucc , . 2 08 § 'I, 2008: Ord. 35 99 § 95, 1999: Ord. 26 95-§ 2(27 8), 1995) 21A.54.090: VIOLATION OF CONDITIONS CONDITIONAL USE REVOCATION: § 1 (Exh. A), 2008: Ord. 69 06 § 2006: Ord. 26 95 § 2(27 9), 1995) Conditions of Revocation: The holder of the conditional use shall be responsible for the operation of the use in conformance with the ordinances of the city. Any conditional use issued by the city may be suspended or revoked by the Mayor or the Planning Commission, upon a finding by the Mayor or the Planning Commission of a violation of any of the following with respect to the holder of the use or its operator or agent: 4. A material detrimental change in the conditional use approval without authorization or an amendment; or 5. Material noncompliance with the conditions prescribed upon issuance of the conditional use or with representations by the permittee as to the nature of the conditional use to be conducted; or 6. Operation of the conditional use in such a manner as to create an ongoing nuisance for neighboring persons or property. Upon making a decision to suspend or revoke the conditional use, the Mayor or Planning Commission shall send written notice of the suspension or revocation to the holder of the conditional use and post it on the Planning Department web site unless an appeal is filed. If there is an existing business license associated with the use, said license will be suspended along with the use. 21A.54.100: NO PRESUMPTION OF APPROVAL: The listing of a conditional use in any table of permitted and conditional uses found in this title does not constitute an assurance or presumption that such conditional use will be approved. Rather, each proposed conditional use shall be evaluated on an individual basis, in relation to its compliance with the standards and factors conditions set forth in this chapter and with the standards for the district in which it is located, in order to determine whether the conditional use is appropriate at the particular location. (Ord. 26-95 § 2(27-10), 1995) 21A.54.110: EFFECT OF APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE: The approval of a proposed conditional use by the Planning Commission, or, in the case of 16 administrative conditional uses, the Planning Director or designee, shall not authorize the establishment or extension of any use nor the development, construction, reconstruction, Iteration or moving of any building or structure, but shall merely authorize the preparation, filing and processing of applications for any permits or approvals that may be required by the regulations of the city, including, but not limited to, a building permit, certificate of occupancy and subdivision approval. (Ord. 69-06 § 5, 2006: Ord. 26-95 § 2(27-11), 1995) 21A.54.120: LIMITATIONS ON CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL: Subject to an extension of time granted by the Planning Commission, or, in the case of administrative conditional uses, the Planning Director or designee, no conditional use shall be valid for a period longer than one (1) year unless a building permit has been issued or complete building plans have been submitted to the Division of Building Services and Licensing within that period and is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or unless a certificate of occupancy is issued and a use commenced within that period, or unless a longer time is requested and granted by the Planning Commission, or, in the case of administrative conditional uses, the Planning Director or designee. Any request for a time extension shall be required not less than thirty (30) days prior to the twelve (12) month time period. The approval of a proposed conditional use by the Planning Commission, or, in the case of administrative conditional uses, the Planning Director or designee, shall authorize only the particular use for which it was issued. 21A.54.130: CONDITIONAL USE RELATED TO THE LAND: A Conditional Use is transferable with the title to the underlying property so that an applicant may convey or assign an approved use without losing the approval. The applicant may not transfer the use from the site on which the approval was granted. If the applicant changes the use on the property, the existing conditional use becomes null and void. 21A.54.135: ALTERATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS TO A CONDITIONAL USE: Any modification to a legally non conforming land use currently listed as a conditional use under existing current zoning regulations is first required to shall be required to obtain conditional use approval subject to the provisions of this chapter if the floor area increases by more than one thousand (1,000) gross square feet or more and/or the parking requirement increases. - I Use: Applications for alterations and/or section 21 0 5 1 55 of this chapter. (Ord. 13 04 § 35, 2004) Alterations or modifications to an existing legal conditional use that increase the floor area by ne thousand (1.000) gross square feet or less may be approved by the Planning Director .rithout a public hearing. 17 Alterations or modifications to an existing legal conditional use that increase the floor area by more than one thousand (1,000) gross square feet shall be reviewed as a new conditional use Amok pursuant to the requirements and standards of this chapter. 21A.54.140: CONDITIONAL USE APPROVALS AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS: When a development is proposed as a planned development pursuant to the procedures in section 2-14.54 1-a9 21A.55 of this title chapter and also includes an application for conditional use approval, the Planning Commission shall decide the planned development application and the conditional use application together. In the event that a new conditional use is proposed after a planned development has been approved pursuant to section 21A.54.150 21A.55 of this title chapter, the proposed conditional use shall be reviewed and approved, approved with conditions, approved with modifications, or denied under the standards set forth in section 21A.54.080 of this chapter. (Ord. 26-95 § 2(27-14), 1995) 21A.54.150: DI ANNED DEVE1 OPMEN_TS_ 21A.54.155: ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED CONDITIONAL USES: The purpose of this section is to establish an administrative hearing process for certain categories of low impact conditional uses as authorized by subsection 21A.54.030B of this chapter. Conditional uses that are authorized to be reviewed administratively are: 1. Applications for low power wireless telecommunication facilities that are listed as conditional uses in subsection 21A.40.090E of this title. 2. Public/private utility buildings and structures in residential and nonresidential zoning districts that are listed as conditional uses. 3. Any conditional use as identified in the tables of permitted and conditional uses for each zoning district, except those that: a. Are located within a residential zoning district; b. Abut a residential zoning district or residential use; or c. Require planned development approval. A. Preapplication and Application Requirements: Administrative conditional use applications shall be subject to the standards found in section 21A.54.080 of this chapter. 1. Preapplication Conference: The applicant shall first meet with a member of the Salt shall meet with the respective community 3. Application: The applicant shall file an application and associated Amok �., After considering information received, the Planning Director or designee may choose to 18 schedule an administrative hearing or to forward the- application to the Planning Commission. B. Administrative Hearing: 1. Noticing and Posting Requirements: Notice of the proposed conditional use shall be conducted pursuant to subsection 21A.10.020B of this title. 2. Administrative Hearing: After consideration of the information received from the applicant and concerned residents, the Planning Director or designee may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the conditional use request. At the administrative hearing, the Planning Director or designee may decline to hear or decide the request and forward the application for Planning Commission consideration, if it is determined that there is neighborhood opposition, if the applicant has failed to adequately address the conditional use standards, or for any other reason at the discretion of the Planning Director or designee. The Planning Director or designee may grant the conditional use request only if the proposed development is consistent with the standards for conditional uses listed in section 21A.54.080 of this chapter and any specific standards listed in this title that regulate the particular use. considerin�rrng—the—eonditional use request may request a hearing before the Planning l use request. If no such objections are received by the administrative consideration will be deemed waived. The notice shall specify all reasons for the forwarded to the Salt Lake City Planning Commission for consideration and decision. by the Planning Director or designee at an administrative- hearing may appeal that I error or compliance with the standards for conditional uses 21A.54.156: APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION: Any person aggrieved by the decision made by the Planning Director or designee at an Iministrative hearing may appeal that decision to the Salt Lake City Planning Commission by riling notice of an appeal within ten (10) days after the date of the written administrative decision. The notice of appeal shall specify, in detail, the reason1s for the appeal. Reasons for 19 the appeal shall be based upon procedural error or compliance with the standards for conditional uses listed in section 21A.54.080 of this chapter or any specific standards listed in this title that regulate the particular use. (Ord. 69-06 § 7, 2006: Ord. 81-01 § 3, 2001) 21A.54.160: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION: Any party aggrieved by a decision of the Planning Commission on an application for a conditional use, ' , may file an appeal to the land use appeals board within ten (10) thirty (30) days of the date of the written decision. The filing of the appeal shall not stay the decision of the Planning Commission pending the outcome of the appeal, unless the Planning Commission takes specific action to stay a decision. (Ord. 77-03 § 9, 2003: Ord. 83-96 § 6, 1996: Ord. 26-95 § 2(27-16), 1995) 21 n 5 170 nPPEAI OF AND I SE ADDCAI S BOARD DE • I from a the date of the land use appeals board decision. (Ord. 83 96 § 7, 1996) 21A.54.170: APPEAL OF REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE: If the Planning Commission suspends or revokes any conditional use under section 21A.54.090, the holder of the use shall have a right to appeal the suspension or revocation decision to the Land Use Appeal Board. The holder must file the appeal with the Planning Director within ten (10) days of the record of decision that the City has revoked the Conditional Use. 20 2009 Zoning Text Amendment Project August 10, 2009 Task Force Meeting _Members Present Alene Bentley; Cindy Cromer; Sydney Fonnesbeck; Barbara Green; Jerry Green; Esther Hunter; Bruce Jensen; Jeremy King; Bill Nighswonger; Helen Peters; Vasilios Priskos; Dave Richards; Lon Richardson; Steven Rosenberg; Judi Short; Grace Sperry; Ray Whitchurch Staff Present Wilf Sommerkorn, Planning Director; Cheri Coffey, Planning Manager; Ray Milliner, Principal Planner; Mike Akerlow, Economic Development Division Discussion relating to proposed amendments to Conditional Use Regulations Administrative Conditional Uses • Don't need to go to community council but do require notice to abutting property owners Results of using criteria over the last year Concentration issues • Although the new use is mitigated, the uses that were approved before weren't mitigated so there is an impact when they are concentrated in an area. • What does mitigated mean? Does it mean that 75% of the impacts are mitigated? 100% of the impacts are mitigated? Clarify the criteria. An example would be to have a specific measurement of the noise that cannot be violated. That way it is easier to determine if it will really mitigate the impact and it can be enforced more easily. The below underlined text is clarification language by Esther Hunter relating to this issue. If possible the range of mitigations and the options of how these items can be mitigated be listed rather than just that something needs to be mitigated. Not sure this is possible but it would be extremely helpful. Frank did something similar to this idea for the definition of prisons. My feeling is that it is a benefit to get at as much on the table in advance as possible so that business 44104, owners know the cost to consider going into a property and residential owners feel a certain level of confidence that mitigation issues will be addressed. 22 It was suggested that staff take the last several controversial areas and by contacting the people involved in order to help identify a potential list of issues to define in advance of many of the problem treas. (Eggs in the City for example had standard issues such as parking but also hours of preparation/smell which could be addressed by the direction of the fans used, etc.) My feeling is the more listed ahead of the time the better off everyone will be in building in less conflict and better system of trust in the ordinance. Also suggested was that each departments criteria and process be identified and documented(that is used in their evaluation process in giving a green light such as transportation, etc.). Housing is a conditional use in commercial zones. Relook at the use tables and determine what should be permitted, conditional use or not allowed. Hard to work through issues (to mitigate impacts when applicant already did the work) Retroactive approval (boarding house issue). When department sign-off on project they should note what standards they are using. What do they base their criteria on? (Best professional practices or adopted regulations for City. ) The concentration of use is in a specific geographic area. Need to change ordinance and not allow the use if there are too many and they have a negative impact as a whole. Have to be able to say something specific relating to concentration such as the roads can't handle more traffic in the area. Need to ensure zoning implements the plan if the master plan calls for residential but not enough housing, then that is a problem. The zoning needs to be supported by the uses in the area. In some areas, you can't rely on the zone because the zoning doesn't match what's on the ground or in the plan. What is revocation process for a Conditional Use? • It is a very difficult process, hard to revoke. • Having it go to the mayor to initiate revocation is political. Put the authority in a less political agency such as the attorney's office. • Why not have the process be similar to other revocations? Where else in the City does there need to be a reliance on mayor to do something like this? Look at business license revocation process and possibly mimic it Not requiring a process for expansions of less than 1,000 square feet is not consistent with onconforming regulations. 23 Changing from one conditional use to a different type of conditional use needs public input process. The whole nature of business is changing. In some cases it may be ok to allow without process. In other cases it is not appropriate to not have a process. The underlying zoning can help provide density and intensity, but where allow incremental change of use, it intensifies the use without input. Impacts of smoking outdoors is an issue. Need to have indoor accommodations and separate ventilation. This would violate State Law. 24 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City & County Building 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Wednesday, October 14, 2009 Present for the Planning Commission meeting were Chair Mary Woodhead Vice Chair Susie McHugh; Commissioners Michael Gallegos, Michael Fife, Frank Algarin, Tim Chambless, Babs De Lay, Kathleen Hill, and Matthew Wirthlin. Commissioners Prescott Muir and Angela Dean were excused. A field trip was held prior to the meeting. Planning Commissioners present were: Tim Chambless, Michael Gallegos, Matthew Wirthlin, Michael Fife, and Frank Algarin. Staff members present were: Wayne Mills, Ray Milliner, and Katia Pace A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chair Woodhead called the meeting to order at 5:44 p.m. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained in the Planning Office for an indefinite period of time. Planning staff members present at the meeting were: Cheri Coffey, Programs Manager; Paul Nielson, City Attorney; Ray Milliner, Principal Planner, Katia Pace, Associate Planner, Wayne Mills, Senior Planner and Tami Hansen, Senior Secretary. 7:42:01 PM PLNPCM2009-00174; Conditional Use Chapter Amendments— a request by Mayor Ralph Becker for zoning text amendment approval to modify Chapter 21A.54, Conditional Uses, of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of the amendments is to bring the chapter into compliance with state code, to clarify the intent of certain sections, and to revise the standards and factors necessary for conditional use approval. The proposed text amendments are city-wide. Chair Woodhead recognized Ray Milliner as staff representative. Chair Woodhead inquired about the detrimental concentration issue on page 4. She stated sometimes a particular use did not necessarily change the fabric of a neighborhood, unless there were too many of that same use. She stated that if one of those uses was declared non-permitted, would that make the rest of the uses in the neighborhood non-conforming. Mr. Milliner stated if there was a proliferation of one use in the area than it would need some type of review to figure out why there would be such a high demand of that use in the area, and recommendations would be made on that finding. The impacts of the use to the area could also be reviewed, maybe it was creating too much traffic or there was a compatibility issue. Chair Woodhead stated she understood the analytical problem, but it was clear that there might be a point where a lot of one kind of use changes the neighborhood, maybe in a detrimental way, so if that control is taken away then the City was not really recognizing that problem. Mr. Sommerkorn stated he wondered how many times that really happened. Commissioner De Lay stated a very specific example would be medical uses in a neighborhood, say there oak were already four and a fifth wanted to come in. 26 Chair Woodhead stated in that case a fifth might destroy the residential fabric of an area and people might not want to live there. Commissioner De Lay stated she agreed with the changes Mr. Milliner had made; she inquired what the ZAP taskforce discussion was regarding this matter. Mr. Milliner stated there was not a lot of negative feedback regarding this. He stated most of the anxiety was about who would initiate a revocation application. Commissioner Wirthlin stated this new language was well written and would help the Planning Commission immensely when dealing with conditional uses. Commissioner Gallegos stated this language states community councils would be notified of public hearings in the future, and inquired the requirement was regarding that. Mr. Sommerkorn stated there was some confusion that had developed between the community council representatives and what was actually being proposed. He stated under the procedures for conditional uses, under application, it listed all of the things required to be submitted with the application, including a signed statement that the applicant had met with and explained the proposed conditional use to the appropriate neighborhood organization. He stated staff was striking that out of the new language because it seemed to imply that signed statement had to be part of the application, which meant the applicant would have to go to the community council first, and the City would not have any idea this was being proposed until after that process. He stated there was another section in the City code, which required all applicants to take changes to zoning -nd zoning ordinances and conditional use applications to the appropriate community council so this quirement exists already, but in a less confusing manner via the City code. Commissioner Algarin stated the Commission was asking for this for a while and this language was a great response to that request. 8:01:13 PM Public Hearing Chair Woodhead opened the public hearing portion of the petition. The following people spoke or submitted cards in opposition to this petition: Judy Short (Sugar House Community Council, Land Use Chair) stated she was concerned regarding the way community councils seem to be eliminated from the zoning code, which meant most of the petitioners would not tell us about their plans. She stated that detrimental concentration was a vague concept, but if you lived in a neighborhood where this was a factor you see that problem with it all the time. She stated to eliminate because it was difficult to measure was not a good solution. The zoning table should be correct to start with and the option of going back and continually changing it should not be relied on. Chair Woodhead closed the public hearing. 27 5.D. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 14, 2009 AND NOVEMBER ••�. 18, 2009 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City & County Building 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Wednesday, October 14, 2009 Present for the Planning Commission meeting were Chair Mary Woodhead Vice Chair Susie McHugh; Commissioners Michael Gallegos, Michael Fife, Frank Algarin, Tim Chambless, Babs De Lay, Kathleen Hill, and Matthew Wirthlin. Commissioners Prescott Muir and Angela Dean were excused. A field trip was held prior to the meeting. Planning Commissioners present were: Tim Chambless, Michael Gallegos, Matthew Wirthlin, Michael Fife, and Frank Algarin. Staff members present were: Wayne Mills, Ray Milliner, and Katia Pace A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chair Woodhead called the meeting to order at 5:44 p.m. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained in the Planning Office for an indefinite period of time. Planning staff members present at the meeting were: Cheri Coffey, Programs Manager; Paul Nielson, City Attorney; Ray Milliner, Principal Planner, Katia Pace, Associate Planner, Wayne Mills, Senior Planner and Tami Hansen, Senior Secretary. V 't session Mary De La Mare-Schaeffer, CED Deputy Director, gave a briefing on the civic campus. 5:45:39 PM Approval of Minutes from Wednesday September 9, 2009 Commissioner McHugh made a motion to approve the September 9, 2009 minutes as written. Commissioner Gallegos seconded the motion. All in favor voted, "Aye". The minutes were approved. 5:46:21 PM Approval of the minutes from Wednesday September 23, 2009 Chair Woodhead stated regarding the Deseret Industries matter, the applicant made major modifications to their plan, which now complied with all of the conditions the Commission stated; however, the new building was slightly bigger. She stated that condition 12 stated that final approval was delegated to the Planning Director, and because of this the Commission did not need to completely rehear this issue, given that the applicant complied with all of the other conditions. Mr. Sommerkorn inquired if the Commission was flexible regarding the size of the building as long as the applicant met the other conditions that were imposed. Commissioner Hill stated the intent of the motion was to best serve the surrounding community. /'/[!/Ull//,; ( /lllllli"� (h /oh, r i 1, ,20(1() 7:42:01 PM PLNPCM2009-00174; Conditional Use Chapter Amendments— a request by Mayor Ralph Becker ,_ for zoning text amendment approval to modify Chapter 21A.54, Conditional Uses, of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of the amendments is to bring the chapter into compliance with state code, to clarify the intent of certain sections, and to revise the standards and factors necessary for conditional use approval. The proposed text amendments are city-wide. Chair Woodhead recognized Ray Milliner as staff representative. Chair Woodhead inquired about the detrimental concentration issue on page 4. She stated sometimes a particular use did not necessarily change the fabric of a neighborhood, unless there were too many of that same use. She stated that- if one of those uses was declared non-permitted, would that make the rest of the uses in the neighborhood non- conforming. Mr. Milliner stated if there was a proliferation of one use in the area than it would need some type of review to figure out why there would be such a high demand of that use in the area, and recommendations would be made on that finding. The impacts of the use to the area could also be reviewed, maybe it was creating too much traffic or there was a compatibility issue. Chair Woodhead stated she understood the analytical problem, but it was clear that there might be a point where a lot of one kind of use changes the neighborhood, maybe in a detrimental way, so if that control is taken away then the City was not really recognizing that problem. Mr. Sommerkorn stated he wondered how many times that really happened. Commissioner De Lay stated a very specific example would be medical uses in a neighborhood, say there were already four and a fifth wanted to come in. Chair Woodhead stated in that case a fifth might destroy the residential fabric of an area and people might not want to live there. Commissioner De Lay stated she agreed with the changes Mr. Milliner had made; she inquired what the ZAP taskforce discussion was regarding this matter. Mr. Milliner stated there was not a lot of negative feedback regarding this. He stated most of the anxiety was about who would initiate a revocation application. Commissioner Wirthlin stated this new language was well written and would help the Planning Commission immensely when dealing with conditional uses. Commissioner Gallegos stated this language states community councils would be notified of public hearings in the future, and inquired the requirement was regarding that. Mr. Sommerkorn stated there was some confusion that had developed between the community council representatives and what was actually being proposed. He stated under the procedures for conditional uses, under application, it listed all of the things required to be submitted with the application, including a signed statement that the applicant had met with and explained the proposed conditional use to the appropriate neighborhood organization. He stated staff was striking that out of the new language because it seemed to imply that signed statement had to be part of the application, which meant the applicant would have to go to the community council first, and the City would not have i any idea this was being proposed until after that process. XMA [7] P/ /H,7U7;j c U177/77/s1/u/i 'OHR I cated there was another section in the City code, which required all applicants to take changes to zoning and zoning ordinances and conditional use applications to the appropriate community council—so this requirement exists already, but in a less confusing manner via the City code. Commissioner Algarin stated the Commission was asking for this for a while and this language was a great response to that request. 8:01:13 PM Public Hearing Chair Woodhead opened the public hearing portion of the petition. The following people spoke or submitted cards in opposition to this petition: Judy Short (Sugar House Community Council, Land Use Chair) stated she was concerned regarding the way community councils seem to be eliminated from the zoning code, which meant most of the petitioners would not tell us about their plans. She stated that detrimental concentration was a vague concept, but if you lived in a neighborhood where this was a factor you see that problem with it all the time. She stated to eliminate because it was difficult to measure was not a good solution. The zoning table should be correct to start with and the option of going back and continually changing it should not be relied on. Chair Woodhead closed the public hearing. I is He.rings 8:03:17 PM P . NPCM2009-00784; Dick N' Dixie's Private Club—a request by Jason Rasmussen for a conditional use approval to •.erate a private club at approximately 479 East 300 South (currently "Andy's Place"). The subject property is locate. ' the R-MU (Residential Mixed Use) zoning district in City Council District 4, represented by Luke Garrott. Chair Woodhead recogniz- Katia Pace as staff representative. 8:24:01 PM Public Hearing: Chair Woodhead opened the public -aring, she noted there was no one present to speak to the petition, she closed the public hearing. 8:25:30 PM Motion: Commissioner De Lay made a motion regal- g Petition PLNPCM2009-00784, based on the findings listed in the staff report and testimony heard, the Plan .ing Commission approves the petition as proposed with the following conditions: 1. The Planning Commission delegates the final . thority for the site plan, signage review, and security and operations plan according to the conditional u •. [8] SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City & County Building 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Wednesday, November 18, 2009 'resent for the Planning Commission meeting were Chair Babs De Lay and Vice Chair Frank Algarin and :ommissioners Tim Chambless, Angela Dean, Michael Fife, Michael Gallegos, Prescott Muir, and Mary Woodhead. commissioners Susie McHugh, Matthew Wirthlin, and Kathleen Hill were excused. field trip was held prior to the meeting. Planning Commissioners present were: Frank Algarin, Tim Chambless, vlichael Fife, Michael Gallegos, and Mary Woodhead. Staff members present were: Cheri Coffey, Ray Milliner, and lick Norris. roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:46 >.m. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained in the Planning Office for an indefinite )eriod of time. Planning staff members present at the meeting were: Wilford Sommerkorn, Planning Director, Cheri i7offey, Programs Manager; Ray Milliner, Principal Planner; Paul Nielson, City Attorney; and Tami Hansen, Senior secretary. Nork session [he Planning Commission heard presentations regarding the North Temple Master Plan and the Downtown Streetcar 'roject 5:47:l 1 PM Approval of the minutes from Wednesday, October 28, 2009 commissioner Woodhead made a motion to approve the October 28, 2009 minutes with noted changes. 7ommissioner Fife seconded the motion. All in favor voted, "Aye". The minutes were approved. 5:48:16 PM Report of the Chair and Vice Chair hair De Lay stated neither she nor Vice Chair Algarin had anything to report. .:48:18 PM Report of the Director Mr. Sommerkorn stated the City Council was moving forward on some of the petitions staff had been working on for :he past year. He stated on November 17, the City Council approved the amendment to the mixed-use zone, to allow For private/social clubs with a minor modification that a security and operations plan was required to be submitted along with a parking management plan. Mr. Sommerkorn noted on December 7, from 4:00-6:00 p.m. an open house would be held regarding the streetcar planning effort. He noted on December 8 & 9 a workshop would also be held which Planning Commission members were invited to attend. /' 11,'70!1,'\ \lit 2()(I`) Mr. '')mmerkorn stated some type of requirement could be added in to maintain these boxes, but generally Qwest anc. IP were trying to take care of issues that arise. Commissioner Chambless stated he would like to see everyone involved be more proactive rather than reactive, so this type of vandalism could be stopped all together, or at lease lessoned because it was an irritant for everyone. Commissioner Woodhead stated when these utility boxes were graffitied the utility companies were victims of that crime as well, so whatever efforts they could do to clean it up was appreciated and they should not be penalized. 8:17:36 PM Motion Commissioner Woodhead made a motion regarding Petition PLNPCM2009-00902, Amendments to Chapter 21A.40.160; utility box regulations, the Planning Commission forwards a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposed modifications to the relevant chapter,with the correction on page 10 of the staff report under Conditional Use it reads, Conditional use review is required for all ground mounted utility boxes mot specifically addressed in sections C of this chapter, it should be changed to section D of this chapter. This motion is based on the public hearings, and the information in the staff report. Commissioner Chambless seconded the motion. Discussion of the Motion Commissioner Dean inquired if Commissioner Woodhead would consider an amendment to the motion that all utility boa ave clearly labeled hotlines to call for problems and a no idling sticker. Commissioner Woodhead accepted the amendment. Commissioners Fife, Gallegos, Dean, Chambless, Woodhead, and Algarin voted, "Aye". The motion passed unanimously. 8:20:01 PM PLNPCM2009-00174; Conditional Use Chapter Amendments—a request by Mayor Ralph Becker for zoning text amendment approval to modify Chapter 21A.54, Conditional Uses, of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of the amendments is to bring the chapter into compliance with state code, to clarify the intent of certain sections, and to revise the standards and factors necessary for conditional use approval. The proposed text amendments are city-wide. Chair De Lay recognized Ray Milliner as staff representative. Commissioner Muir rejoined the meeting. 8:22:21 PM Public Hearing The following people spoke or submitted cards in opposition to the petition: Cindy Cromer stated conditional uses under LUDNA were not going to work, it was an entitlement for conditional uses and once you get to that point you effe- eople's motivations to be a good neighbor. She stated once a conditional use was approved it was very to amend or revoke that decision. She stated the direction the Planning Commission had taken with the 13 �7h1Ill(ll;t'( A'(0..'nth,/ /.�, .'f)O )fanned unit developments and moving them outside of the conditional use chapter was outstanding. She stated,, ;moking was an issue at times in areas where neighbors were affected by their patrons cigarette smoke and she woulc ,x ike to see a requirement placed on a project to have a separate HVAC. hair De Lay inquired where that requirement would be placed. vls. Cromer stated under factor 11, cigarette smoking needed to be considered as an environmental impact under air ind water. If language specifically mentioning the anticipated impacts of smoking in particular were included, that mould be helpful. vls. Cromer stated staff had recommended the removal of the concentration criteria, but there was a collective mpact. She stated one way to go about this would be to require mitigation through the new proposed accessory swelling unit ordinance, which would help mitigate the loss of housing. commissioner Fife stated the Commission should come up with the factors to consider and not necessarily a way to solve issues because it was going to be different in every case. He stated including language anticipating the effects )f cigarette smoking would be appropriate, but the Commission should not be too specific. commissioner Chambless agreed because this was a public health issue. Vlr. Sommerkorn stated that was a good issue to look at, staff had also been involved in reviewing the alcohol formalization that was going on, where the issue of smoking had come up there. He stated the Mayor's office had also discussed dealing comprehensively with smoking in public areas in the City. He stated for the purpose of this )etition tonight, raising the issue as something that needed to be reviewed in the future was a good idea. hair De Lay stated it would not be a big deal to add a mention of this to factor 11: Environmental Impact. VIs. Cromer stated she was disappointed the modifications up to 1,000 square feet could be handled without any )ublic process or notice. She stated 1,000 square feet could actually amount to doubling the footprint of some of the ;mailer historic buildings. She suggested there should be notice to surrounding property owners and if there were any )bjections there should be a hearing. Expansion exceeding 25 percent of the square footage of the existing facility should also trigger some kind of public hearing. Judi Short (862 Harrison Avenue) stated she wanted to defend the ZAP taskforce and say it was working. She stated :here were comments regarding the concentration issues, and people were making comments about them, but nowhere did it say that the ZAP taskforce agreed to take out that language in the new ordinance. She stated notes were taken at the ZAP meeting, and staff wrote the ordinance afterward and now it was before the Commission, she stated staff made it seem like the taskforce had seen this and approved it, but that never happened it was only discussed in general. - Mr. Sommerkorn clarified the ZAP taskforce was not an approving body, it was an input body. He stated so while certain topics might have been discussed at those meetings that was not necessarily the way they were coming forward to the Commission because the taskforce was only one means of input. He stated what the Commission sees in draft form may not reflect all of the different comments from ZAP. 14 Ms. ',oil stated she was still disappointed after this process there were still a lot conditional use approvals, she wot eally like to see some of those go away. She stated staff probably had a good inventory of parcels in the City that were conditional uses. Ms. Coffey stated several years ago there was an attempt to look at that, but there was really not a system to find out what uses had gone away, what had come back into use etc. She stated it would be difficult to categorize the entire City. Chair De Lay closed the public hearing. Chair De Lay inquired of Mr. Milliner to give his rationale on why the concentration criteria was left out. Mr. Milliner stated the rationale was on page 4 of the staff report, when the conditional use table was adopted it stated that certain uses were compatible with certain zones, if a use was not compatible because for instance there were too many of the uses in one area then it was not a conditional use factor issue, it was a zoning master plan issue. He stated currently there was not a good set of criteria to determine what actually constitutes detrimental impact. For example up by Immigration Market there was a significant impact from the parking in the neighborhood for the homes that were closest to the market. However, if you talked to the neighbors in general most of them like having the market close by, so there was no criteria that would allow planning staff to determine a good or bad use for the neighborhood, a separate process would need to be created. Mr. Sommerkorn stated under the state code with the change to the conditional use factors a couple of years ago, if a ion nal use was listed in the ordinance there was a presumption that it was valid and could be located in that zone, only some impacts needed to be mitigated. He inquired how a limit could be put on types of uses if the uses were allowed in a zone, it would be really tough to come up with the criteria for this. Mr. Milliner stated if he was to review a conditional use and this was one of the criteria, how would a detrimental impact be determined. He stated there was not a list of factors to determine it. Commissioner Muir stated this was already done with group homes for instance; there was some sort of assessment that stated there could only be so many of these uses within a block, so there were ways to measure this. Mr. Sommerkorn stated look at this on the flip side and look at permitted uses, to many of a certain kind of a permitted use may also be detrimental, but there was no way to put a restraint on that type of competition. Commissioner Woodhead inquired if there was a way to tie this to the master plan, for instance detrimental concentration of uses which resulted in the neighborhood having a character that was inconsistent with the requirements of the master plan. - Mr. Milliner stated the second factor: Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance Compliance would cover that issue by allowing staff to review the compatibility of the master plan. Chair De Lay inquired how Mr. Milliner felt about Ms. Cromer's suggestion regarding the modifications up to 1,000 square feet. Mr. ,._ -liner stated he did not have a problem with that. 15 l'lunirni' ('uuintiti.e1QIl .11iiitilC.1 .A ur L rnlhCr l�1 2UO() Commissioner Fife suggested combining the ideas and saying either the lesser of 1,000 square feet or twenty-fives (25)percent of the existing gross square feet would need to be noticed. The Commission agreed to this change. Commissioner Woodhead stated factor 11: Environmental impact should include some language to look for some compliance with the City's sustainability ordinances, if there was a way to broadly tie it to those goals, rather than just saying does it affect air and water etc., which seemed like a slim perspective when the City had bigger sustainability goals. - Ms. Coffey stated at this point the sustainability goals had not been adopted; the City was looking at doing a plan. She inquired if the environmental aspect would also include the cigarette smoke issue. 8:46:22 PM Motion Commissioner Fife made a motion regarding Petition PLNPCM2009-00174; Amendments to Chapter 21A.54: Conditional Use, based on the staff report and public hearing, the Planning Commission forwards a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve these amendments with the following changes: Factors to consider number 11: Environmental impact should read, whether the use meets any existing City sustainability goals or plans, or significantly impacts the quality of the surrounding air and water, encroaches into a river or stream, or introduces any hazards or environmental damage to any adjacent property including any significant anticipated impacts of cigarette smoking. And 21A.54.135: Alterations or Modifications to a Conditional Use on page 17 of the staff report should be changed to read, Any modifications or legally non-conforming land use listed as a conditional use under current zoning regulations is first required to obtain conditional use approva 4 .µ subject to the provisions of this chapter if the floor area increases by the lesser of 1,000 gross square feet or a twenty-five (25)percent increase in the existing gross square feet or the parking requirement increases. Commissioner Algarin seconded the motion. Discussion of the Motion Commissioner Woodhead stated she was interested about how Commissioners felt about the concentration issue; she stated she was conflicted about it. If it was said the response to that is to change it to a prohibited use, than that would require a fairly long process to go through and maybe that would solve the problem. Commissioner Muir inquired what the implications would be if the zone was changed and created all these non- conforming uses, because essentially that was what was happening. Mr. Milliner stated when a zone was changed and non-conforming uses were created, that was like saying we no longer want this use here, so eventually this change would make it go away. Commissioner Dean stated the Commission had talked about wanting to mix a residential element in, so if those zones were changed to a mixed-use with the same baseline zone, it would prevent zones from changing back and forth, or maybe just having some type of living unit associated with the zone would help that type of mixed-use presence. 16 I'luinriu ('un mo,iuu/ lfu�� .A urn nrh�r l�', 'UIIV Cr� De Lay stated currently it was impossible to get a loan on something like that because the City did not allow a rc nce in a building that had more than 25 percent businesses in it. She stated this would be a great idea in the future for more mixed-use areas, but right now it was not practical. Commissioner Fife inquired about the spacing element that seemed to work for some uses. Mr. Milliner stated that would be separate from the conditional use as well, it would be adopted in the ordinance. Chair De Lay inquired if it was really appropriate to figure this issue out at this hearing or would it be a completely separate issue the Commission should address in the future given this was a problem in the City. Mr. Sommerkorn stated the way this was written in the ordinance now was a problem, it was hard to administer. He stated there were also some potential legal issues with it, but this might be a valid issue to look at and deal with in a different way. Commissioner Woodhead stated the idea of putting this in the master plan made a lot of sense. Ms. Coffey stated next year the ZAP taskforce would be going through the use tables and reviewing the definitions of all the uses, and then figuring out what zones those uses should be allowed in, both permitted and conditional. She stated maybe at that time the Planning Commission could figure out what uses were appropriate in what area, as well as deciding on spacing issues. Commissioners Gallegos, Fife, Dean, Muir, Chambless, Woodhead, and Algarin voted, "Aye". The motion pa unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:53 p.m. This document, along with the digital recording, constitute the official minutes of the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held on November 18,2009. Tami Hansen 17 Salt Lake City Planning Division Notice of an Open House The intent of the Open House is to obtain public comments and input prior to any public hearings for the items listed below. As the open house is not a public hearing, items are presented in an open forum style, rather than in any given order. Booths will be set up for you to review materials and talk with planners and applicants of each petition. Since it is very difficult for us to inform all interested parties about these items, we would appreciate you discussing this matter with your neighbors and informing them of the meeting. Wednesday, June 17, 2009 4:30 — 6:00 p.m. City & County Building, 451 South State Street First Floor Room 126 PLNPCM2009-00174; Conditional Use Chapter Amendments—a request by Mayor Ralph Becker for zoning text amendment approval to modify Chapter 21A.54, Conditional Uses, of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of the amendments is to bring the chapter into compliance with state code,to clarify the intent of certain sections, and to revise the standards and factors necessary for conditional use approval. The proposed text amendments are city-wide (Staff contact: Ray Milliner at 801.535.7645 or ray.mil liner@slcgov.com People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this meeting. Accommodations may include: alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. This is an accessible facility. For questions, requests, or additional information, please contact the Planning Division at 535-7757; TDD 535-6220. Milliner, Ray Fr'm: cindy cromer[3cinslc@live.com] Thursday, November 19, 2009 8:23 AM 1. . helen peters; grace sperry; loggins merrill; leanne mcquade; Esther Hunter; lori gutierrez; melinda main; dave richards; Central City CC Chair; Capitol Hill CC Chair; Greater Avenues CC Chair; Bonneville Hills CC Chair; barbara green Cc: Judi Short; Milliner, Ray Subject: conditional use amendments Attachments: PCConditionalUse111809.rtf all-Judi Short and I attended the PC meeting last night. Thanks to her I got more time to explain that attached suggestions. And probably thanks to her, the PC members actually considered the suggestions. They agreed to -specific language about the adverse impacts of cigarette smoking and -a hybrid threshhold for expansions (the lessor of 25% of sq. footage OR 1000 sq. ft.). We lost the "concentration" criterion that was added in 2008 as a result of complaints from neighborhoods in ECCC that there were too many condtional uses concentrated on one area. The staff insists that it is too difficult to evaluate and defend from a legal standpoint. PC members did discuss this at some length and Mary Woodhead especially expressed her concern. The members agreed that the criterion for compliance with the master plan would have to be used to address concentration. The amendments are now headed for the City Council. My recommendations are to -insist that nearby property owners be notified regarding ANY expansion of a conditonal use (At this point, the Planning Director can handle ones below the threshhold administratively without any notice.) -ask the City Council to strengthen the language in the criterion regarding compliance with the Master Plan to better address the overabundance of conditional uses in an area. Thanks to Judi and of course Ray Milliner in Planning. c Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. 1 Comments to the Planning Commission 4014,, Re conditional use ordinance From Cindy Cromer 11/18/09 Based on personal experience with a conditional use right next to one of my properties, I have come to the conclusion that conditional uses under LUDMA are not going to work. LUDMA is an entitlement for conditional uses, and once you get into entitlements you affect people's motivation to be a good neighbor. You cannot create conditions that insure someone will be a good neighbor. Furthermore, I can't tell you what mitigating conditions you would need to impose until it is too late to impose them. My recent experience with a large group home next door has taught me that. I think the direction you are taking with Planned Unit Developments is excellent. Removing them from the conditional use process altogether is brilliant. Call them something else and LUDMA won't apply. Meanwhile, we seem to be clinging to the philosophy of conditional uses. Instead I think we should have allowed uses and uses that are covered somewhere else in the ordinance, outside of the conditional use chapter. Comments on particular aspects of the proposal 1. Factors to Consider The unanticipated consequence in my recent experience is the huge number of smokers associated with the group home. I would urge you to specifically mention cigarette smoking as an environmental impact. Where there are many smokers and the schedule encourages them to smoke at the same time, the result is a toxic cloud that drifts over adjacent property. The mitigation would be to have an indoor smoking area with a separate HVAC. 2. Factors to Consider I am disappointed that the staff is recommending the removal of the "concentration"criteria. While it is admittedly difficult to administer, the clustering of conditional Ask uses such a addiction treatment programs and lawyers' offices cannot be mitigated by addressing the impacts of each one. At some point, the area is not longer consistent with the purpose statement of a residential zone. As residents have said to the Commission many times, "no one is home." The staff may not be able to determine the threshhold for when a detrimental concentration occurs, but people trying to live there can. Regarding the argument that policy makers could make changes if too great a concentration occurs: Yes, they could, but the conditional uses already approved would continue indefinitely. And policy makers do not act until "the horse is out of the barn." 3. Alterations or Modifications Again, I am disappointed that modifications up to 1000 sq. ft. could occur administratively WITHOUT ANY PUBLIC NOTICE OR PUBLIC PROCESS. There is NO indication that impacts will be the same following such an unpublicized expansion. Certainly, the people in the surrounding neighborhood, not the Planning Director, are the most qualified to comment on what the impacts of an expanded facility might be. In the older parts of the City, many buildings are relatively small and a 1000 sq. ft. expansion might easily represent a doubling of the square footage. No expansion should occur without notice to the surrounding property owners. The notification radius should be a minimum of 330 linear feet because of landbanking. It would make more sense to set the threshhold for a public hearing as 1) objection from one or more of the surrounding property owners or 2) a request for an expansion exceeding 25% of the existing facility. ALL EXPANSIONS SHOULD BE REQUIRE NOTIFICATION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS. M. .4 memorandum to c.!) `G.ilqui tip`:=t�7c '777 --- I T F l e Community&Economic Development Office of the Director To: File From: Cheri Coffey, Planning Manager Date: August 6, 2009 Re: PLNPCM2009-00174. 2009 ZAP Project- Revisions to the Conditional Use Chapter regulations This project is part of the overall 2009 Zoning Amendment Project (ZAP). The project specifically relates to modifications Chapter 21A.54 relating to Conditional Uses. Scope of the Project generally includes Refine the general conditional use approval standards /criteria. Applicability of Conditional use approvals. Determine whether or not an approval of a conditional use should be linked to the person applying or to the property on which it will be located (i.e. 'Run with the land") Response: State Law does not specifically state that a conditional use approval runs with the land. However, it is usually assumed that this is the case. Whether it should be tied to the applicant or the land is a policy decision. If the decision makers decide that a conditional use approval should be tied to the applicant, the text of the ordinance should be specific to that effect and should also be specific as to what triggers the expiration of the conditional use approval. Most jurisdictions in Utah have the conditional use approval tied to the land. The benefits of having the approval tied to the applicant is that it ensures that any new property owner will be notified of the conditions of the approval and it will give the City the opportunity to review the proposed operation of the use by the new owner to mitigate any potential impacts. 1 The drawbacks of having the approval tied to the applicant is that it makes it more difficult for a business owner (if that is the use) sell his/ her business to a new owner and creates more conditional use applications which require more staff resources when there may be no issues. A compromise may be to create an administrative review process to determine whether the new use really is the same as the approved conditional use. This would allow the City the opportunity to review the application, notify the new property owner of the conditions of approval yet not require a long public hearing process that could delay the approval. PC Direction: The Planning Commission was concerned mostly with this issue. They were concerned that if the conditional use was attached to the applicant rather than the land it would have an impact in investment (especially where new construction was concerned) and reinvestment. They noted that a conditional use that is attached to an applicant would decrease the property value of the use and affect how much a property was worth if it were sold when the existing use was not guaranteed for the next owner. They requested staff further study this issue. They stated that a list of conditional uses that run with the land and a list of conditional uses that have to be reapplied for when the owner changes, may be one way to address the issue. .01061* Converting conditional use to a similar use. Should conditional uses be able to be changed from one specific use to another? Response: Staff does not recommend that this should occur. It is difficult to assume that impacts from a different type of use were anticipated with the original conditional use approval. Staff recommends that any change of use of a conditional use should go through a review process for approval. If a modified conditional use process were created to handle these types of issues (change of owner and change of use) it may help streamline the process for the applicant yet provide a review mechanism to ensure impacts are mitigated. Cumulative Impact. Determine how the accumulation of conditional uses in residential and neighborhood commercial zones should be handled. For example, consider limiting certain types of uses to a specific number of establishments within a specific area. Should a restaurant be allowed on each of the four corners at an intersection in a neighborhood commercial zone. Response: The Cumulative Adverse Impact has been a standard for Conditional Uses in the Zoning Ordinance prior to the adoption of the New Ordinance in 1995. It is a problematic standard. Traditionally, conditional uses have been viewed as • Page 2 similar to permitted uses (i.e. appropriate in the zone) but something about the use is problematic. Conditions then are imposed to address the problem. In practice, each conditional use is analyzed on its own merits, and where warranted, conditions are placed on the approvals to ensure adverse impacts are mitigated. Therefore, in theory, there should not be a cumulative adverse impact from conditional uses. For example, if each request is reviewed based on its merits, would the City look at denying a conditional use for a Place of Worship, a conditional use in residential zones, simply on the basis that there were already several Places of Worship in the vicinity? Furthermore, the review of similar conditional uses and non-conforming uses within the mile radius that staff has been conducting since January 2008, have shown that this does not occur very often. In addition, since legal non-conforming uses have specific protected property rights and are not conditional uses, it is problematic to include the location of these in the analysis of whether a conditional use should be allowed in a specific area. Staff is of the opinion that the cumulative adverse impact standard should be eliminated. Staff reviewed the conditional use standards of many of the larger cities in Utah and has found that they do not include the cumulative adverse impact. In addition, most rely on the General Health, Safety and Welfare standard as their main standard in reviewing conditional use requests and include what categories the conditions of approval should focus on (i.e. traffic, noise, odors, etc). The Planning Staff is of the opinion that the conditional use standards should be modified to include this approach. Staff is of the opinion that the types of impacts that are generally associated with a specific type of conditional use should be identified and standards that focus on mitigating those specific issues should be included in the ordinance for those uses. An example may be to ensure that drive through windows are only allowed, where they access an arterial street or restaurants are only allowed where they are on a minimum size of lot, etc. Where a certain type of conditional use may encourage a large share of vehicular traffic (such as a drive-through window), it may be appropriate to not allow the use, even as a conditional use, in a specific zoning district (an example would be to eliminate drive-through windows as a conditional or permitted use in the mixed use and lower intensive commercial zoning districts.) Spacing requirements may be used for conditional uses, but that would more likely discourage small business, encourage rezoning requests and dilute the non- residential nodes by spreading out the uses and services, which in turn decreases the walkable nature of neighborhoods the City is trying to encourage. Lastly, the continuation of non-conforming uses and the ability to obtain approval for conditional uses may help implement sustainability goals through the reuse of existing structures, in residential areas. • Page 3 Remarks: Petition No: PLNPCM2009-00174 By: Salt Lake City Planning Division Amendment to Zoning Ordinance — Conditional Use Chapter Regulations Date Filed: 08/06/2009 Address: Citywide MEMORANDUM DATE: November 30, 2011 TO: City Council FROM: Neil Lindberg RE: Proposed Voluntary Donations Ordinance CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson,Jennifer Bruno,David Everitt,Ed Rutan,Gordon Hoskins This memorandum pertains to a proposed ordinance establishing guidelines and policy for acceptance of donations to the City. A draft ordinance is attached for review. KEY POINTS • The ordinance would apply to any donation made to the City, except government grants or donations associated with sponsorships or naming rights. • The ordinance expressly authorizes donations for park amenities,public art and public improvements, including volunteer work. • It also establishes donation evaluation guidelines. OPTIONS • Ask the Administration to comment on the ordinance by a time certain. • Direct Council staff to amend the ordinance as may be discussed in the Work Session. • Hold a public hearing or establish a public comment period on the ordinance before making changes. POTENTIAL MOTIONS Motions will be prepared after the Work Session. ISSUES/QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION • Does the City need a formal donation policy? • Does existing policy or procedure discourage donations? If so, what needs to be changed? • Does the Council wish to request that the Administration establish a central contact point for individuals interested in donating to improve coordination and minimize confusion? • Does the Council wish to state that donations accepted need to be in keeping with City policy and that any future maintenance expense needs to be recognized in writing by the Administration prior to accepting a donation?For example, should a proposed donation for a traffic control device be declined if not otherwise warranted at a specific location? • Do volunteer workers need to be covered by insurance or can they waive liability? 1 • How does donation policy relate to policies regarding sponsorships and naming rights? Can these policies be effectively governed by separate ordinances or other means? • Is a donation agreement essential to memorialize each donation? Can an agreement be reduced to a simple form in all but the most complex cases? • Should unused donation funds be returned to the donor?Or should they be used for purposes similar to the donation or for another City purpose? BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Occasionally citizens have asked whether it is possible to make private donations for the purpose of improving public property such as a park or street landscaping. The purpose of the proposed donation ordinance is to clarify that the City supports donations,particularly by private individuals,that provide public amenities and improvements. Donations can vary widely. Hence the ordinance only provides a general framework for considering whether the City should accept a proposed donation. It is anticipated that details of a particular donation can be memorialized in a donation agreement. This will reduce, if not eliminate, confusion between the City and a donor about the scope of a donation and the responsibilities of the parties. 2 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2011 (Establishing City policy regarding voluntary donations to the City) AN ORDINANCE ENACTING CHAPTER 3.60,SALT LAKE CITY CODE, TO ESTABLISH CITY POLICY AND GUIDELINES FOR ACCEPTANCE OF VOLUNTARY DONATIONS. WHEREAS, it is proposed that Chapter 3.60,Salt Lake City Code, be enacted to establish City policy and guidelines for acceptance of voluntary donations; and WHEREAS, the intent of the ordinance is to establish a review process that considers the intentions of donors, the needs and desires of the community, and City benefits and costs associated with proposed donations, including long-term costs of maintenance and care of donated property; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds adoption of this ordinance reasonably furthers the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Salt Lake City. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Chapter 3.60,Salt Lake City Code, shall be, and hereby is, enacted to read as follows: Chapter 3.60 VOLUNTARY DONATIONS TO THE CITY 3.60.010: PURPOSE: The purpose of this chapter is to establish policy and guidelines for acceptance of voluntary donations to the City. Its provisions are intended to establish a review process that considers the intentions of the donor, the needs and desires of the community, and City benefits and costs associated with proposed donations, including long-term costs of maintenance and care of donated property. 3.60.020: SCOPE: A. Except as provided in Subsection B of this section,the provisions of this chapter shall apply to any donation made, or proposed to be made, to the City. B. This chapter does not apply to: 1. Receipt of any donation, including grants, from a government agency, and 2. Any sponsorship, naming right or other similar arrangement concerning City- owned property. 3.60.030: DEFINITIONS: For the purposes of this chapter the following terms,phrases, and words shall have the meanings given in this section: DONATION: Anything contributed to the City by a donor, including,but not limited to, a building or structure, an endowment; a public improvement, land, materials, money, negotiable securities, public art, or volunteer labor, except a donation, including a grant, from a government agency and a donation associated with a sponsorship, naming right, or other similar arrangement. DONOR: An individual or organization that makes a donation to the City, including,but not limited to, a trust, estate, firm,partnership,joint venture, club, company,joint stock company,business trust, corporation, limited liability company, association, society, or any other group of individuals acting together,whether mutual, cooperative, fraternal, nonprofit, or otherwise. EXCESS DONOR FUNDS: Money, or another kind of donation which has been converted to money, contributed by a donor to the City which is unexpended after completion of the purpose for which a donation is made. PARK AMENITY: An improvement that contributes to the betterment of a park, such as a bench,play structure, picnic table, shelter, sports facility,or trail. PUBLIC ART: A work of art displayed in a public place including,but not limited to, a painting,print, sculpture, statue, or mural. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: A funded,partially funded, or unfunded capital project or other activity, including volunteer labor, which betters publicly-owned property, including but not limited to, land, a structure,materials and/or equipment, a park amenity, or public art. VOLUNTEER LABOR: Work, related to a donation,provided by a person without pay or other compensation except expenses actually and reasonably incurred as may be approved by the City. 3.60.040: DONATION POLICY: A. Salt Lake City encourages donations from individuals and entities that support programs and services the City provides to the public. The City shall evaluate whether to accept a proposed donation based on the provisions of this Chapter and shall have sole discretion to determine whether to accept or decline a proposed donation. The intent of the City is to help donors reach their intended goals while at the same time taking action consistent with the mission, goals,plans,resources and limitations of the City as a whole. B. A person who wishes to make a donation is encouraged to contact the recipient City department to discuss the proposed donation and the process for review and acceptance thereof. C. Subject to the provisions of this Chapter and in compliance with any applicable law, the City may accept a donation for the purpose of providing a public improvement on City property, including an improvement constructed with voluntary labor. Such improvement shall be completed in conformance with any applicable City policy and ordinances, development requirements, or other adopted standards. D. A donation may be used for any public purpose, subject to the provisions of this Chapter and any applicable donation agreement. E. Naming of a donation shall conform to the City's naming policies. F. The City may, at its option, request or require an appraisal of real or personal property prior to the acceptance of a donation. G. The provisions of this Chapter shall not be construed to create any right for an individual or organization to make a public improvement or place anything on City property. H. As donations may vary greatly, the review process and guidelines set forth in this Chapter may be tailored according to the type and complexity of the donation proposed. Any specifically applicable provision may be waived by the City Council if the Council determines it is in the best interest of the City to do so. 3.60.050: DONATIONS OF MONEY AND NEGOTIABLE SECURITIES: A. Donations of money and/or negotiable securities may be accepted by the Mayor. A donation of negotiable securities may be accepted when in the Mayor's judgment, in consultation with the Finance Director, the proposed donation is in accordance with applicable law and the proposed donation is either: 1. Not subject to conditions, or 2. A conditional donation approved pursuant to this chapter. B. Negotiable securities may be held or sold at a marketable rate and the proceeds of such sale used as specified by the donor, consistent with the provisions of this chapter. C. An undesignated and/or unconditional money donation shall be delivered to the Finance Department and deposited in an account designated by the department. D. If a money donation is accepted for a park amenity,public improvement, or public art, the donation shall be added to the recommended budget of the responsible department for appropriation by the City Council. 3.60.060: DONATIONS OF REAL PROPERTY: A. A donation of real property may be accepted only by the City Council, following a review and recommendation from: 1. The Mayor, and 2. Any board or commission as may be required by this Code or as may be requested by the Mayor. B. A proposed donation of real property shall be reviewed for: 1. Suitability for the intended use or potential for resale, 2. Any conditions which may be placed upon the use of the property by the donor, 3. Potential environmental problems, 4. Probable maintenance costs; and 5. Any other relevant considerations. C. An appraisal, of property proposed to be donated, may be requested from the donor. 3.60.070: NON-MONETARY DONATIONS (EXCEPT REAL PROPERTY): A. The Mayor, and a department head upon approval of the Mayor,may accept a donation of materials or other items made for a previously approved and budgeted project or materials and other items typically used by a City department. B. Other non-monetary donations, not within the scope of Subsection A of this section, may be accepted only by the City Council following a review and recommendation from: 1. The Mayor, and 2. Any board or commission as may be required by this Code or as may be requested by the Mayor. 3.60.080: EVALUATION GUIDELINES: A. The following guidelines shall be used to assess whether acceptance of a proposed donation is in the best interest of the City as well as any other consideration which may be relevant in a particular case: 1. Consistency with the mission,policies, and master plans governing the City and/or a particular department; and 2. Whether the proposed donation: a. Improves an area of the City which may be deficient in public amenities; b. Promotes preservation of historical and cultural aspects of the community; c. Has an educational component; d. Promotes preservation of natural areas and open space where such preservation is suitable, is contemplated by plans, or is otherwise desirable; e. Provides a new or different experience for the public; f. Promotes use of public spaces for a variety of interests such as special events, sports tournaments, competitions, and other recreational opportunities, including both active and passive recreation in a park or other area where such uses are suitable, are contemplated by plans or are otherwise desirable; g. Is suitable for the purpose proposed; h. Is compatible with the proposed location, if one has been identified, and other users of public space; i. Compliments or is harmonious with existing improvements and features in the area; j. Contributes to, or detracts from, the aesthetic qualities of the surrounding area and other improvements; k. Is harmonious with the surrounding public or park setting in quality, scale and character; 1. Replaces aging, outdated or unsafe infrastructure; m. Is a traditional park or municipal amenity; n. Reuses, rehabilitates, or restores an existing park or municipal feature; o. Is financially feasible based on the cost of the proposed donation or project implementation, including installation and ongoing maintenance if applicable; p. Covers all anticipated costs, including reasonably anticipated future costs; q. Includes donor or other funds for ongoing maintenance and the cost of relocation and removal, if necessary; r. Is susceptible to wear and vandalism; s. Is consistent with the technical requirements or design standards for installation of improvements in public places; t. Creates any public safety or security issues or a potential danger to public health and safety; u. Complies with applicable codes including building codes and ADA requirements; and v. Is restricted or conditioned in any manner and the impact of those restrictions or contingencies. B. In addition to the above-listed guidelines, if a proposed donation is a work of art, the following guidelines shall be also considered as well as any other consideration which may be relevant in a particular case: 1. Recommendations from the Salt Lake Council for the Arts; 2. Quality of the artwork based upon a professional assessment of the work or a detailed written proposal, drawing,model, or photograph; 3. Suitability of the theme of artwork to a public venue; 4. Appropriateness of the artwork to the site, in the case where a particular site has been requested or identified; 5. Appropriateness of the process for selecting the artist or artwork; and 6. Qualifications of the artist based on documentation of past work and the artist's professional qualifications. C. Maintenance and Relocation Costs: The level of maintenance and costs of relocation or removal may vary depending on the nature of the proposed donation. In general, donors will be asked to contribute enough money to cover long term maintenance costs, relocation and removal, if reasonably anticipated. These costs shall be estimated and submitted with a donation agreement. The City may agree to take on future maintenance costs and shall consider the following guidelines when making such decision: 1. The community's need or desire for the donation; 2. Whether, and to what extent, the proposed donation provides new or diverse experiences for community members and visitors; 3. The financial capacity of the donor to fund maintenance activities; 4. Suitability of the donation to the environmental conditions of public display; 5. Ease of maintenance and repair; and 6. Whether the annual maintenance cost is so low as to be negligible. 3.60.090: REVIEW BY CITY BOARD OR COMMISSION: A. A proposed donation which requires a recommendation and/or approval from a City board or commission, as provided this Code, shall be referred to such board or commission for action prior to acceptance by the City. B. A proposed donation shall be reviewed with reference to the evaluation guidelines set forth in Section 3.60.080 of this chapter. 3.60.100: PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION: A. If construction of a public improvement is coordinated or contracted for by a donor or provided by volunteers, the donor shall be responsible for complying with applicable federal, state, and local laws. The donor shall also bear the cost of necessary permits, approvals, project management, design, installation, and manufacture of the donation unless these costs are specifically accepted or waived by the City. B. Proof of compliance with the City's insurance requirements for contractors shall be required before work may commence on any public improvement. Provided, however, that to the extent allowed by law, a contractor or volunteer who provides labor for a public improvement may provide liability waivers to the City in lieu of insurance. 3.60.110: OWNERSHIP OF IMPROVEMENTS: Any donated improvement made on public property shall become City property and shall be subject to the laws,policies, and procedures of the City. 3.60.120: DONATION AGREEMENT: A donation shall not be accepted unless the donor completes a donation agreement, the form of which shall be approved by the City Attorney or the City Attorney's designee. 3.60.130: DONATION ACKNOWLEDGMENT: The City shall provide a letter to each donor that formally acknowledges the donation, identifies its value, and the purpose of the donation. The letter shall include a statement that because the City is subject to the provisions of the Government Records Access and Management Act, the City cannot guarantee anonymity of individual donors. 3.60.140: USE OF UNEXPENDED FUNDS: A. If the purpose of a donation has been fulfilled by the City, the City, within a reasonable time thereafter shall notify the donor whether any excess funds exist, and if so, that the donor may in writing request reimbursement of the excess funds. B. If the donor does not timely request reimbursement of excess funds, such amount may be transferred to the City's general fund balance and may be appropriated as the City Council may deem appropriate. 3.60.150: TAX LIABILITY: The City makes no representation or guarantee as to the tax implications of any donation made to the City. Information provided by the City, its officials, employees, or agents in connection with a donation is intended to be informational only and is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice. Each donor is responsible for assigning a monetary value to the donation for tax purposes and should obtain tax and financial advice from appropriate professionals. 3.60.160: DAMAGED, LOST, STOLEN, OR WORN DONATIONS: A. The City is not obligated to replace any donation or improvement that is lost, stolen, damaged or worn. B. Except as otherwise provided in a donation agreement, the City reserves the right to remove any donated public improvement for safety reasons, deterioration, neglect or vandalism, or the City's inability to finance ongoing maintenance or repairs. 3.60.170: REPORTS TO CITY COUNCIL: Annually, after the close of the fiscal year,the Finance Director shall provide a report to the Council including the details of all donations with a value of greater than five thousand dollars ($5,000). 3.60.180: CONFLICTS OF LAW: If any provision of this chapter conflicts with a provision of an applicable state or federal law or regulation, such law or regulation shall supersede the conflicting provision of this chapter. SECTION 2. 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 December, 2011. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR MEMORANDUM DATE: December 6,2011 TO: City Council Members FROM: Jennifer Bruno,Deputy Director RE: Changes to Council Member Retirement benefits Background • City Council Members are considered full time employees in the staffing document,but receive less than part time compensation(20%of the Mayor's salary). Absent specific action taken by the Council(see Key Elements item A),City Council Members would otherwise receive retirement benefits based on the limited compensation set for them. • The policy decision(described in item A),established an equity issue with the Mayor and other City employees insofar as City Council Members were not receiving benefits available to the general population of City Employees (each incoming City Council Member signs a waiver acknowledging the waiving of these benefits). • The equity issue is not more significant due to a recent state law change(see Key Elements item B),which would now create equity issues among Council Members. Question for Council Consideration-Does the Council want to adjust the current practice of not offering Council Members retirement benefits in order to match the newly elected Council Members'retirement benefits(mandated by the state as of July 2011 1? Key Elements A. Under state statute,the City is,by policy,allowed to exempt up to 10%of its employees(by position type,not to exceed 50 positions)from the state retirement plan. In 1980,the first Salt Lake City Council made a policy decision to exempt all Council Members from the state retirement plan. Since that time all Council Members have been exempt from the state retirement plan. B. In the legislative session of 2009,among other changes to the Public Employee compensation structure,the State Legislature mandated that all newly elected officials as of July 1,2011,must receive a 10%contribution to a 401k,plus a 2.74%contribution to Utah Retirement Systems(URS)as an administrative/past liabilities fee.(Note:this does not mean that these newly elected officials will be"vested"in a system in terms of years. Rather,it is simply a financial contribution to a 401k). C. The effect of this state law is that if the Council makes no changes to its current policy,the two new Council Members will be receiving retirement benefits while the five remaining Council Members will not. 1 D. Typically the City would adjust employee compensation so that it is equitable across employee groups who are the same title or who perform the same function. E. Current city employees (non Police or Fire) receive a contribution to the pension fund of 13.8% of their annual salary. This contribution percentage fluctuates annually. This contribution amount is calculated and mandated by URS. F. The Mayor is currently treated as any other employee and receives a pension contribution and is vested in the state system in terms of years of service. G. Staff has prepared a few options for Council consideration Options 1. The Council could decide to change current practice, and as of January 1, 2012, make a 10% contribution to a 401k for all Council Members. Note: The Administration indicates that because of State statute the newly elected Council Members would not be eligible for this option and this would create an inequity among council members. The only option for new Council Members is a 401k contribution. Future changes to State statute may or may not address this. 2. The Council could decide to change its exemption policy for all Council Members as of January 1, and treat all Council Members as any other City employee, including incoming Council Members (with a contribution to the traditional Public Employee pension fund). Note: Staff is inquiring with legal counsel as to whether the City can opt out of the contribution to a 401k, or if the contribution to a 401k would be required regardless. 3. Staff checked with the Administration to see if the Council could change its exemption policy for all Council Members (and treats all Council Members as any other employee) with a backdate to either the current term of office or original election, and apparently the State statute will not allow this. The Council may wish to discuss this further with the Administration and URS legal counsel to gain a better understanding of the statutory options and prohibitions. URS legal counsel will be present at the council work session on Tuesday. a. Staff has asked the Administration if any Council Member could purchase "years of service" credit in lieu of backdated retirement payments. 4. The Council could decide to revisit this issue when the State legislative session concludes in March 2012, as the Administration has indicated that they may make changes to this law. The Council could choose any of the options above in the interim. 5. The Council could decide to make no changes. 2 RALPH BECKER SIN �N MR J�� * �� i� 1 � MAYOR •+� l '�:.� OFFICE OF THE MAYOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL RECEIVED Date Received: 11128 12011 1:2_a_:_yvicl Everitt, Ch of of Staff Date sent to Council: 11 ' 2 ' 7_40(1 SLC CH}"fi..•t_ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: November 28, 2011 Jill Remington Love, Chair FROM: David Everitt, Chief of Staff SUBJECT: Interlocal Agreement Regarding Payment for Hazmat and Bomb Squad Services STAFF CONTACT: Ben McAdams, Senior Advisor to the Mayor Lynn Pace, Deputy City Attorney DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the adoption of the attached resolution approving the Interlocal Agreement. BUDGET IMPACT: The agreement provides that on an annual basis, beginning calendar year 2011, UFA will pay to the City 21% of the annual compensation UFA receives from the County and budgets for the county wide provision of these services. The dollar amount of that payment for 2011 will be $357,000. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: As part of discussions between Salt Lake City, the League of Cities and Towns, Salt Lake County and the Unified Fire Authority, the Administration expressed concern over a perceived duplication of services and double taxation impacting Salt Lake City taxpayers. Salt Lake City taxpayers were funding hazmat response, arson investigation and bomb squad services currently provided by the Salt Lake City Fire Department through the City's general fund. Contemporaneously, the Salt Lake County general fund was providing funding to the Unified Fire Authority's hazmat response, arson investigation and bomb squad. Concerns over this perceived inequity of duplicative taxation resulted in collaborative discussions between the various stakeholders. These discussions resulted in an agreement that Salt Lake City 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306 P.O.BOX 145474,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5474 TELEPHONE:801-535-7704 FAX:801-535-6331 www.slcgov.com fA and other cities who were providing these services directly to their taxpayers would receive a formula-based percentage of the funding provided from the County general fund for the delivery of these services. Furthermore, representatives from Salt Lake County, Salt Lake City, and other cities throughout Salt Lake County have agreed to engage in discussions about the effective delivery of municipal services to County residents and the future of Salt Lake County. These conversations have been convened by County Council Chair Max Burdick. This constructive dialogue about how to address perceived double taxation concerns of cities and the need for continuity in the affordable delivery of services to residents of Salt Lake County, particularly residents of unincorporated county, are continuing. The administration is optimistic that these collaborative discussions will result in a mutually agreeable approach to addressing comprehensively the concerns of the respective entities. PUBLIC PROCESS: N/A RESOLUTION NO. OF 2011 AUTHORIZING THE APPROVAL OF AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND THE UNIFIED FIRE AUTHORITY FOR THE PROVISION OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RESPONSE AND EXPLOSIVE DEVICE OPERATIONS WHEREAS, Utah Code § 11-13-202.5 provides for the adoption of interlocal agreements pursuant to a resolution of the governing body of any political entity, which is a party to such an agreement; WHEREAS, the City has been providing and will continue to provide hazardous materials response (hazmat) and explosive device response operations (bomb squad) services within the City; WHEREAS, Salt Lake County has been assessing and paying for those services through its general fund; WHEREAS,the County has funded those service pursuant to an interlocal agreement with the United Fire Authority(UFA) for either the delivery of those services or the coordination of the delivery of those service through a partnership with various governmental entities in Salt Lake County; WHEREAS, the City is eligible for funding from the UFA in partial compensation for providing those services within Salt Lake City; and WHEREAS,the City and UFA have agreed to the conditions for the partial compensation for providing those services; and WHEREAS,the City Council has determined that this interlocal agreement is in the best interest of the City; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: A. That the interlocal agreement for the provision of hazardous materials response and explosive device operations, a copy of which is attached hereto shall be and hereby is approved; B. That the effective date of the interlocal agreement shall be January 1, 2011; and C. That Mayor Ralph Becker is hereby authorized to execute that interlocal agreement on behalf of the City. x4A Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah,this day of , 2011. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM: �1 - I1 23 - t/ OR TY ATTORNEY HB_ATTY-#20917-v2-2011 11 23 Resolution.DOC 2 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR THE PROVISION OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RESPONSE AND EXPLOSIVE DEVICE OPERATIONS This Agreement is made and entered into as of January 1,2011 by and between the Unified Fire Authority(the"UFA") and Salt Lake City Corporation, a municipal corporation of the state of Utah(the"CITY") for the provision of Hazardous Materials Response and Explosive Device Response Operations (the"SERVICES"). WHEREAS, Salt Lake County(the"County")has determined that the SERVICES are discretionary county services that are eligible for funding on a county-wide basis from its General Fund.; WHEREAS, the County has entered into an interlocal agreement providing that funds appropriated for the provision of the SERVICES will flow through the UFA for either the delivery of the SERVICES or the coordination of the delivery of the SERVICES through a partnership with various governmental entities in Salt Lake County; WHEREAS, the UFA is willing to both deliver the SERVICES within the county,including its service area, or partner with individual cities for each city to provide the SERVICES within that city's jurisdiction so that the SERVICES are available on a county-wide basis; and WHEREAS, CITY is willing to provide the SERVICES within its jurisdiction in accordance with the terms of this agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties to this agreement hereby agree as follows: 1. TERM. This agreement shall be deemed to commence as of January 1, 2011 and continue in effect through December 31,2011. It shall be automatically renewed for subsequent one year periods conditioned upon the County appropriating and UFA receiving funds for the provision of the SERVICES. 2. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED. CITY agrees to assume primary responsibility for the provision of the SERVICES within the boundaries of its jurisdiction. As used in this agreement, SERVICES shall mean: a. Explosive Device Response Operations—Explosive Device Response Operations is the capability to coordinate,direct,and conduct improvised explosive device response after initial alert and notification. Coordinate intelligence fusion and analysis, information collection, and threat recognition, assess the situation and conduct appropriate Render Safe Procedures(RSP). Conduct searches for additional devices and coordinate overall efforts to mitigate chemical,biological,radiological,nuclear, and explosive threat to the incident site. As part of its Explosive Device Response Operations capabilities, CITY agrees to maintain a Bomb Response Team possessing the certifications and resources and meeting the standards established by the U.S. Department of Justice,Federal Bureau of Investigation as published by it in "National Guidelines for Bomb Technicians,revised March 2010" or any modification thereof issued or published during the term of this agreement. b. Hazardous Materials Response—Hazardous Materials Response is the operation of a comprehensive program for analysis of,response to and management of incidents involving actual or potential release of or exposure to hazardous materials or weapons of mass destruction occurring within the jurisdiction in accordance with Incident Command System principles. The jurisdiction's program and staff must meet the requirements established by NFPA 472,Standard for Competence of Responders to Hazardous Materials/Weapons of Mass Destruction Incidents,2008 Edition and related NFPA Standards cited therein. Staff additionally must be certified in accordance with Utah Fire Service Certification System, Certification Standard"Hazardous Materials Technician"Revised January,2011 or any subsequent revisions of either Standard. 3. CONSIDERATION. In consideration for the provision of the SERVICES by CITY, UFA agrees to compensate CITY an amount equal to twenty-one percent(21%)of the total annual compensation UFA receives from the County and budgets for the countywide provision of the SERVICES. For calendar year 2011 total compensation will be $357,000. Payments will be made to CITY on a semi-annual basis with one half of the total compensation due under the agreement paid to CITY in June of each year and one half of the total compensation due under the agreement paid in December of each year. CITY shall annually certify to UFA by June 15th of each year that the SERVICES are provided in accordance with requirements set out in Paragraph 2,hereof and have been so provided for the prior twelve month period. 4. AGREEMENT SUBJECT TO ANNUAL APPROPRIATION. The parties acknowledge and agree that the payment of consideration to CITY is subject to the annual appropriation by the County of moneys to fund this agreement and the receipt by the UFA of those funds. In the event the County does not appropriate funds or reduces an existing appropriation prior to distribution to the UFA,the UFA's obligation to transmit funds to the CITY under this agreement shall cease or be reduced to reflect the reduction in the appropriation by the County. If the appropriation by the County is reduced by an amount that would entitle CITY to a distribution from UFA of an amount less than the distribution to the City that has already been made in that calendar year, CITY agrees to refund to UFA the excess distribution within thirty(30) of receiving written notice from UFA of the excess distribution. The parties acknowledge that funds have been appropriated and transmitted to the UFA for only the 2011 county fiscal year and that UFA's future performance under this agreement is dependent on appropriations by the County for the provision of the SERVICES. 5. NO SEPARATE ENTITY CREATED. No separate legal entity is created by the terms of this agreement. There shall be no real or personal property jointly acquired by the parties as a result of this agreement. To the extent this agreement requires administration other than as set forth herin, it shall be administered by the Mayor of the CITY, or as appropriate, the Mayor's designee and the Chief of the UFA, acting as a joint board. 6. NO EFFECT ON PRE-EXISTING AGREEMENTS. The parties agree and understand that this Agreement does not override, or otherwise affect pre-existing mutual aid, automatic aid, or cooperation agreements between the parties or with other agencies or jurisdictions. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to affect any pre-existing agreement between the parties. 7. NO ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION. The compensation paid pursuant to Paragraph 3, above shall be the total compensation paid for or in connection with the SERVICES, except for claims made under Paragraph 10 of this agreement. 8. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. CITY, in performing the SERVICES shall be an independent contractor and shall not be considered an agent of UFA. Neither party's employees shall be considered employees of the other and each party shall assume sole and total responsibility for payment of compensation,provision of worker's compensation benefits, and all other benefits accruing to its employees assigned to perform the SERVICES. 9. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES. This agreement and the covenants,promises, obligations and responsibilities contained herein are intended solely to establish the obligations and benefits of the respective parties hereto. No other persons are intended to benefit from or be bound by the mutual obligations of the parties and no third party may enforce the terms of this agreement or rely on this agreement in any action against either of the parties. 10. PARTIES AS GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES. Both parties are governmental entities subject to the provisions of the Utah Governmental Immunity Act and the substantive and procedural protections thereof. By execution of this agreement,neither party waives any of the substantive or procedural defenses or protections of the Act including specifically without reservation the limitations on actions and the limitations on judgments contained therein. Subject to the provisions of this Paragraph, each party agrees to indemnify,release,hold harmless and defend the other party hereto from all claims,damages,liabilities, and judgments for injury to persons, loss of life, or damage to property occurring because of the negligent acts or omissions of the indemnifying party, its officers, or employees in connection with the provision of the SERVICES. 11. TERMINATION. In addition to termination for non-funding,the parties agree that CITY may terminate this agreement effective at the end of any fiscal year by giving UFA written notice at least ninety(90) days prior to the end of CITY's fiscal year. 12. 1NTERLOCAL ACT REQUIREMENTS. (a). This agreement shall be authorized by resolution or ordinance of the legislative body of each party,pursuant to Section 11-13-202.5(1)(b)of the Interlocal Act; (b). The resolution or ordinance of a party's legislative body approving this agreement shall specify the effective date of this agreement,pursuant to Section 11-13- 202.5(2)of the Interlocal Act; c). A duly executed original counterpart of this agreement shall be filed with the keeper of records of each party pursuant to Section 11-13-209 of the Interlocal Act. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have signed this agreement effective as of the date first written above. UNIFIED FIRE AUTHORITY By Title APPROVED AS TO FORM: Aftitatk CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER UNIFIED FIRE AUTHORITY SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION By Title ATTEST: CITY RECORDER 1-110 � M. i RALPH BoECKER E 1trf .y�:�:1�. liDi Q 6 2011 MAY OFFICE OF THE MAYOR �1u�1� Salt Lake City Mayor CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL lr- ,,�'O i N q 2 P"- 6 1 / Date Received: 12- W Se ill David Ev 'tt, Chief of Staff SLC COUNCIL OFHIC1ate sent to Council: 12 G �// TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: December 6, 2012 Jill Remington Love, Chair FROM: David Everitt, Chief of Staff SUBJECT: Sugar House Streetcar—Updates to Phase 1 Interlocal Agreement STAFF CONTACT: D.J. Baxter(801)535-7735 or dj.baxter@slcgov.com Gina Chamness (801)535-7766 or gina.chamness@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Updated Interlocal Agreement RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that the City Council set the date for a public hearing for Budget Amendment#4 of FY2011-12, and subsequently approve funding necessary for the City to sign an interlocal agreement to begin construction of the baseline Sugar House streetcar project. The Administration further recommends that a resolution authorizing the approval of an interlocal agreement between the City, Utah Transit Authority, and South Salt Lake City be adopted. BUDGET IMPACT: See original transmittal. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Sugar House Streetcar Interlocal Agreement was submitted to the Council along with the Administration's Transmittal Memorandum on November 8, 2011. Since that time,the UTA Board and South Salt Lake City Council have reviewed and considered the Interlocal Agreement. Certain minor modifications to the Agreement have been agreed upon that are described below. The Administration believes that all the modifications represent improvements to the Agreement. At the last meeting of the South Salt Lake City Council, additional suggested changes to the Interlocal Agreement were made. The two Mayors and UTA's General Manager met 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306 P.O.BOX 145474,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5474 SCANNED TO: JJAIyr TELEPHONE:801-535-7704 FAX:801-535-6331 SCANNED BY: 'LL0— .slcgov.com DATE: j 2 ha/20 i J and finalized terms of the Agreement on Monday, December 5, 2011. The revised language has been agreed upon by the three parties, subject to final approval by the two city councils and the UTA Board. Here are the changes to the Agreement based on the December 5th meeting: A) Section 1.18 has been modified to make it clear the `SLC Representative' to the Project Integration Team could be either the City Engineer or another designee of the Mayor. B) Section 6.4.16 has been further modified to make it clear that UTA will not issue a Notice to Proceed unless the bid from the Contractor is within the $37,180,000 project budget. The section now reads: Notice to Proceed. Pursuant to Section 5.2 above, UTA shall not issue a Notice to Proceed to commence construction activities to the Contractor unless UTA determines, following consultations with the Cities, that the contract price for the Baseline Project it has negotiated with the Contractor, together with other known and reasonably anticipated Project Costs such as right-of-way and professional services, is $37,180,000 or less. The Parties agree to make every effort to construct the Project within the Estimated Project Cost. The Parties agree that they will offset unanticipated cost overruns by cutting scope from the Baseline Project, if possible and with any required FTA approval, before exceeding the Estimated Project Cost. C) Section 6.4.18.4 has been added to confirm the maximum amount of the financial contributions of the three parties. It reads: Maximum Contributions. In no event shall UTA's capital contribution exceed $1,600,000. In no event shall the aggregate capital and 0 & M contributions by the Cities exceed: 6.4.18.4.1 In the case of SLC, $6,180,000; and 6.4.18.4.2 In the case of SSL, $5,000,000. D) Section 13.3 has been modified to retain the concept that a successful sales tax referendum would trigger the Cessation of O&M Funding Date, but eliminates the requirement that the referendum be for exactly '/4 cent. Now, a successful referendum in any amount will end the Cities' O&M obligations. It also adds a provision that if UTA's sales tax revenues increase by 2%over 2007 projections, the obligation of the Cities to fund O&M would cease. The new section reads: The Cities' obligation hereunder shall terminate on the "Cessation of O&M Funding Date," which shall be the earlier of: (i) December 31st of a year in which a referendum is held by which Salt Lake County voters approve a sales tax increase dedicated to transit purposes, (ii) December 31 st of a year in which UTA's sales tax revenues exceed, by 2% or more, UTA's expected sales tax revenues for that year, as projected by UTA in its 2007 budget forecasting, or (iii) two years after the Revenue Operations Date. Upon the cessation of the Cities' O&M funding obligations hereunder, UTA shall assume full responsibility to fund the O&M Costs. E) Sections 14.5 and 14.7 have been modified to clarify that the Project Integration Team will continue to exist and work together after UTA takes full responsibility for the Streetcar O&M. The new sections read: The Parties hereby create a Project Executive Team consisting of the following individuals: (i) for SLC, the SLC Mayor, (ii) for SSL, the SSL Mayor, and°(iii) for UTA, the General Manager. The Project Executive Team shall: (i) meet on at least a quarterly basis to review the progress and status of the design and construction of the Project, and once the Project begins revenue operations, on an as-needed basis to review the operations and performance of the Project, (ii) jointly make decisions regarding service levels, (iii) revise the Sugar House Corridor Management Policies to meet changing needs and conditions, (iv) explore the ongoing enhancement of the Project and pursuing development opportunities in the Sugar House Corridor and adjacent areas as provided in Section 16.2, (v) resolve all disputes and make all decisions escalated to the Project Executive Team by the Project Integration Team, and (iv) perform such duties and functions as are expressly assigned to the Project Executive Team in this Agreement. The Project Executive Team shall meet and continue to function until disbanded by mutual agreement of the Parties; provided, however, that following the Cessation of O&M Funding Date, UTA shall have sole responsibility and authority to operate the Project, and the role of the Project Executive Team in such matters as levels of service will be advisory only. The Project Integration Team shall meet and continue to function, until disbanded by mutual agreement of the Parties, for the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Sugar House Corridor Management Policies, making recommendations to the Project Executive Team, and performing such other functions related to the Project as the Parties may require. F) Section 16.2 has been modified to provide that UTA will invest in the Sugar House Spur or adjacent areas amounts equal to the Cities' payments for O&M (if any). The Cities will also participate in discussions on how they might reinvest some newly-created revenues in the corridor, but the revised language does not require an investment obligation. The section now reads: The Parties recognize that both the construction and continued operation of the Project, and the infusion of additional capital by the Parties into the Sugar House Spur and adjacent properties will, over time, generate significant additional revenues to the Parties, including without limitation sales taxes, property taxes, and lease revenues ("Project Related Revenues"). The Project Executive Team is tasked with the responsibility of (i) identifying such Project Related Revenues, and (ii) identifying how such Project Related Revenues might be allocated in an equitable manner to fund Betterments to the Project, and capital investments within the Sugar House Spur and adjacent properties, on an ongoing basis. To the extent that such Project Related Revenues can be accurately accounted for, UTA agrees to fund, out of additional Project Related Revenues that accrue over time to UTA, investments within the Sugar House Spur and/or adjacent areas in an amount not less than that actually remitted to UTA by the Cities pursuant to Article 13. The Parties recognize and agree that such expenditures and investments shall be made over time and in such a manner as shall be mutually agreed by the members of the Project Executive Team, and in furtherance of the goals set forth in the Sugar House Management Policies and outlined above in Section 16.1. r INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT REGARDING THE SUGAR HOUSE STREETCAR PROJECT THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT REGARDING THE SUGAR HOUSE STREETCAR PROJECT (this "Agreement"), is entered into as of 2011 (the "Effective Date"), by and between SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a municipal Icorporation and political subdivision of the State of Utah ("SLC"), the CITY OF SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY, a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Utah ("SSL"), and UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY, a public transit district and political subdivision of the State of Utah ("UTA"). SLC, SSL, and UTA are hereafter sometimes collectively referred to as"Parties" and may be referred to individually as a"Party." RECITALS WHEREAS, UTA owns a discontinued rail corridor known as the "Sugar House Spur," which runs easterly from UTA's North/South TRAX light rail corridor for approximately two miles through SSL and SLC at approximately 2200 South; WHEREAS, the Parties desire to construct and operate a streetcar system along the Sugar House Spur(the"Project"), and have worked together toward that goal for several years; WHEREAS, the Project has been selected for federal assistance under the TIGER II Discretionary Grants program pursuant to Title I (Department of Transportation) of the FY 2010 Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 111-117, Dec. 16, 2009), in an amount not to exceed $26,000,000; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to document herein their mutual goals, and their respective roles and obligations with respect to the Project. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the stated Recitals, which are incorporated herein by reference, and for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth, it is hereby agreed as follows: ARTICLE 1. DEFINITIONS In addition to capitalized terms defined elsewhere in this Agreement, the following terms shall have the following meanings: 1 1 1.13 "Project" means the design and construction of a modern rail streetcar line of approximately two miles in length, running between UTA's Central Pointe TRAX light rail station on the existing north-south light rail corridor, on the west, and McClelland Avenue, or approximately 1050 East. The term "Project" includes the Baseline Project, along with any Betterments desired by a Party and approved pursuant to Article 12. 1.14 "Project Costs" means all costs and expenses heretofore or hereafter incurred by UTA in connection with, and reasonably allocated to, the planning, management, and implementation of the Project in accordance with the Final Design Documents, including by way of example, and not limitation, environmental review costs; preliminary design, final design and construction engineering costs; costs of equipment, materials, supplies and labor; construction costs; and costs of managing construction and enforcing the terms of the CM/GC Contract. Project Costs shall not include legal fees or other expenses incurred in negotiating or drafting this Agreement, or the Parties' financing costs. 1.15 "Project Executive Team" means the SLC Mayor, the SSL Mayor, and the UTA General Manager. 1.16 "Project Footprint" means that portion of the Sugar House Spur physically occupied by facilities and improvements required in the Baseline Project. 1.17 "Project Integration Team" means the SLC Representative, the SSL Representative, and the UTA Representative. 1.18 "SLC Representative" means the SLC City Engineer.- or such other person designated by the SLC Mayor. As of the Effective Date, the SLC Representative is John Naser. 1.19 "SSL Representative"means the SSL Public Works Director.-or such other person designated by the SSL Mayor. As of the Effective Date,the SSL Representative is Dennis Pay. 1.20 "UTA Representative"means the UTA Project Manager for the Project. As of the Effective Date, the UTA Representative is Jim Webb. ARTICLE 2. PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT 2.1 The Parties have entered into this Agreement for the following primary purposes: 2.1.1 To identify and document the interests and objectives of each Party with respect to the Project, and to establish Project parameters with respect to design, cost and service requirements. This Agreement shall constitute the guiding document governing the Project. 2.1.2 To provide for the allocation of Project Costs among the Parties. 2.1.3 To describe the respective responsibilities of the Parties and establish cooperative procedures that will achieve the objectives identified herein. 3 4.2 UTA shall oversee and manage the efforts of the Design Consultant consistent with the Scope of Work, the Performance Specifications and the provisions of this Agreement. The Cities may provide comments to any Design Submittals and UTA will direct the Design Consultant to incorporate appropriate changes into the Design Submittals. UTA shall be the sole point of formal contact with the Design Consultant. 4.3 The Design Consultant has been tasked with the responsibility of meeting the Parties' objectives in connection with preparation of the Scope of Work, as those objectives are described in paragraph 3.1, above. 4.4 Throughout the design process, UTA shall cause the Design Consultant to provide the Cities with the opportunity of reviewing and commenting on all Design Submittals, including the preliminary design documents and the final design documents. The City Representatives shall be available to conduct"over-the-shoulder"reviews of Design Submittals and related work. UTA shall cause the Design Consultant to address all comments on the Design Submittals that are timely offered by the City Representatives. 4.5 UTA shall ensure that the Cities have the opportunity to participate in all formal and informal design meetings and reviews with the Design Consultant. 4.6 Any Party may request changes in the Scope of Work or any of the Performance Specifications, which changes must be approved by the other Parties prior to implementation. Each Party agrees to consider such requests in good faith. 4.7 When completed, the final design documents shall consist of and include (i) the Baseline Project Scope of Work, and (ii) any optional Betterments incorporated into the Project pursuant to Article 12. The preliminary design documents shall not be included in, or form the basis of, the CM/GC RFP or bid documents until the preliminary design documents have been approved by the Project Integration Team. ARTICLE 5. AWARD OF CM/GC CONTRACT; CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT 5.1 The Project shall be undertaken by UTA using the construction manager/general contractor procurement method. The CM/GC shall be selected as provided in this Section 5.1, and is hereinafter referred to as the "Contractor". UTA shall, with the assistance of the Project Integration Team, prepare an RFP for the solicitation of proposals by potential CM/GCs. The RFP shall not be released until the same has been approved by the Project Integration Team. Proposals shall be reviewed and evaluated by the Parties, generally as provided in the approved RFP. UTA shall select the winning Proposal only with the consensus of all of the Parties. 5.2 UTA shall negotiate, prepare, and execute the CM/GC Contract in a form acceptable to the Project Integration Team. Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, UTA will not issue a Notice to Proceed to the CM/GC under the CM/GC Contract unless and until UTA and the Contractor have negotiated a contract price for the Baseline Project not to exceed $37,180,000, less a reasonable contingency, to be agreed on by the Parties. UTA shall manage the Contractor and the CM/GC Contract in consultation with the Project Integration Team. The 5 6.1 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST. Design and construction of the Baseline Project is currently estimated to cost a total of$37,180,000 ("Estimated Project Cost"). The Estimated Project Cost includes the cost the cost of design and construction itself, the cost of additional right-of-way acquisitions, professional services, and unallocated contingency. Those cost categories are set forth more fully in the TIGER II Grant. Such figure is only an estimate. The actual cost to design and construct the Baseline Project (the "Actual Project Cost") may turn out to be either more or less than the Estimated Project Cost. 6.2 FEDERAL MATCH. The Parties have been awarded a federal grant for the Project under the TIGER II Department of Transportation grants program, in an amount not to exceed $26,000,000 (the"TIGER II Grant"). The TIGER II Grant, together with local funding in the amount of$11,180,000, will fund the Estimated Project Cost of$37,180,000. 6.3 The TIGER II Grant is based on a 70% federal to 30% local ratio, under which UTA, as the grantee, expends funds on the Project and then submits those expenditures for 70% reimbursement.' Effectively, this means that 30 cents of local funds spent on the Project"earns" approximately 70 cents of federal funds to be spent on the Project (and every local $1.00 spent on the Project earns approximately $2.325 of federal funds for the Project). Since the Tiger II Grant is capped at $26,000,000, any local funds spent on the Project in excess of approximately $11,180,000 will not receive federal matching dollars. 6.4 LOCAL SHARE. The Parties hereby agree to provide local funding as follows. 6.4.1 TIER I. SLC and SSL shall provide TIER I local funding in equal amounts as follows: Local Contribution Federal Match Total (approximate) SLC $1,700,000 $3,952,500 $5,652,500 SSL $1,700,000 $3,952,500 $5,652,500 TIER I Total $3,400,000 $7,905,000 $11,305,000 While the Actual Project Cost is not known at this time, it is expected to exceed the TIER I budget of$11,305,000. 6.4.2 If the Actual Project Cost exceeds the combined TIER I budget of $11,305,000, SLC and SSL must each provide their entire TIER I commitment of$1,700,000. In no event shall SLC or SSL be required to contribute more than $1,700,000 to the Project under TIER I. The figure 70%is approximate. The Estimated Project Cost of$37,180,000,divided by the Tiger II Grant amount of$26,000,000,means that the federal share is actually 69.993006%. 7 to $1,180,000 Total (together $9,580,000, $22,273,500, $31,853,500, with TIER I and maximum local maximum maximum TIER II funding) 6.4.9 Under TIER III, SLC is only obligated to expend the amount necessary, together with the federal match, and the amounts available under the TIER I and II budgets, to fund the Actual Project Cost. If the Actual Project Cost is less than the combined maximum TIER I, II and III budget of$31,853,500, SLC will not be required to expend its entire TIER III commitment of$1,180,000. 6.4.10 If the Actual Project Cost exceeds the TIER III budget of $31,853,500, SLC must provide its entire TIER III commitment of $1,180,000. In no event shall SLC be required to contribute more than$1,180,000 to the Project under TIER III. 6.4.11 TIER III funding shall not be due from SLC prior to August 1, 2012. 6.4.12 TIER IV. In the event that the Actual Project Cost exceeds the combined TIER I, II and III budget of$31,853,500, UTA agrees to provide TIER IV funding as follows: Local Contribution Federal Match Total Funding (approximate) UTA As necessary to Up to $3,726,500 $5,326,500, fund the Actual Project Cost, up maximum to $1,600,000 Total (together $11,180,000, $26,000,000, $37,180,000, with TIER I, II maximum maximum maximum and III funding) 6.4.13 Under TIER N, UTA is only obligated to expend the amount necessary, together with the federal match, and the amounts available under the TIER I, II and III budgets, to fund the Actual Project Cost. If the Actual Project Cost is less than the Estimated Project Cost/TIER N budget of$37,180,000, UTA will not be required to expend its entire TIER IV commitment of$1,600,000. 6.4.14 If the Actual Project Cost is equal to or exceeds the TIER N budget of $37,180,000, UTA must provide its entire TIER III commitment of $1,600,000. In no event shall UTA be required to contribute more than$1,600,000 to the Project under TIER N. 6.4.15 TIER N funding shall not be due from UTA prior to January 1, 2013. 9 to the payment of the $15,000,000 City of South Salt Lake Redevelopment Agency Excise Tax and Tax Increment Revenue Bonds Series, 2010 (the "Existing SSL Bonds"). SSL is planning on refunding the Existing SSL Bonds, which refunding will create an annual debt service savings of$290,000 (the"Debt Service Savings"). SSL agrees to repay the SSL Tier II Amount to SLC in equal semi-annual installments, based on an amortization over a period of not less than ten (10) years, and in some combination of term and interest rate mutually agreeable to the Cities that results in debt service payments that do not exceed the Debt Service Savings; provided that SLC may require SSL to fund a debt service reserve fund in an amount reasonably required by SLC that, together with debt service, does not exceed the Debt Service Savings. If, upon completion of the Project, SLC has not fully advanced the SSL Tier II Amount, the remaining amount shall be credited as a prepayment of principal against SSL's repayment obligation. SLC's agreement to advance the SSL Tier II Amount, and SSL's obligation to repay such amount to SLC, shall be documented with an interlocal agreement between the Cities, or such other documentation as the Cities shall mutually agree. 6.4.18.4 Maximum Contributions. In no event shall UTA's capital contribution exceed$1,600,000. In no event shall the aggregate capital and 0 &M contributions by the Cities exceed: 6.4.18.4.1 In the case of SLC, $6,180,000; and 6.4.18.4.2 In the case of SSL, $5,000,000. ARTICLE 7. SPENDING PROJECT SAVINGS 7.1 If the Actual Project Cost is below the Estimated Project Cost, the Parties may elect to spend additional local funds on Project Betterments in order to "earn" some or all of the remaining available federal matching dollars. No Party will be required to provide additional funding under this Article. The Parties understand and agree that local funding applied to any such Betterments will only receive federal matching dollars if the FTA deems the Betterments eligible for federal matching. 7.2 Subject to paragraph 7.2.1, each City shall be entitled to spend an amount equal to the remainder, if any, of its TIER I, II, or III commitment to "claim" the corresponding federal match to fund Betterments within each respective City. Any portion of the federal share unclaimed by one City may be claimed by the other City, upon the City's commitment to pay the necessary local share. 7.2.1 Notwithstanding the foregoing, SSL may not use funds advanced by SLC on its behalf under paragraph 6.4.17 to claim a federal match for Betterments. 7.3 UTA shall be entitled to spend the remainder, if any, of its TIER IV commitment to "claim" the federal match to fund Betterments to the Project. Any portion of the TIER N federal share unclaimed by UTA may be claimed by another Party, upon that Party's commitment to pay the necessary local share. ARTICLE 8. RIGHT OF WAY COSTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS 11 10.3 Any funds charged by UTA to non-Parties for the use of the Sugar House Spur shall be retained by UTA. Further, any funds charged by UTA to Parties for uses of the Sugar House Spur wholly unrelated to the Project (such as, for example, the placement of a utility facility unrelated to the Project) shall be retained by UTA. Any such uses shall be consistent with the Sugar House Corridor Management Policies. ARTICLE 11. MANNER AND TIMING OF FUNDING 11.1 UTA will prepare and deliver to the Cities monthly invoices for their respective shares of the local portion of Project Costs, as Project Costs are incurred. Each invoice shall be accompanied by documentation of the Project Costs incurred for which payment is being requested, and the Cities shall remit payment to UTA within 30 days after receipt of such invoices. If the Cities dispute any portion of an invoice, they shall remit payment of the undisputed portion within 30 days, while the Project Integration Team reviews the disputed amounts. 11.2 The Parties recognize and agree that UTA has already incurred costs that are considered Project Costs. Such costs include monies paid for professional services, including monies paid to the Design Consultant. Immediately upon execution of this Agreement, UTA may invoice the Cities for such costs, and the Cities shall remit payment to UTA within 30 days after receipt of such invoices. ARTICLE 12. BETTERMENTS 12.1 Any Party may request Betterments in accordance with the terms of this Section. 12.2 Requests for Betterments shall be made as early in the Project planning and design process as possible. Requests shall be submitted in writing to the Project Integration Team. 12.3 A request for a Betterment shall be implemented by the Parties if: (i) the Betterment is not prohibited by a governing State or federal standard; (ii) the Betterment does not substantially adversely impact the operation of the Project; and (iii) the Betterment will not unreasonably delay or interfere with the Project schedule. 12.4 Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, the Party requesting the Betterment shall be responsible for all incremental costs incurred as a result of the Betterment; provided that the Parties shall only be responsible for the local match portion of any Betterments funded from Project savings, as contemplated in Article 7. The Parties shall enter into a letter agreement or similar document governing the terms pursuant to which the Party requesting the Betterment shall pay for the Betterment. The Party Representative requesting the Betterment shall be solely responsible for obtaining any necessary internal approval of the requested Betterment in a timely manner. ARTICLE 13. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE 13.1 Upon completion of the Project and the opening of the Project for use by the public (the "Revenue Operations Date"), UTA will begin to incur costs associated with 13 facilitate the development of the Sugar House Corridor Management Policies; (f) address and resolve issues, disputes or concerns between the Parties arising from or related to the Project or the operation thereof; and (g) perform all other functions expressly assigned to the Project Integration Team in this Agreement. 14.5 The Parties hereby create a Project Executive Team consisting of the following individuals: (i) for SLC, the SLC Mayor, (ii) for SSL, the SSL Mayor, and (iii) for UTA, the General Manager. The Project Executive Team shall: (i) meet on at least a quarterly basis to review the progress and status of the design and construction of the Project, and once the Project begins revenue operations, on an as-needed basis to review the operations and performance of the Project, (ii) jointly make decisions regarding service levels, (iii) (iwevise the Sugar House Corridor Management Policies to meet changing needs and conditions, (iv) explore the ongoing enhancement of the Proiect and pursuing development opportunities in the Sugar House Corridor and adjacent areas as provided in Section 16.2, (v) resolve all disputes and make all decisions escalated to the Project Executive Team by the Project Integration Team, and (iv) perform such duties and functions as are expressly assigned to the Project Executive Team in this Agreement. The Project Executive Team shall meet and continue to function until disbanded by mutual Agreement of the Parties; provided, however, that following the Cessation of O&M Funding Date, UTA shall have sole responsibility and authority to operate the Project, and the role of the Project Executive Team in such matters as levels of service will be advisory only. 14.6 Any dispute that cannot be resolved by the Project Integration Team shall be forwarded to the Project Executive Team. 14.7 The Project Integration Team and shall , eet and continue to function, until disbanded by mutual agreement of the Parties, for the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Sugar House Corridor Management Policies—and--Article 16 below Nevertheless, , making recommendations to the Project Executive Team, and performing such other functions related to the Project as the Parties may sweet-to S.,o•, :To rider anagemen Pelieis7require. 14.8 The Parties shall exhaust the dispute escalation and resolution process identified in this Article prior to the initiation of any formal legal action. If a dispute cannot be resolved by the Parties after good faith negotiations as outlined in this Article, the dispute may then be brought before a court of competent jurisdiction as set forth in Article 23 of this Agreement. 14.9 Except for decisions which are expressly reserved in this Agreement to the UTA Board, whenever in this Agreement a decision, approval consent or other action is to be made or taken by"UTA," such decision, approval, consent or other action shall be made or taken by the General Manager of UTA, without further approval from the UTA Board. ARTICLE 15. PROJECT STATIONS 15 ARTICLE 17. DEVELOPMENT OF UTA PROPERTY IN SOUTH SALT LAKE UTA and SSL recognize and agree that UTA owns a substantial amount of property within the City of South Salt Lake that, by virtue of UTA's status as a quasi-governmental agency, is tax-exempt. UTA and SSL agree to form a task force, promptly following execution of this Agreement, to investigate and implement opportunities for UTA to sell, lease, exchange, or otherwise develop some of its surplus property within the City of South Salt Lake to private owners and thereby bring it onto the tax rolls. ARTICLE 17.ARTICLE 18. TERM This Agreement shall be effective as of the Effective Date and, unless otherwise agreed between the Parties, shall continue thereafter in full force and effect until all obligations, commitments and requirements have been fully performed as set forth hereunder. Nothing provided herein shall be construed so as to exceed the term limitation provided in the Act. The expiration or termination of this Agreement shall not relieve or excuse any Party of any obligations accruing prior to the expiration or termination hereof including, without limitation, the covenants and warranties made hereunder and any obligations accruing under the indemnification provisions set forth in Article 18 of this Agreement ARTICLE 18.ARTICLE 19. INDEMNITY Each Party (the "Indemnifying Party") hereby agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the other Party and such Parry's respective agents, employees, officers, officials, directors, trustees and assigns (collectively, the "Indemnified Party") from and against any and all claims, demands, liens, liabilities, costs, fees (including reasonable attorneys' fees), damages or other losses incurred by the Indemnified Party and arising out of or by reason of: (a) the negligent acts or omissions of the Indemnifying Party or its agents; or (b) the material breach of this Agreement by the Indemnifying Party or its agents. The indemnities provided hereunder are contractual obligations personal to the Parties hereto. Nothing provided in this Agreement is intended to waive, modify, limit or otherwise affect any defense or provisions that the Parties may assert with respect to any third party under the Utah Governmental Immunity Act or other applicable law. :ARTICLE 20. DEFAULT A Party shall be deemed in default of this Agreement upon the failure of such Party to observe or perform a covenant, condition or agreement on its part to be observed or performed, and the continuance of such failure for a period of thirty (30) days after the giving of written notice by the non-defaulting Party, which notice shall specify such failure and request that it be remedied; provided, however, that if the failure stated in such notice cannot be corrected within the applicable period, it shall not give rise to a default hereunder if corrective action is instituted within the 30-day period and diligently pursued until such failure is corrected. In the event of a default hereunder, the non-defaulting Party shall have a breach of contract claim remedy against the defaulting Party in addition to all other remedies provided or permitted by law, provided that 17 If any provision of this Agreement shall be held or deemed to be or shall, in fact, be illegal, inoperative or unenforceable, the same shall not affect any other provisions herein contained or render the same invalid, inoperative or unenforceable to any extent whatsoever. ARTICLE 23.ARTICLE 24. GOVERNING LAW This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Utah, both as to interpretation and performance. It shall be enforced only a court of competent jurisdiction located in Salt Lake City, Utah. ARTICLE 24.ARTICLE 25. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES There are no intended third Party beneficiaries to this Agreement. It is expressly understood that enforcement of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and all rights of action relating to such enforcement, shall be strictly reserved to the Parties, and nothing contained in this Agreement shall give or allow any claim or right of action by any third person under this Agreement. It is the express intention of the Parties that any third person who receives benefits under this Agreement shall be deemed an incidental beneficiary only. ARTICLE 25.ARTICLE 26. ENTIRE AGREEMENT; AMENDMENT Except as expressly provided herein, this Agreement contains the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and no statements, promises or inducements made by any Party or agents of any Party that are not contained in this Agreement shall be binding or valid. This Agreement may not be amended, enlarged, modified or altered except through a written instrument signed by all Parties. ARTICLE 26.ARTICLE 27. POLICE POWER The Parties acknowledge the rights vested in the Cities pursuant to general law to exercise their police powers for the protection of health, safety and welfare of its constituents and their properties. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as precluding the Cities from exercising such powers in connection with the Project. ARTICLE 27.ARTICLE 28. INTERLOCAL COOPERATION ACT REQUIREMENTS In satisfaction of the requirements of the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Title 11, Chapter 13, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, and in connection with this Agreement, the Parties agree as follows: 27.128.1 The Agreement shall be authorized by resolution or ordinance of the governing body of each Party pursuant to §11-13-202.5 of the Act. 27.228.2 This Agreement shall be approved as to form and legality by a duly authorized attorney on behalf of each Party pursuant to §11-13-202.5 of the Act. 19 t IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have each executed this Interlocal Agreement Regarding the Sugar House Streetcar Project as of the date first set forth above. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY By: _ By: Ralph Becker, Mayor Michael A.Allegra, General Manager ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: By: I W. Steven Meyer, Chief Capital Development By: Officer City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: Senior City Attorney UTA Legal Counsel CITY OF SOUTH SALT LAKE By: Cherie Wood, Mayor ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: 21 EXHIBIT A f Scope of Work.] The scope of the project is split into two descriptions. The first is for a Baseline Project, the minimum required to provide streetcar service as committed to the Federal Transit Administration in the TIGER II grant. The second, provided in Exhibit B, is a list of additional project elements, amenities, and/or improvements that the Parties of this agreement would like to be included if funds are available to pay for them. BASELINE PROJECT Guideway and Track Elements The Sugar House Streetcar will run in the existing Sugar House spur rail corridor from just south of existing 2100 South Central Pointe TRAX Station to the east nearly two miles to McClelland Street. The configuration shall be single track with one passing siding currently located near 500 East and a tail track at eastern end of line. The location of the track alignment will be approximately centered in the corridor based on building the north track of the vision document. The final alignment will be determined as part of the environmental re-evaluation, design, and FTA approval processes and may vary from block to block. The conceptual drawings, dated provide additional information regarding the requirements of building the track elements. This item includes guideway and track for ballasted streetcar construction including rough grading, excavation, fill, and track elements from sub-ballast to 115 RE rail, including all construction materials and labor. Fourteen grade crossings of varying widths will use embedded concrete or concrete crossing panels. Landscaping is not included in the baseline project. Stations/Stops Stations include all materials and labor for the work of rough grading, excavation, finish-grading, platforms, shelters, mechanical and electrical components, and lighting. The stops for this project are designed for single-car trains with a horizontal length for door access of not more than 65 feet. Platforms will be reinforced concrete construction. Platform height is 8 inches, designed to be consistent with UTA's existing system. There are seven(7) stations planned for this project at: the western terminus near the 2100 South TRAX light rail station, between Main Street and State Street, 300 East, 500 East, 700 East, 900 East, and the eastern terminus at McClelland Street which is approximately 1050 east. Exact locations as shown in the conceptual drawings are subject to change pending FTA approval. All stations will meet ADA requirements. Public artwork to fulfill the obligations described in the Memorandum of Agreement between FTA and the Utah State Historic Preservation Office will be provided at one or more station locations. All other artwork is part of the additional project amenities. Site-work and Special Conditions Site-work includes all construction materials and labor for the following tasks: demolition, utility relocation and modification, hazardous materials, roadwork, and indirect contractor costs associated with the construction. Demolition consists of typical railroad corridor features 23 4816-2624-6670.1 This item consists of professional services associated with the real estate component of the project as well as costs to acquire any necessary right-of-way. Because this project will be built in an existing rail corridor, most of the land acquisitions occur where the alignment turns north toward the western terminus to meet the existing light rail station. Some additional sliver parcels may be required along the corridor. Professional Services This cost category includes all professional, technical and management services. Preliminary engineering includes advancing the conceptual design to a point sufficient to procure contracting services. Final design includes engineering and architectural services, compilation of as-built plans, environmental mitigation services, specialty services such as safety and security analyses, value engineering,risk assessment, cost estimating and scheduling, and surveying. Project management consists of agency staff and/or professional service consultants who manage and oversee the entire,project; insurance provides the owner, contractor/subcontractors, and consultant/sub-consultants with worker's compensation, environmental, various liability insurances, builder's risk, and railroad protective insurance. Legal costs and permits for plan reviews or other fees are also included in this cost category. Surveys, testing, investigation, inspection costs include environmental and hazardous contamination remediation oversight, testing, and clean-up support. Start-up costs include agency staff and professional services to provide support and training to begin revenue operations. An agency force account includes work performed by agency or partner staff including providing all necessary data for reporting requirements. 25 4816-2624-6670.1 EXHIBIT C Performance Specifications The following standards shall constitute the Performance Specifications: 1. UTA's Light Rail Design Criteria Manual, as amended by the Parties. 2. Manual of Standard Specifications, as published by the Utah Chapter of the American Public Works Association(2007 Edition). 3. Manual of Standard Plans, as published by the Utah Chapter of the American Public Works Association (2007 Edition). 4. The Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department Performance Specifications and Design Criteria for culinary water, sanitary sewer and storm drain facilities, current edition. 5. All public works infrastructure owned and operated by the City of South Salt Lake shall be designed and installed in accordance with the latest edition of the Manual of Standard Plans and the Manual of Standard Specifications published by the Utah Chapter of the American Public Works Association, and South Salt Lake City design standards. 6. The FHWA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, current edition. 7. The Traffic Control Manual published by the Utah LTAP Center of Utah State University, current edition. 8. The Americans With Disabilities Act, and all rules, regulations, interpretive guidance and other authority promulgated pursuant to the Americans With Disabilities Act. 9. All applicable building codes, laws and regulations. 10. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials standard practices for roadway and bridge design and construction. 27 4816-2624-6670.1 Boswell, Sarah From: Jen Colby[hopheads@xmission.com] Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 10:44 PM To: Council Comments Cc: Mayor; Everitt, David; Gary Felt Subject: We strongly support the proposed animal ordinance changes Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear City Council Members, On behalf of our family and the numerous foster, stray, and feral cats and kittens who have been a part of it over the years, my husband and I strongly support the proposed changes to the Animal Services ordinances as described in the Open City Hall summary and staff briefing. We understand that similar changes at the county level are proving successful. Further, the kinds of arguments that have been brought up in the past from old-school animal control advocates are simply not substantive nor are they bearing out in community after community that has adopted modern, progressive, creative pet (animal) ordinances with great success. In Utah, we are fortunate to have the great organization Best Friends Animal Society (including No More Homeless Pets of Utah), a pioneering grassroots group that has helped lead the way to groundbreaking changes that benefit animals, people, and communities. There are also numerous dedicated volunteers across our city, county, and state who devote countless hours to rescue and care of homeless animals, and they save taxpayers enormous sums of money with their efforts to foster, fix, and adopt. Several years ago, I had the great honor of serving on a 'citizen committee' to review and propose alternative animal ordinances, convened by Soren Simonsen. I learned a great deal from the experience, as we studied best practices around the country and reviewed the current ordinance line by line, word by word, definition by definition. At the time, council staff had been working diligently with their own version, and the citizen group suggested many more changes. However, there was less of a track record nationally for these sorts of policies and programs. At the end of the process, the only portion of our suggested changes that the Council passed were the feral cat section revisions, which have since proven successful. Now that there are many more positive results for broader changes around the country and Canada, and Salt Lake County has adopted similar measures, it is time for Salt Lake City to do the same. Salt Lake County has also made many positive changes thanks to new leadership and policies. As the contract service provider for the city, it also makes a great deal of sense for the two jurisdictions' ordinances to align. Despite budget challenges, the county has made great progress in reducing euthanasia and increasing adoption, and their staff are much more supportive of these sorts of changes now than 5 years ago. I specifically want to address the issue of numerical pet limits, as this seems to be one issue that raises concern among residents. As you are well aware, many people already violate these limits, but fly under the radar and also then do not license their pets. Quite honestly, it is not like there is some sort of latent, pent-up demand in households for more pets that will mean a massive increase in the per-household number of animals once the ordinance changes. Sadly, with the economic downturn, it is largely the opposite, with many pets abandoned after families have lost their homes and incomes. Actually, the ordinance as currently written is only enforced on a complaint basis, and can be used as a cruel tool for neighbors to act out against their neighbors, leading to- unnecessary and traumatic removal of pets from perfectly good homes simply due to irrational numerical limits. For example, several months ago I was volunteering at a pet adoption event 1 for Best Friends Animal Society at Trolley Square. A woman came up to me, clearly distressed, and asked for advice; her brother had been turned in by a neighbor who accused his cats of threatening wild birds. Because he would not agree to keep the cats inside his house, they retaliated and reported him for having 3 cats, and therefore Animal Services had come to forcibly remove one. Could Best Friends take the confiscated cat so it did not get euthanized, the woman pleaded? Sadly, the answer was no, they did not directly accept animals. They were all well cared for and this simply caused trauma for the owner, escalated the neighbor conflict, did not solve the underlying problem, and caused significant cost the shelter and taxpayers. If you were in this situation, and you had 3 pet cats and were forced to give one up by law enforcement, which one would you choose? By the way, habitat loss and impacts with buildings, cars, and infrastructure are vastly greater killers of birds than cats, as shown by many research studies. Additionally, it seems peculiar that it would be OK for us to adopt two dogs of any size or shape in addition to two cats, but another (indoor) cat or two in our household instead of dogs would somehow a huge societal problem. These are the sorts of ordinances that cause me to get in touch with my inner libertarian, just like the chicken and bee ordinances did. (Kudos on those revisions, by the way, and a special thanks to JT Martin). Pet hoarding is often brought up as a straw man argument, but not only is that condition exceedingly rare, it is due to severe mental illness, a type of obsessive-compulsive disorder. That deserves immediate intervention and help, but it is wrong-headed to have ordinances written for the very extremes of behavior as though this were a contagious condition controlled only by legal sanction. We believe that the ordinance changes as drafted will help increase licensing and the number of pets that are returned to owners, and hopefully increase the rate of fostering and adoption. I pledge to license my cats as soon as the ordinance takes effect, and will help promote this in my neighborhood and the city. One of my main concerns was ease of licensing as the shelter is not terribly convenient for city residents if that need be done in person, but here is now an online option. s One suggestion - since many people who formerly owned homes now must rent, might you consider adding "pet-friendly" to the good landlord program? I know from experience that finding an apartment when you own a pet can be extremely difficult, and most pets cause no problems. Sincerely, Jen Colby and Rich Wilcox 160 Lincoln Street Salt Lake City, UT 84102 2 Boswell, Sarah From: Jen Colby[hopheads©xmission.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 7:34 AM To: Council Comments Cc: Mayor; Garrott, Luke; Everitt, David;Arlyn Bradshaw Correspondence; pcorroon@slco.org Subject: Additional comment on animal ordinance- provide complimentary temporary licenses to foster homes/rescue groups Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Council Members, I submitted comments last night about the proposed animal ordinances changes, which I support. I did forget to add one point in my comments, though. As I mentioned previously, rescue groups and foster families care for thousands of homeless animals every year at their own expense, saving taxpayers substantial sums of money by keeping them out of shelters and reducing kill (euthanasia) rates. Most homeless animals just need more time to find a home than space and policy limits of the shelters provide for. This is especially true for adult animals, and specifically cats. Please be sure that there is a provision in the ordinance to provide temporary licenses free of charge to rescue groups and their foster home volunteers. Once animals are placed into permanent homes, regular licensing provisions would apply. Many rescuers and foster families are relatively low income and already contributing financially by caring for these homeless animals. In this difficult fundraising environment, local rescue groups also struggle financially. T This provision would help encourage rather than discourage people from becoming foster homes. And speaking of space at the shelter, I strongly support city funding for a new shelter, or perhaps a more distributed, neighborhood-based model that could piggyback on existing facilities (senior centers? libraries?). The current facility is cramped and depressing, and inconvenient for city residents. I would far rather you fund this - and the backlog of capital projects of all kinds in our city - than yet another performing arts theater, which I do not believe we need at this time and will drain resources from many other vital projects in our community. I am a strong supporter of the arts, but for a community of our size, we have an abundance of arts facilities and options, and another facility will only drain resources from the larger spaces already in existence. Sincerely, Jen Colby 160 Lincoln Street Salt Lake City, UT 84102 1 Tuuao, Priscilla From: Weaver, Lehua Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 1:55 PM To: ccFront Office Cc: Weeks, Russell; Bruno, Jennifer Subject: FW: Fwd: Parking Meter Breaking Even Attachments: Parking Meter Break Even.xlsx Could you print this email with the attachment for the Council's places? Council Members, Cindy forwarded a spreadsheet to you from the Administration that shows what would have to happen to Parking Meter revenue for it to cover the ongoing expenses associated with the new pay stations. This was in response to a question from Council Member Christensen. Based on staffs quick review, here are some notes: • Reminder of facts: o Ongoing costs of debt payment and operating expenses total $951,055. (note: this adds in S85,000 for credit card fees that was not previously budgeted) o Reduction is expenses due to the pay stations efficiencies include less coin collection, no meter repairs, additional revenue from a full-year of the new hourly rate(based on the $1.50 rate adopted with the annual budget). These savings to previous expense budgets total $(367,000) and reduce the ongoing costs. o NET ongoing costs,therefore,would total $584,055. • Assumptions: o The revenue collected from parking meters in November 2011, including the test pay stations, increased by 50.3%, or$27,271. o The Administration appears to have used this increase as a "low"estimation of how much parking meter revenue may increase. $27,271 x 12 months=$327,252 per year. o To develop a range, the Administration has applied the 50% increase to the total annual budget for parking meter revenue. $1,400,000 x 50%_ $700,000 and used the $700,000 as the high point of the possible increase. o If an average of this `low' and `high' were taken,the Administration calculates that the average increase may be$513,626. • Possible Option to increasing hourly rates/extending enforcement hours: o If the average increase were budgeted,plus extending the financing term from the recommended 7-year period to a 10-year period (for an annual savings of$75,000),the net ongoing costs would be covered. Average increase: $513,626 Net Ongoing costs minus $75,000 from extending the financing term: $584.055 75.000 = 509,055 o 'l'he average increase would be $4,571 greater than the net ongoing costs. The Council may wish to change some of the assumptions or discuss other revenue/expense options. This was an informational sheet provided by the Administration and is not necessarily their recommendation. The Administration is present to help answer any questions or provide understanding of what is included in the spreadsheet. From: Gust-Jenson, Cindy Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 6:05 PM To: City Council (ALL) Subject: Fw: Fwd: Parking Meter Breaking Even 1 From: Everitt, David Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 05:35 PM To: Gust-Jenson, Cindy; Bruno, Jennifer Subject: Fwd: Parking Meter Breaking Even Hey I don't know if this got over to you yet, but it's followup from the mtg with Carlton and Kyle. Thanks- Begin forwarded message: From: "Hoskins, Gordon" <Gordon.Hoskinsa,slcgov.com> Subject: Parking Meter Breaking Even Date: December 2, 2011 4:03:49 PM MST To: "Everitt, David" <David.Everitt c slcgov.com>, "Chamness, Gina" <Gina.Chamnessc slcgov.com> Cc: "Thompson, Mary Beth" <MaryBeth.Thompsona,slcgov.com>, "Moore, Sandee" <sandee.moore@slcgov.com>, "Young, Kevin" <Kevin.Younga,slcgov.com>, "Gray, Frank" <Frank.Graya,slcgov.com> Carlton wanted a break even solution to the parking meters with no expanded hours and no additional rate increase. See attached. 2 PARKING METER SYSTEM BREAKING EVEN WITH NO EXPANDED HOURS AND NO METER RATE INCREASE Notes: November normally lowest month in meter collection revenues From test meters we are seeing 45% credit card usage Credit card fee is $.27 per transaction Lease rate were as of 10/1/11 could change up or down Based on 7 year lease arrangement Total system cost from APAC 4,500,000 Payment from CIP 2,700,000 Lease portion 1,800,000 Lease annual payment 280,470 Annual Maintenance Costs 585,535 Credit Card fee at 45% usage $.27 per transaction 85,050 $1.4 million total revenue Credit usage at 45% =to $630,000 Total transaction at 315,000 NOTE: Must move to a $2.00 minimum credit card rate Total Cost 951,055 Savings from meter collections -72,000 Savings from meter repairs -45,000 Additional revenue on full year of rate increase as of 1/1/12 -250,000 Net Difference 584,055 Option: Utilization of new meters (See next Page) 513,626 10 yrs instead of 7 yrs lease period 75,000 Total for option 588,626