Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
02/14/1989 - Minutes (2)
PROCWINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI , UTAH TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1989 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met as the Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, February 14, 1989, at 5:00 p.m. in Suite 300, City Hall, 324 South State Street. The following Council Members were present: Florence Bittner Alan Hardman Roselyn Kirk Wayne Horrocks Tom Godfrey Willie Stoler Sydney Fonnesbeck Council Chairperson Stoler presided at the meeting. The Council interviewed Mark golf ordinance were mainly techni- Cantor prior to consideration of cal changes. She said the neces- his appointment to the Salt Lake sary motions were outlined and City Arts Council. Mr. Cantor should be made separately as there said he had lived in Salt Lake might not be consensus on each City for 10 years and had been motion. active in the Folk Music Division of the Arts Council as a performer Councilmember Bittner asked and historian. He said he was when the new fees would go into looking forward to helping shape effect and Ms. Hamilton said the the direction of the arts communi- change for passes would go into ty and was willing to put in a lot effect immediately, but the dis- of volunteer time to do so. count green fees of $3.50 for juniors and seniors would go into The Council interviewed effect January 1, 1989 and then Marjorie Janove prior to consider- change to $4. 50 on July 1, 1990. ation of her appointment to the To avoid changing fees in the Salt Lake City Arts Council. Ms. middle of the golf season staff Janove said she had been active in recommended changing the fees to the arts all her life. She said $4. 50 on January 1, 1990. that during the six years she had lived in the city she had been a Councilmember Hardman said he soloist performer with the Utah would be making a motion to change Symphony and also a teacher. She the golf ordinance so that no free said she was active in the Brown golf passes would be allowed. Bag Series, had noticed increased Sheryl Gillilan, Mayor' s Office attendance and she wanted to Policy Analyst, explained that enhance the trend through promo- this would affect the Golf Adviso- tions and public awareness cam- ry Board (GAB) as they were the paigns. only Board who received free passes. Mr. Hardman said he had Lee King, Council Staff Audi- two reasons for initiating the tor, reviewed the schedule for change. They were: 1 ) the city Olympic Committee meetings and did not compensate members of said that an agenda for the Thurs- other volunteer boards, and 2) day, February 16, 1989 meeting had giving members of the GAB free been posted. He handed out min- passes insulated them from recom- utes of the subcommittee meetings. mendations the Board made relat- ing to fee structure and he felt Ms. Hamilton reviewed the it would cloud their judgement. agenda saying that changes to the 89-39 PROC . INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CAI, UTAH TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1989 Rick Graham, Parks Department, out the portability of the Tax said that because no other passes Increment money and the area were given out, the monetary blight concept, but the city impact was very small and the city lobbyist was working hard against expected the members of the GAB to them both and thought there was a become experts on the city courses good chance to defeat both amend- in order to make recommendations ments. as to how they should be operated. Councilmember Kirk asked if there Councilmember Bittner said the was a way to limit the number of Salt Palace Expansion Feasibility rounds they could play. She said Committee had met for the last a number of people had the impres- time as a body with the strong sion that a lot of free passes recommendation that the renovation were given out and the change and remodeling of existing conven- could help to dispel that. Coun- tion facilities at the Salt Palace cilmember Bittner said the Board not be tied to the construction of members needed their passes in the new arena. She said the order to do their job well. committee recommended that the Salt Palace improvements continue Ms. Hamilton asked Coun- on an incremental basis. cilmember Bittner for an update on activity in the state legislature Councilmember Bittner said the and Ms. Bittner said that the city was working hard to defeat situation was very fluid. Michael the bill to repeal the Innkeeper Chitwood, Director of the Redevel- Tax as the new arena couldn' t be opment Agency (RDA) , explained funded if it was repealed. She the status of the state funding said the ones fighting hardest to bill for the new arena and said repeal the tax were the ones to the possibilities for getting it benefit from the new arena facil- passed were good. He said the ity. Roger Cutler, City Attorney, bond repayment would be financed said the lobbyist felt the bill by the Tax Increment and the RDA could be defeated in the Senate. would get 100% for the first 14 years, then 20% would begin to Councilmember Godfrey ques- rollback and the RDA would get 80% tioned what effect losing the for the next 12 years. Mr. portability would have, and Mr. Chitwood said two concepts were Chitwood said it would kill at- very important to the bill: 1 ) the tempts to build parking structures area blight , and 2) the portabil- and support buildings outside of ity of the Tax Increment. He said the redevelopment area. Coun- the portability of the Tax Incre- cilmember Bittner asked the Coun- ment monies would allow the RDA to cil if they felt the need to call buy land and develop parking a meeting as the RDA Board of structures outside the redevelop- Directors in order to take a vote ment project area. He said that and make an official stand, but through interlocal agreements the none of the Councilmembers felt a state would hold harmless the meeting was necessary. school district and the RDA would hold harmless the library system. He passed our a chart showing the funding breakdown. (attached) Mr. Chitwood said two amend- ments had been introduced to strip 89-40 ARENA FUNDING EXAMPLE HB 390 ARENA SCHOOL NET DEBT YEAR REVENUE TI CONTRACT SERVICE • 1989 1 ,839 390 1 ,449 1990 1 ,839 390 1 ,449 1991 1 ,839 390 1 ,449 1992 1 ,839 526 390 1 ,975 1993 2 ,299 526 390 2 ,435 1994 2 , 299 526 390 2 ,435 1995 2 ,299 526 390 2 ,435 1996 2 , 299 526 390 2 ,435 1997 2 ,299 526 390 2 ,435 1998 2 , 759 526 390 2 ,895 0 1999 2 , 759 526 390 2 ,895 �- 2000 2 , 759 526 390 2 ,895 0 2001 2 ,759 526 390 2 ,895 2002 2 ,759 526 390 2 ,895 2003 1 , 380 526 390 1 , 516 2004 1 , 380 526 390 1 , 516 2005 1 ,380 526 390 1 ,516 2006 1 , 380 526 390 1 , 516 2007 1 ,380 526 390 1 ,516 2008 1 ,839 526 390 1 ,975 2009 1 ,839 526 390 1 ,975 ASSUMPTIONS : 1 ) FINANCING CALCULATED AT 8 .5% WITH NO COSTS OF ISSUANCE & NO FUNDED RESERVES . III 2 ) PROJECTION IS BASED ON UNAUDITED ESTIMATES OF FUTURE CBD TAX INCREMENT . 3 ) WHEN THE DEBT IS RETIRED THE TAX INCREMENT WILL BE DISTRIBUTED AS CURRENTLY OUTLINED IN THE UTAH NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT ACT . 4 ) THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE ROLL BACK IS WAIVED IS TOTALLY DEPENDENT ON THE TIME NECESSARY TO RETIRE THE DEBT CREATED TO ASSIST THE ARENA. PROCIIINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI , UTAH TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1989 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in regular session on Tuesday, February 14, 1989, at 6:00 p.m. in Suite 300, City Hall, 324 South State Street. The following Council Members were present: Florence Bittner Alan Hardman Roselyn Kirk Wayne Horrocks Tom Godfrey Willie Stoler Sydney Fonnesbeck Roger Cutler, City Attorney, Lynda Domino, Chief Deputy City Recorder, and LaNita Brown, Deputy Recorder, were present. Mayor Palmer DePaulis was absent. Councilmember Stoler presided at the meeting and Councilmember Bittner conducted the meeting. OPENING CEREMONIES this might be addressed in the upcoming Housing Conference. Mr. #1. The invocation was given Tuttle said that in some cities by Police Chaplain Ted Fields. landlords were required to pay relocation costs when a building #2. The Council led the was closed down, and there was Pledge of Allegiance. already a federal law requiring this when people were being re- #3. Councilmember Kirk mov- located by a federal project. Mr. ed and Councilmember Godfrey Tuttle said he felt they needed to seconded to approve the minutes of have something done sooner than the Salt Lake City Council for the the Housing Conference. He said regular meeting held Tuesday, they should consider imposing a February 7, 1989, which motion moratorium on evictions. Mr. carried, all members present voted Cutler informed the Council that aye, except Councilmember Fonnes- there had been a number of re- beck who was absent at the time of quests for various proposals on the vote. this kind of situation and there (M 89-1) were state statutes that supersed- ed and limited any authority the city would have to deal with the COMMENTS problem. He said the matter might be better addressed through Rich Tuttle, speaking for the the state legislature. Coun- Salt Lake Hospitality Ministry, a cilmember Bittner said she felt program for homeless persons, they should refer the issue to asked the Council if they would their staff who could then meet meet with his group to address the with Mr. Tuttle and together they problem of slum landlords. He could decide what the options were said people were being forced into before making any decisions. the streets because Salt Lake City did not have ordinances to require landlords to maintain their prop- erty in a decent manner. Coun- cilmember Godfrey said he felt 89-41 PROCDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CO, UTAH TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1989 CONSENT AGENDA seconded to adopt Resolution 24 of 1989, authorizing the issuance and Councilmember Godfrey moved providing for the sale of $366,000 and Councilmember Hardman seconded Special Assessment Bonds, Series to approve the consent agenda, 1989, Westside Interchange Special which motion carried, all members Improvement District No. 38-763, voted aye. fixing the range of interest rates, prescribing the form, the #1. RE: The appointment of maturity and denomination of the Mark Cantor and Marjorie Janove to bonds; providing for the contin- the Salt Lake City Arts Council. uance of a guaranty fund; autho- (I 88-23) rizing and approving the form of a bond purchase agreement, and related matters, which motion NEW COUNCIL BUSINESS carried, all members voted aye. (Q 84-6) #1. RE: The appointment of Cindy Gust-Jenson as Executive #2. RE: A resolution autho- Director of the Salt Lake City rizing the issuance and providing Council, effective February 19, for the sale of $148,000 Special 1989. Assessment Bonds, Series 1989, Special Improvement District No. ACTION: Councilmember God- 38-813, Non-Contiguous Streets, frey moved and Councilmember fixing the range of interest Hardman seconded the motion to rates, prescribing the form, the suspend the rules and adopt on maturity and denomination of the first reading, the appointment of bonds; providing for the continu- Cindy Gust-Jenson as Executive ance of a guaranty fund; authoriz- Director of the Salt Lake City ing and approving the form of a Council, effective February 19, bond purchase agreement, and 1989, which motion carried, all related matters. members voted aye. (I 89-4) ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to adopt Resolution 25 UNFINISHED BUSINESS of 1989, authorizing the issuance and providing for the sale of #1. RE: A resolution autho- $148,000 Special Assessment rizing the issuance and providing Bonds, Series 1989, Special Im- for the sale of $366,000 Special provement District No. 38-813, Assessment Bonds, Series 1989, Non-Contiguous Streets, fixing the Westside Interchange Special range of interest rates, prescrib- Improvement District No. 38-763, ing the form, the maturity and fixing the range of interest denomination of the bonds; provid- rates, prescribing the form, the ing for the continuance of a maturity and denomination of the guaranty fund; authorizing and bonds; providing for the contin- approving the form of a bond uance of a guaranty fund; autho- purchase agreement, and related rizing and approving the form of a matters, which motion carried, all bond purchase agreement, and members voted aye. related matters. (Q 87-4) ACTION: Councilmember Kirk #3. RE: An ordinance estab- moved and Councilmember Godfrey lishing fees at the city' s golf 89-42 PROC INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI , UTAH TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1989 courses and establishing rules and Councilmember Kirk moved and conditions under which those fees Councilmember Stoler seconded to will apply. approve the proposal as adopted on January 17, 1989, but changing ACTION: Councilmember Kirk Section E to read, "Golf passes moved and Councilmember Stoler and discounts provided herein may seconded to approve the proposal not be used for weekend or holiday as adopted on January 17, 1989, play" , which motion carried, all but changing Section A 2a to members voted aye. reflect that green fees for Jun- iors and Seniors from January 1, Councilmember Hardman moved 1989, to December 31, 1989, will and Councilmember Kirk seconded to be $3. 50 and on January 1, 1990, approve the proposal as adopted on this fee will change to $4. 50, January 17, 1989, but adding which motion carried, all members Section G which states, "No season voted aye. golf pass shall be issued without payment to the city of the appro- Councilmember Kirk moved and priate rate listed in Subparagraph Councilmember Stoler seconded to 3, 'Season Golf Passes'" , which approve the proposal as adopted on motion carried, all members voted January 17, 1989, but changing aye except Councilmembers Bittner, Section A 3b to read, "Senior/- Horrocks, and Stoler who voted Junior Citizen pass rate will be nay. four hundred dollars", which motion carried, all members voted Councilmember Kirk moved and aye except Councilmembers Councilmember Hardman seconded to Fonnesbeck and Godfrey who voted adopt Ordinance 5 of 1989, as nay. amended, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Coun- Councilmember Kirk moved and cilmembers Fonnesbeck and Godfrey Councilmember Stoler seconded to who voted nay. approve the proposal as adopted on January 17, 1989, but changing DISCUSSION: Councilmember Section A 5c to read, "Effective Hardman said he was proposing to July 1, 1990, no private carts at eliminate all free golf passes in Mt. Dell Canyon & Lake" , which the city from this point forward. motion carried, all members voted He said it had been evident during aye. the hearing that the public be- lieved that city personnel and the Councilmember Kirk moved and City Council had access to free Councilmember Stoler seconded to golf passes. He said the only approve the proposal as adopted on persons he knew who had these January 17, 1989, but changing passes were city retirees and Section B to read, "Only persons members of the Golf Advisory Board whose principal place of residence (GAB) . He said he felt the issue is within the state of Utah and was one of fairness and he felt it who, at the time of pass purchase, was in the best interest of every- have a present expectation to one to eliminate them. continue residency within the state throughout the term of the Councilmember Fonnesbeck pass, shall be eligible to pur- questioned how many lifetime chase or use a season golf pass" , passes had been issued, and Rick which motion carried, all members Graham, Parks Department, said he voted aye. did not know but at one time they 89-43 PROCIKINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIO, UTAH TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1989 were given to retiring city em- E. Senior/Junior discount play ployees after 30 years of ser- would raise to $5. 50 and regular vice. Councilmember Horrocks said green fees to $7 in 1993/94. the GAB had out-of-pocket expenses (Councilmember Godfrey said that were not reimbursed and if that the first scenario would be none of the other board or commit- passing the buck to a future tee members did, this might be a Council. ) point they should consider. Coun- The second scenario was based cilmember Stoler asked Mr. Graham on the assumption that se- if the golf passes were given to nior/junior passes be maintained the GAB for leisure use or for at the current cost. It showed business use, and Mr. Graham said the following: they were given for business use A. Green fees would stay at since the most effective way for current levels until 1990/91. the GAB to become aware of changes B. Senior/Junior discount play or problems was by playing each would raise to $4. 50 and regular course, but he said they did not green fees to $6 in 1990/91. monitor the use of the passes. C. Senior/Junior discount fees would raise to $5. 50 and regular Mr. Cutler said the adminis- green fees to $7 in 1991/92. tration would still have the D. Senior/Junior discount fees prerogative to reimburse the GAB' s would raise to $6 and regular fees golf expenses if they were going to $8 in 1992/93. out to inspect a course. E. From that point on, green fees would remain flat and provide Councilmember Godfrey read a adequate revenue to meet bond memo he had prepared for the payments. Council Members in regards to the Golf Fee Structure. He said he Councilmember Godfrey said had asked the staff to assess the the obvious problem was the affect future impact of the fee structure on regular green fees. He said if and to analyze what green fees passes were maintained the current should be in future years to fee structure would have to esca- ensure that bond payments could be late dramatically and eventually made and the golf fund would golfers either couldn't afford to remain in the black without gener- golf or would decide it wasn't al fund appropriations. He said worth the money, which would mean there were two scenarios and the decreased revenue. He felt they first one was based on the assump- should immediately eliminate the tion that passes would be elimi- golf passes. nated when the golf fund began (0 89-3) showing a deficit. It showed the following: A. Passes would be eliminated PUBLIC HEARINGS between January and June of 1990. B. Non-pass senior/junior dis- #1 RE: A public hearing count play would raise to $4. 50 in scheduled for 6:20 p.m. to obtain 1990/91. Regular green fees would comment concerning, and consider remain at $6. adopting a proposed amendment to C. All fees would remain the Section 21.78. 110 of the Zoning same in 1991/92. Ordinance to allow conditional D. Senior/Junior discount play charitable uses in closed churches would raise to $5 and regular and schools. green fees to $7 in 1992/93. 89-44 PROCEL'DINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI1, UTAH TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1989 ACTION: Councilmember Stoler temporary meant, and Ms. Jardine moved and Councilmember Godfrey said there was a five-year time seconded to close the public limit, after which it would have hearing, which motion carried, all to be renewed or the use would members voted aye. cease. Councilmember Godfrey moved No one from the audience ad- and Councilmember Hardman second- dressed the issue. ed to adopt Ordinance 4 of 1989, (0 89-4) amending Section 21.78. 110 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow condi- The meeting adjourned at 7:00 tional charitable uses in closed p.m. churches and schools, which motion carried, all members voted aye. DISCUSSION: Janice Jardine, Planning and Zoning, said the current zoning ordinance allowed the Board of Adjustment to permit schools that had been temporarily closed or had reduced enrollment, to be used on a temporary basis COUN IL HAI RS N for office space for limited public, private, charitable, or educational purposes as a condi- tional use. She said they had identified four major planning / / issues that needed to be consid- _ � /%�1._ 'A ered. They were: 1 ) the compati- CIT R IF-DER bility of the use within the residential neighborhoods in which it would be located; 2) an increase in the intensity of the use of the building on a daily basis; 3) provision for adequate parking for the increase in the use; and 4) the impact of addi- tional traffic traveling through the surrounding area. She said the Planning Division staff be- lieved that a conditional use review process would allow each circumstance to be evaluated against criteria designed to protect the quality of neighbor- hoods, while allowing temporary use of institutional structures that may serve the neighborhood in the future. She said the Planning Commission recommended approval of the ordinance. Councilmember Fonnesbeck questioned what the definition of 89-45 ..ALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Zei CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER © f, I « SUITE 300, CITY HALL 324 SOUTH STATE STREET /0 ~��C�— `Tuesday, February 14, 1989 P � Op et 9 6:00 p.m. A. BRIEFING SESSION: 5:00 - 5:55 p.m. , Suite 300 City Hall, 324 South State. 1 . Report of the Executive Director. 2. The City Council will interview Mark Cantor prior to consideration of his proposed appointment to the Salt Lake City Arts Council. 3. The City Council will interview Marjorie Janove prior to consideration of her proposed appointment to the Salt Lake City `lrts Council. B. OPENING CEREMONIES: \� 1 . Invocation. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Approval of the Minutes. C. COMMENTS: 1 . Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. 2. Citizen Comments to the Council. D. CONSENT: 1 . Salt Lake City Arts Council , Appointments. 1I Consider approving the appointment of Mark Cantor and Marjorie Janove to the Salt Lake City Arts Council. (I 88- 23) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. E. NEW COUNCIL BUSINESS: 1 . Appointment of Council Executive Director. Consider adopting a motion to appoint Cindy Gust-Jenson as the Salt Lake City Council Executive Director effective February 19, 1989. (I 89-4) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Suspend Rules, Adopt on First Reading. 4(7i F. UNFINISHED COU BUSINESS: 1 . Special Improvement District No. 38-763 - California Interchange. Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the issuancQ and providing for the sale of $366,000 Special Assessment Bonds, Series 1989 West Side Interchange Special Improvement District,No. 38-763, fixing the of interest rates, prescri ing the form, the maturity and denomination of the bonds; providing for the continuance of a guaranty fund ; authorizing and approving the form of a bond purchase agreement, and related matters. (Q 84-6) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt . _ 2. Special Improvement District No. 38-813 - Non-Contiguous Streets. Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the issuance and providin for the sale of $148,000 Special ssessment Bonds, Series 19 9, Special Improvement District No. 38-813, Non-Contiguous Streets fixing the range of interest rates, prescribing the form, the maturity and denomination of the bonds; providing for the continuance of a guaranty fund; authorizing and approving the form of a bond purchase agreement, and related matters. (Q 87-4) b;5 --; L-1-5 a ,- STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt. 3. Golf Fees. . sider adopting an ordinance establishing fees at the City's golf courses 4- f;g'.e.j and establishingrules and conditions under which those fees will apply. • et, c�.- — l �t� ot- o7S•c-r. +It "1��fud�,ti �io ccpecL,j tJo.- a_ . - -+Lclud cI, .'ors,• G e4.+t ,n��c eSTTAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt with changes.Pip k, , etVa. ,. t _J4i( �us41-k 1 C.40--}3 G. PUBLIC HEARINGS: it)o P-r`Ct_ rQ 55 Pass e_5 •r d(.s" e4Divtitis . 1 . Conditional Charitable Uses. hod` o'er Kl eerie. 6:20 p.m. or JZ o l i447_5 Obtain public comment concerning and consider adopting a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, Section 21 .78. 110, to allow conditional charitable uses in closed churches and schools. (0 89-4) ,,\ p t.t.,5 e-r-0 e- N e 1 q Ll o t--k.o O ci, --- P!`e_5 e.t'U"C S A 141 ,STAFF RECOMMENDATION: • Close hearing and adopt . dr4e-e-- do'z ..e.loe 'stogy ..e..048,11/43._ H. ADJ URNMEN6.0Q -,e.010•u • ** FINAL ACTION MAY BE TAKEN AND/OR ORDINANCES ADOPTED CONCERNING ANY ITEM ONAA T,H�ISS SAG A , DATED: February 10, 1989 i BY: `''4/��i C TY RE22M;ER STATE OF UTAH ) COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) ss. On the 10th day of February, 1989, I personally delivered a copy of the foregoing notice to the Mayor and City Council and posted copies of the same in conspicuous view, at the following times and locations within City Hall, 324 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah: 1 . At 5:00 p.m. in the City Recorder's Office, 5th Floor; and 2. At 5:00 p.m. in the Newsroom, Room 336. '/Y) ,(01444-- CITY COR Subscribed and sworn to before me this 10th day of Febr y, 1989. Not y Pu is n the State of Utah My Commission Expires: APPROVAL: ECUTIVE RECTOR ARENA FUNDING EXAMPLE • .--702,1111)010r- r!"' _ HB 390 ARENA SCHOOL NET DEBT 41:7°)-- 41642--- • YEAR REVENUE TI CONTRACT SERVICE • 1989 1 ,839 390 1 ,449 1990 1 ,839 390 1 ,449 �_ 1991 1 ,839 390 1 ,449 1992 1 ,839 526 390 1 ,975 1993 2 , 299 526 390 2 ,435 1994 2 , 299 526 390 2 ,435 1995 2 ,299 526 390 2 ,435 1996 2 , 299 526 390 2 , 435 1997 2 , 299 526 390 2 , 435 1998 2 , 759 526 390 2 ,895 1999 2 , 759 526 390 2 ,895 2000 2 , 759 526 390 2 ,895 2001 2 , 759 526 390 2 ,895 2002 2 , 759 526 390 2 ,895 2003 1 , 380 526 390 1 , 516 - 2004 1 , 380 526 390 1 , 516 2005 1 , 380 526 390 1 , 516 2006 1 , 380 526 390 1 , 516 2007 1 , 380 526 390 1 , 516 2008 1 ,839 526 390 1 , 975 2009 1 ,839 526 390 1 , 9) 5 ASSUMPTIONS : 1 ) FINANCING CALCULATED AT 8 . 5% WITH NO COSTS OF ISSUANCE & NO FUNDED RESERVES . 2 ) PROJECTION IS BASED ON UNAUDITED ESTIMATES OF FUTURE CBD TAX INCREMENT . 3 ) WHEN THE DEBT IS RETIRED THE TAX INCREMENT WILL BE DISTRIBUTED AS CURRENTLY OUTLINED IN THE UTAH NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT ACT . 4 ) THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE ROLL BACK IS WAIVED IS TOTALLY DEPENDENT ON THE TIME NECESSARY TO RETIRE THE DEBT CREATED TO ASSIST THE ARENA. PROCEEDINGS ur" THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT ,SAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1989 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met as the Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, February 7, 1989, at 5: 00 p.m. in Suite 300, City Hall, 324 South State Street. The following Council Members were present: Florence Bittner Alan Hardman Roselyn Kirk Wayne Horrocks Tom Godfrey Willie Stoler Sydney Fonnesbeck Council Chairperson Stoler presided at the meeting. The Council interviewed Mr. Rick- Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked why len Nobis, prior to consideration the hearing had to be held on a of his proposed appointment to the Thursday. Ms. Richman said there Salt Lake City Arts Council. Mr. was a limited time frame for Nobis said his background was in obtaining the good rate. Council- music and he would like to serve member Horrocks asked what the on the council in order to bring scope of the hospital expansion more attention to the accomplish- involved. Ms. Richman said the ments and activities of the Salt hospital was under the same re- Lake Arts Council rather than the strictions as the first bond State Arts Council. issue. Ms. Fonnesbeck said she was looking into the problem to Ms. Linda Hamilton, Executive assure that no more residential Director, then reviewed the agen- housing was demolished. da. She said item D-2 (Airport Revenue Bonds ) , was written incor- Ms. Hamilton said the trustee rectly and was changed on the contract for the Airport Revenue addendum agenda. She said the Bonds was rebid and Continental proper amount for the Airport Bank and Trust Company offered a revenue bonds was $40,000, 000, not better service level. $40, 000. She said the original bond estimate was $30, 000, 000 but Ms. Fonnesbeck asked what the the scope of the project had schedule was for Ms. Hamilton expanded to include some roadwork assuming duties as head of the and was now at $40 million. Ms. Finance Department. Council Chair Hamilton said the hearing date for Stoler said he was going to pro- the airport bonds needed to be pose entering into executive changed to March 7th at 6:00 p.m. session to discuss in-house candi- Item D-2, therefore needed to be dates for the position of Execu- pulled from the consent agenda to tive Director. He said he would have the hearing date set by a also discuss the transition peri- separate motion. od with the Council. Christine Richman, Administrative Concerning the proposed airport Assistant, was asked to explain ground transportation ordinance the changes in the IHC Hospital ( item F-1 ) , Ms. Hamilton said bonds ( item D-9, addendum) . Ms. there were two proposed ordi- Richman said the current bonds nances. The first one would were issued at a variable rate and change the law to allow limousine the Hospital wanted to refinance services to expand their service the bonds at the current, more to include meeting prearranged favorable, fixed rate. fares at the airport gates. The 89-33 PROCEEDINGS THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT .KE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1989 second ordinance would regulate the meetings with the Congression- the dress and behavior of ground al delegations, to discuss the transportation starters, and water flows in the Provo River and would make the airport security possible affects on the Public staff responsible for the inspec- Utilities Department, had been tion of ground transportation scheduled during the Washington vehicles. D.C. trip. Ms. Hamilton said the staff recom- The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m. mended passing the first ordinance and delaying the second until the Following the regular Council impact of the ordinance could be meeting, the Council convened as studied. Louis Miller, Airport Committee of the Whole. Director, said he would like to Councilmember Bittner made a take the second ordinance before motion and Councilmember Horrocks the Airport Authority Board before seconded to enter into executive any action was taken. He said he session in order to discuss in- wanted to have a decision back to house candidates for the Executive the Council as soon as possible Director position. Councilmembers after the budget was finished. Godfrey, Stoler, Bittner, Ms. Fonnesbeck asked that Mr. Horrocks, Hardman, Fonnesbeck, and Miller report back to the Council Kirk voted in favor. by June 30, 1989 . In attendance: Councilmembers Councilmember Hardman asked if the Godfrey, Stoler, Bittner, $750, 000, mentioned in the Sunny- Horrocks, Hardman, Fonnesbeck, side Recreation Center presenta- Kirk, and Executive Director Linda tion, included interest payments. Hamilton. Cam Caldwell, Budget Analyst, said that $150, 000 was in the current Councilmember Godfrey made a budget and if the Council wanted motion, and Councilmember Horrocks to borrow $500, 000 to pay the seconded, to close executive balance up front, then the debt session. Councilmembers Godfrey, financing over a ten year pay-back Stoler, Bittner, Horrocks, period would be an estimated Hardman, Fonnesbeck, and Kirk $80, 000 per year, for a total of voted in favor. $800, 000. After the conclusion of Executive Ms. Fonnesbeck asked if the Coun- Session, Council Chair Stoler cil presentation tied the announced that after reviewing the Sunnyside Recreation Center to the strengths and weaknesses of the West High Track project. She said three candidates, the Council she wanted the track project decided on Ms. Cindy Gust-Jenson mentioned as another city/school/ as the new Executive Director. community project, similar to the Sunnyside project. Mr. Stoler said he could work that into the presentation as agreed upon. Ms. Hamilton asked the Council for agenda items as soon as possible for the Council retreat on Febru- ary 25 so staff could do some background work. Ms. Richman said 89-34 PROCEEDINGS THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT -AKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1989 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in regular session on Tuesday, February 7, 1989, at 6:00 p.m. in Suite 300, City Hall, 324 South State Street. The following Council Members were present: Florence Bittner Alan Hardman Roselyn Kirk Wayne Horrocks Tom Godfrey Willie Stoler Sydney Fonnesbeck Mayor Palmer DePaulis, Roger Cutler, City Attorney, Kathryn Marshall, City Recorder, and Lynda Domino, Chief Deputy City Recorder, were present. Councilmember Stoler presided at the meeting and Councilmember Bittner conducted the meeting. OPENING CEREMONIES for the state to locate this building in downtown Salt Lake was #1 . The invocation was given the passage of a parking authority by Police Chaplain Ray Gunn. amendment allowing Salt Lake City to use revenue from parking fees #2. The Council led the to help pay off the bonds used to Pledge of Allegiance. build parking garages. #3. Councilmember Kirk moved He also mentioned that the and Councilmember Stoler seconded Utah Judicial Council had contem- to approve the minutes of the Salt plated building a major complex at Lake City Council for the regular the southern end of downtown, meetings held Tuesday, January 17, plans for the Broadway Centre on 1989, and Thursday, January 19, Third South and State ( a 14-story 1989, which motion carried, all complex with movie theaters and members voted aye except Council- retail shops ) continued to move members Horrocks and Fonnesbeck ahead, plans for a 20-story high- who were absent for the vote. rise on the northwest corner of (M 89-1) Block 57 were proceeding and discussions for an 18, 500 seat #4. Mayor DePaulis presented Jazz arena continued. his 1989 State of the City ad- dress . He said this was the year He said other healthy signs to build upon our accomplishments in downtown included the restora- and continue with the initiatives tion of the Plandome Hotel and just begun. While 1988 was hin- plans to renovate the New Grand dered by a "sobering" budget he Hotel at Fourth South and Main. said our economy was showing signs He said the R/UDAT study created a of improvement. He said he be- sense of excitement at the possi- lieved the downtown was on an bilities for our city and the upward turn and said the State had Capitol City Committee continued decided to build its employment to help provide the consensus security building on Third South needed to keep the process moving. which would employ more than 400 people. He said a major incentive Other accomplishments in- 89-35 PROCEEDINGS L: THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT —AKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1989 cluded the dedication of the Salt In reference to athletics he Lake Valley Community Shelter and said the Utah Jazz made us proud the "Salt Lake City Housing Con- and world class performances of ference: Creating a Decent Place olympians Missy Marloe, Henry to Live" , which was held January Marsh, Ed Eyestone, Doug Padela, 25th. and Denise Parker engendered a sense of accomplishment in all of For 1989, Mayor DePaulis said us. He said Salt Lake held an he believed we must focus and annual "bike to work" day, numer- build on those areas of strength ous annual running events and that gave the city definition. He swimming races, had hosted the listed three general areas that NCAA basketball and gymnastic defined our city: education, the finals, the special olympics, the arts and athletics . United States Olympic Committee gymnastic trials, and the National In reference to education he Figure Skating Championships. He said our city and state had always said he wanted to host the 1998 placed a premium on education and Winter Olympic Games because of good schools meant good neighbor- the opportunity it would give us hoods. He said the city could act to present our image and the as a liaison between education and chance it would provide us to show the corporate world, helping the the world that this was the place private sector find ways to aid where athletes came to compete our schools. He also said city together peacefully. government representatives contin- ued to go to our schools to edu- In conclusion he said we were cate students about the role of a strong city inhabited with many government in the community and he capable individuals and we needed cited program "DARE" -- Drug Abuse to focus on and work to enhance Resistance and Education -- where those areas that made our communi- uniformed police officers visited ty what it was: educated, artis- elementary schools to talk with tic and athletic. young students about the dangers (G 89-5) of drug use. He said without a strong CONSENT AGENDA school system every aspect of the community would begin to erode and Councilmember Godfrey moved he said we must continue to sup- and Councilmember Horrocks second- port it in whatever way possible. ed to approve the consent agenda as amended ( item #2 ) , which motion In reference to the arts, he carried, all members voted aye. said he believed that the success- ful cities of the future would be #1. RE: Approving the ap- those with an understanding of and pointment of Ricklen Nobis to the strong support for the arts. He Salt Lake City Arts Council . listed several arts programs which (I 88-23) the city needed to continue to support and said there were other #2. RE: Adopting Resolution areas of opportunity for artistic 17 of 1989 providing for a public expression which should not be hearing to be held Tuesday, March overlooked. He said these includ- 7, 1989, at 6:00 p.m. , to obtain ed our streets, street lighting, public comment concerning the buildings and parks. 89-36 PROCEEDINGS u2 THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT —AKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1989 proposed issuance of not more #7. Set a date for a public than $40, 000, 000 in Airport Reve- hearing to be held Tuesday, Febru- nue Bonds. Note - the Council ary 21, 1989, at 6:20 p.m. to changed the date from February 21, obtain public comment concerning 1989 . proposed amendments to the Fiscal (Q 88-4) Year 1988/89 Budgets. (B 88-5) #3. RE: Adopting Resolution 19 of 1989 authorizing the exe- #8. Adopting Resolution 23 of cution of an interlocal coopera- 1989 authorizing the execution of tion agreement between Salt Lake an interlocal cooperation agree- City Corporation and the Utah ment between Salt Lake City Corpo- Department of Transportation for ration, the U.S. Army Corps of the relocation of the City' s sewer Engineers, Metropolitan Water and water line within Redwood Road District of Salt Lake City, and from North Temple to 10th North in Salt Lake County pertaining to connection with UDOT ' s plans to protection of the Little Dell improve the section. Stage Station and a portion of the (C 89-48) Mormon Trail during the construc- tion of Little Dell Dam. #4. RE: Adopting Resolution (C 89-56) 20 of 1989 authorizing the exe- cution of an interlocal coopera- #9. Set a date for a public tion agreement between Salt Lake hearing to be held Thursday, City Corporation and the City of February 23, 1989, at 5:00 p.m. , South Salt Lake for South Salt to obtain public comment con- Lake to lay road base and asphalt cerning the issuance by Salt Lake over a City watermain installa- City of not to exceed $36, 400, 000 tion. Hospital Revenue Refunding Bonds, (C 89-49) Series 1989-A ( IHC Hospitals, Inc. ) . #5. Adopting Resolution 21 of (Q 89-1 ) 1989 authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agree- NEW COUNCIL BUSINESS ment between Salt Lake City Corpo- ration and the Redevelopment #1. RE: The appointment of Agency of Salt Lake City for Paul P. Osborn to the Community management of the Canterbury Development Advisory Committee. Apartments. (C 89-50) ACTION: Without objection Councilmember Bittner referred #6. Adopting Resolution 22 of this to the Committee of the 1989 authorizing the execution of Whole. an interlocal cooperation agree- ( I 89-2) ment between Salt Lake City Corpo- ration and the Utah Department of #2. RE: The appointment of Transportation for the widening Paulette Mounteer to the Urban and improvement of California Forestry Board. Avenue from Redwood Road to Pio- neer Road, to be performed by ACTION: Without objection UDOT ' s contractor as part of Councilmember Bittner referred UDOT ' s rail relocation project. this to the Committee of the (C 89-51) Whole. ( I 89-3 ) 89-37 PROCEEDINGS OF i'HE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT L1. 2 CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1989 #3. RE: Amending the 12th beck moved and Councilmember Year Community Development Block Horrocks seconded to adopt Ordi- Grant Fund budget by increasing nance 3 of 1989 and noted that by the Shelter the Homeless project June 30, 1989, the Council would budget by $10, 200 to $31, 200 and have a report regarding common decreasing the Operating Con- "starters" , which motion carried, tingency by $10, 200 to $1, 469 . all members voted aye. ACTION: Councilmember Kirk DISCUSSION: Councilmember moved and Councilmember Godfrey Fonnesbeck said that other con- seconded to suspend the rules and siderations might come about on first reading approve the within the next few months on this amendment, which motion carried, issue but the Council needed more all members voted aye. time. She said that by June 30, (B 89-2) 1989, the Council would have a report as to the likelihood of the #4. RE: A resolution remov- installation of common "starters" ing Zions First National Bank and at the Airport. appointing Continental Bank and (0 88-38) Trust Company to serve as Trustee under Resolution No. 81 of 1978 The meeting adjourned at 6:40 providing for the issuance of p.m. Airport Revenue Bonds; and related matters. ACTION: Councilmember Hor- rocks moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to suspend the rules and on first reading adopt Resolution COUNCIL CHAIR 18 of 1989, which motion carried, all members voted aye. (Q 83-11 and 1978 file) #5. RE: The appointment of CITY RECORDER Linda Hamilton to the position of Salt Lake City Director of Fi- nance. ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Hardman seconded to suspend the rules and on first reading approve the appointment, which motion carried, all members voted aye. (I 89-10) UNFINISHED COUNCIL BUSINESS #1. RE: An ordinance amending Chapter 16 . 60 and Section 5.72. 100 of the Salt Lake City Code relat- ing to Ground Transportation at the Airport. ACTION: Councilmember Fonnes- 89-38 SAIT � I r G0 0� IQ 1 OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL SUITE 300, CITY HALL 324 SOUTH STATE STREET SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 535-7600 MEMORANDUM To: Council Members From: Tom Godfrey /- /i`• Date: February 10, 1989 Re: Golf Fee Structure Since the Council had to put golf fees back on the agenda to clean up some housekeeping problems with the ordinance, I asked the staff to perform some additional analysis to assess the future impact of the adoption of the fee structure which a majority of the Council supported. Attached are two scenarios which demonstrate the impact on--future green fees of the fee -_ structure adopted. I asked the staff to analyze what green fees would have to be adopted in future years to ensure that bond payments could be made and the golf fund remain in the black, without general fund appropriations. The first scenario is based on the assumption that passes would be retained until the first year that the golf fund began showing a deficit, and that they would then be eliminated. The analysis shows the following: A. Passes would have to be eliminated in fiscal year 1990/91. Basically that means that we would have to eliminate them sometime between January and June of 1990 (next year). B. Non-pass senior/junior discount play would have to go to $4. 50 in fiscal year 1990/91. Regular green fees could remain at $6. 00. C. All fees could then remain the same for fiscal year 1991/92. D. In fiscal year 1992/93 senior/junior discount play would have to be raised to $5. 00 and regular green fees to $6. 50. E. In fiscal year 1993/94 senior/junior discount play would have to be raised to $5. 50 and regular green fees to $7.00. This scenario raises two concerns for me. The first is that we are simply passing the buck to a future Council on the pass issue. To keep the golf fund in the black and regular green fees somewhat reasonable passes will have to be eliminated one year from now. I do not think we are being fair to next year's City Council. The second scenario is based on the assumption that we maintain the senior/junior passes at the current cost. The analysis reveals the following: A. Green fees could stay at current levels until 1990/91. B. In 1990/91 discount senior/junior play would go to $4. 50 and regular green fees would remain at $6.00. C. In 1991/92 senior/junior discount fees would have to go to $5.50 and regular green fees to $7. 00. D. In 1992/93 senior/junior discount fees would have to go to $6.00 and regular fees to $8.00. E. From that point forward green fees could remain flat and still provide adequate revenue to meet bond payments. The obvious problem with this scenario is the affect on regular green fees. The current fee structure, if passes are maintained, would have to escalate dramatically. At some undetermined point it would be likely that some golfers either couldn't afford to golf or would decide it Was not worth the money. We would then see decreasing rounds of play, decreased revenues, and potentially the need for a general fund appropriation. While I realize there are an infinite number of scenarios which could be generated based on changing assumptions, I would like to point out that our current actions have future impact. Without a doubt, regardless of the scenario, the Council 's decision to retain the passes will cause the regular green fees to increase significantly in the future. This may have a negative affect on the number of rounds played and the revenue stream. I urge the Council to review this information and reevaluate its decision to maintain the passes. I honestly believe a more responsible position would be the immediate elimination of golf passes. 5HL1 L01.6 (;I IY LU6PUklll lull GOLF COURSE Fund Passes Maintained at Current Level 1988/09 1980/90 1990/91 1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/9B 1990/99 1999/2080 Revenues and other sources of ca Operating revenue $3,067,281 $3,365,096 $4,865,027 $5,424,927 $5,954,627 $5,954,627 85,954,627 95,954,627 $5,954,627 $5,954,627 $5,954,627 $5,954,1i27 Food Concessions $60,000 060,808 084,008 084,000 384,000 804,000 884,000 084,800 884,808 $04,000 084,000 084,860 Interest Income $90,000 $90,000 $31,000 $0 $3,000 $41,000 $52,000 $65,000 $78,800 $92,000 $108,880 $124,000 Bond Proceeds $7,725,000 Birport Contribution $850,000 Interest on bond proceeds $200,000 $93,088 Total revenue and other sources $11,992,201 $3,608,096 $4,988,027 $5,5E18,927 $6,041,627 $6,079,627 $6,090,627 $6,103,627 $6,116,627 S6,130,627 $6,146,627 $6,162,627 Expenses and other uses of cash Operating expenses $2,292,000 S2,821,008 $3,356,000 $3,490,000 $3,638,000 $3,775,000 $3,775,000 $3,775,000 $3,775,000 $3,775,080 S3,775,000 $3,775,000 Equipment , $266,000 $350,000 $300,000 $306,000 $318,000 $330,080 $338,000 $330,000 $330,000 $330,000 $338,000 $330,000 Golf Carts $48,000 $81,008 S84,000 $102,000 $106,020 $119,000 $119,000 $119,008 $119,800 $119,008 $119,000 $119,000 Improvements $35,000 $350,000 $322,888 $253,080 $202,000 0440,008 $440,000 $440,008 $440,000 $44e,008 $440,080 $440,000 Construction cots $5,000,000 $4,368,008 Construction contingency $500,000 Bond debt•peyments - $321,000 $1,307,808 $1,314,008 $1,316,000 $1,274,000 S1,274,900 $1,274,000 81,274,088 $1,274,000 $1,274,000 $1,274,000 Total expenses and other uses of cash $7,633,008 $8,791,000 $5,369,000 $5,465,080 $5,572,088 $5,930,000 $5,930,080 $5,938,008 $5,938,000 $5,938,000 $5,938,000 $5,938,080 Revenues minus expenses and other uses $4,359,281 ($5,182,985) ($300,973) S43,927 $469,627 $141,627 $152,627 $165,627 $178,627 $192,627 $208,627 $224,627 Beginning cash balance X1,212,000 $5,571,281 $308,377 ($597) S43,331 .0512,950 $654,505 $087,212 $972,839 $1,151,466 51,344,893 $1,552,720 Ending cash balance $5,571,281 $308,377 ($597) $43,331 $512,958 $654,585 $807,212 $972,039 $1,151,466 $1,344,093 $1,552,728 $1,777,347 1988/89 $400/$500 passes, $3.50/$6.00 green Fees 1909/90 same as previos year 1998/91 $488/$500 passes, $4.50/$6.90 green fees 1991/92 4480/$500 passes, $5.50/87.00 green Fees 1992/93 $488/$588 passes, $6.00/38.08 green fees 1993-2808 same as previous year Golf carts and range balls remain constant '�0. ry '1(y jsY'e.� 11- J IY I. rr =rl 4 !� � �x�c• .J .>r I ! l r ¢ f l ! t • :. • ,.: ��y1���1 R1 ar�it�hti tr rr�G,, h�15 �? { t1 I 1 ) Ifr � � �7 YI . j j4 f i; 1 y I tr• • 1,tM7r"4i,r+if' 11 hJ•',1:4141r r'O I4)8i,s 6 0 4;r { h t i 1 f •;;, PROPOSED FEE SCHEDULE 1988/89 TICKETS ROUNDS FEES AMOUNT GREEN FEE/JULY-DEC 88 201551 201632 $5.00 $1 ,008, 160 GREEN FEE/JAN-JUN 89 157267 159267 $6. 00 $955,602 REG PASS 125 12000 $500. 00 $62,500 SR PASS/JUL-DEC 88 0 45107 $0. 00 SR PASS/JAN-JUN 89 450 37000 $400.00 $180,000 SR COUPON/JUL 88-JUN 89 15000 $2.50 - $37,500 SR DISCOUNT (65+) /JAN-JUN 89 10000 10000 $3. 50 $35,000 JR COUPON/JUL 88-JUN 89 1700 1700 $3. 00 $5, 100 JR DISCOUNT (17-) /JAN-JUN 89 1500 1500 $3. 50 $5,250 REG PASS/JUL-DEC 88 15390 $0 STUDENT TEAM 1654 1654 $3. 00 $4,962 LIFETIME PASS 4000 $0 GOLF CART/2 BAG 75000 $6.30 $472,500 GOLF CART/3 BAG 6900 $7. 53 $51 ,957 PRIVATE CART 5000 $2.00 $10,000 DRIVING RANGE 191000 $1. 25 $238,750 TOTALS 652147 504250 $3,067,281 PROPOSED FEE SCHEDULE 89/90 ' TICKETS ROUNDS FEES AMOUNT GREEN FEE 371000 346800 $6.00 $2,080,800 SR PASS 450 79000 $400. 00 $180,000 SR DISCOUNT 40000 __.. 40000 $3.50 $140,000 JR DISCOUNT (17-1) 6400 6400 $3.50 $22,400 REG PASS 125 25200 $500. 00 $62,500 STUDENT TEAM 1654 1654 $3. 00 $4,962 LIFETIME PASS 4000 $0 GOLF CART/2 BAG 78500 $6. 60 $518, 100 GOLF CART/3 BAG 6950 $7.53 $52,334 PRIVATE CART 5000 $2.00 $10,000 DRIVING RANGE 196000 $1.50 $294,000 TOTALS 706079 503054 $3,365,096 PROPOSED FEE SCHEDULE 90/91 TICKETS ROUNDS FEES AMOUNT GREEN FEE 499500 528300 $6.00 $3, 169,800 SR PASS 0 0 $400.00 $0 SR DISCOUNT 54000 144000 $4.50 $648,000 JR DISCOUNT (17-1) 6400 6400 $4.50 $28,800 REG PASS 0 0 $500.00 $0 STUDENT TEAM 1654 1654 $3.00 $4,962 LIFETIME PASS 4000 $0 GOLF CART/2 BAG 127000 $6. 60 $838,200 GOLF CART/3 BAG 10500 $7. 53 $79,065 PRIVATE CART 5000 $2. 00 $10,000 DRIVING RANGE 256000 $1.50 $384,000 TOTALS 960054 684354 $5, 162,827 PROPOSED FEE SCHEDULE 91/92 TICKETS ROUNDS FEES AMOUNT GREEN FEE 499500 528300 $6.00 $3, 169,800 SR PASS 0 0 $400.00 $0 SR DISCOUNT 54000 144000 $4.50 $648,000 JR DISCOUNT (17-1) 6400 6400 $4.50- $28,800 REG PASS 0 0 $500. 00 - $0 STUDENT TEAM 1654 1654 $3.00. $4,962 LIFETIME PASS 4000 $0 GOLF CART/2 BAG 127000 $6.60 $838,200 GOLF CART/3 BAG 10500 $7.53 $79,065 PRIVATE CART 5000 $2.00 $10,000 DRIVING RANGE 256000 $1.50 $384,000 TOTALS 960054 684354 $5, 162,827 PROPOSED FEE SCHEDULE 92/93 TICKETS ROUNDS FEES AMOUNT GREEN FEE 499500 528300 $6.50 . $3,433,950 SR PASS 0 0 $400.00 $0 SR DISCOUNT 54000 144000 $5.00 =$720,000 JR DISCOUNT (17-1 ) 6400 6400 $5.00 $32,000 REG PASS 0 0 $500.00 $0 STUDENT TEAM 1654 .1654 $3.00 $4,962 LIFETIME PASS 4000 $0 GOLF CART/2 BAG 127000 $6.60 $838,200 GOLF CART/3 BAG 10500 $7.53 $79,065 PRIVATE CART 5000 $2.00 $10,000 DRIVING RANGE 256000 $1.50 $384,000 TOTALS 960054 684354 $5,502, 177 PROPOSED FEE SCHEDULE 93/94 TICKETS ROUNDS FEES AMOUNT -------------------------------------------------------------------------- GREEN FEE 499500 528300 $7.00 $3,698, 100 SR PASS 0 0 $400.00 $0 SR DISCOUNT 54000 144000 $5.50 $792,000 JR DISCOUNT ( 17-1) 6400 6400 $5.50 $35,200 REG PASS 0 0 $500.00 $0 STUDENT TEAM 1654 1654 $3.00 $4,962 LIFETIME PASS 4000 $0 GOLF CART/2 BAG 127000 $6.60 $838,200 GOLF CART/3 BAG 10500 $7.53 $79,065 PRIVATE CART 5000 $2.00 $10,000 DRIVING RANGE 256000 $1.50 $384,000 TOTALS 960054 684354 $5,841 ,527 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION GOLF COURSE FUND Passes eliminated in First Year of Deficit 1980/89 1989/90 1990/91 1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/2000 Revenues and other sources of ca • Operating revenue 83,067,281 83,365,096 $5,162,827 85,162,827 $5,582,177 $5,841 527 Sy 841,527 $5,841,527 $5,841,527 $5,841,527 S5,041,527 $5,841,527 Food Concessions $60,000 $68,088 S84,000 884,888 $84,B88 884,r r008 $04,000 $84,088 $84,088 884,000 884,000 $84,080 Interest Income 598,80E $90,800 $31,808 $24,888 $0,088 '$18,080 ' Bond Proceeds $7,725,080 , Airport Contribution $058,088 Interest on bond proceeds S280,008 $93,088 Total revenue and other sources $11,992,281 83,688,096 45,277,827 $5,270,827 $5,594,177 $5,935,527 85,925,527 85,925,527 85,925,527 $5,925,527 85,925,527 85,925,527 Expenses and other uses of cash • Operating expenses $2,292,080 52,821,000 $3,356,880 $3,498,000 $3,638,800 S3,775,000 $3,775,BB8 83,775,080 83,775,080 S3,775,000 $3,775,000 $3,775,008 Equipment $266,008 $350,BBB $380,808 8306,008 $3I8r B@B 8330,008 $338,888 $338,080 $330,800 S330,000 $338,000 8330,000 Golf Carts 840,000 681,808 584,08E $102,080 $186,080 $119,088 $1I9,808 $119,008 $119,808 $119,008 S1I9,008 $I19,080 Improvements 835,008 S350,000 $322,000 - $253,000 • $202,880. 8440,008 $255,BB8 $50@,000 $3B6,088 $3B5,OBB $355,080 $355,OBB Construction costs 85,000,008 84,368,008 Construction contingency $508,008 Bond debt payments $321,000 81,387,000 81,314,080 S1,316,008 S1,274,000 $1,274,000 $1,274,080 $1,274,000 S1,274,080 $1,274,DBB 81,274,080 Total expenses and other uses of cash S7,633,000 $8,791,088 85,369,880 85,465,008 S5,572,0B8 $5,938,000 $5,753,800 S5,990,000 $5,804,080 S5,803,000 $5,853,800 $5,853,000 Revenues mihus expenses ai,d other uses $4,3591201 ($5,182,985) ($91,173) ($194,173) : 'S22;177 .($2,473) $172,527 •($72,473) ' S121,527 $122,527 $72,527 872,527 • Beginning cash balance $1,212,080 85,571,201 S388,377 $297,204 $103,031 $125,208 $122,735 8295,262 $222,789 S344,316 8466,843 S539,370 • Ending cash balance $5,571,281 $388,377 S297,204 S103,031 $125,208 $122,735 $295,262 $222,789 8344,316 $466,843 $539,370 8611,897 1988/09 S408/8500 passes, $3.50/06.88 green fees 1989/90 same as previous year 1998/91 no passes, 84.58/S6.80 green fees . 1991/92 same as previous year 1992/93 no passes, $5.80/$6.58 green fees 1993/94 no passes, S5.50/87.8E1 green fees - - • Golf carts and range balls remain constant throughout the life of the bond • • Y:. ••`. .,: .s:r'r Rrr-i't.r,'5�7..r„.,y,... m a ti • C7,,N�r:�Y"c,' ri3g` 11.. ;'i+''ter"% 'iz";F"'•r ',s '.:r,•7 f. r , �7 br ;. ,s M h r.,.. !! _ n .rpt L:'t yf r:� . a r't�' + 4 t...�.i` :���,',{��e�4, ,l.,;;�'t1�1'i'!':Y..Y �( t!>. "tv r tt.e ,{ ,t { tr fa�r.�� ty,}r.F.,;�, , t+�� ' Y>t 't'' A'1 V{51: ,t r`k.J'• .2 3-.t 7: 'r Jr''it'. Sr, 't ,''H..,r x•. ,,, ,:1,rr,..• :4 r'5... ',:+,� x ;)n <pp J���,Fy, .G Try� m yw � ,.�,.Sr rvil:I'!1"�.:r,. tt y.Lz.{ 'a` .§ !:.• r r � Yr , t t S F,..('i'F,'t .t 1.�. .rJ yyam�.(' 1'.114S J*."..;!.... 7.•.,4.).tr �v%�i7.ri .r 1�.:ii M:A:°^'n�' �',} .J. .d(f -r� .,4 k: ;,,,1.1r� AgLli.�i� Y'�''',r.§Cry •'i1'+'•.':7Ii •�.' :y:..�.\.�;r ., . s.... i� 1. � s't iCt 1 r,;.. ..l,.it� <i e: t . „ti9:Y/•. ..r r s•r..,(„ � r:,::.x. t,:t 4. ',3.._.d.:C "y „y ,R"+w 5- •;"'ri nnF,...7a:?" J. �.k�`I�t�'�:i�r' : �'.�`..t i, rl'•..�1-. .�. t. ri.r`y:. ';t: .4..�/. 1( vt �y3y:. ..:: .e+:' uk,.. )4t.,•.,,q; „!;, b ,,.,.,. r..,•- ta;:nz t _t e li ",y .��}ki i��}}�� ps•,n o`S..�ri,e.:'..jvtY 7,�y (i y}' .a:.,T;�,`,;.,(t.. ..t:. .le. `;_ •, .(<. Cat- k r,, ( .,��' ,1 .1>,�) {.+,4.' ��o4..r. ...y;' e :'A,t.:''r4:�'� ,t se- � . ,t.., :trl.:� sX r� �? (. 1 ....Vik rfiSsrtt2f,sp.fV;*.Te:...) sy,�,)r.�'; i'iit;. ,fit r; '.6tr! yvt „t,.,t•Li.1":'.. .. ". ,a {.*)} .;x,0).,;:"r. a�t J '}•., >, 0 .t.) d axti7 3. f'ri•F to.� ..3+k;.r ?;Xt'"r 5,.:ti` ) w- zl�. t A:°' ,a -.1tr.,,.;l.t',.y r S 1r"s ,, :. tr., t� i�1�'fkvr;a� t'l•'�.A.?'a'i, .+,��y 'yy.trCa 51 t l04 t.13:- L $.es }4 , i + i}, r r. }• :4').tiN..t.�, ,: b ( ..",a�.a 1y�'S, l,r�'Int- .kil S r 4 Y r.t.(}t'ff.) 4ag t/1 f_ 1 f is 'Tkr GI C: a 3 S �:. t - '1 }J � 7.-5et;'tt5t'rj5` 43.1 1� ..flIV to ttWS' t,Y WA cC.1r lI 4 ] S,l�r ii .`` ( • C R r P 1s 'a'":'4r .4 h1 r rqYe ak ' � S• v N' t , ti 9 7� '' �ki T o,:,}F „C 14 1} t . , \• , _'- ..ai.a .,.. 4.`t '� 4"'a�;; S e ii•• t n.r _ .1, .t. s'::.,. i. a : _ . i PROPOSED FEE SCHEDULE 1988/89 TICKETS ROUNDS FEES AMOUNT ------------------------------------------------------------------------- GREEN FEE/JULY-DEC 88 201551 201632 $5. 00 $1 ,008, 160 GREEN FEE/JAN-JUN 89 157267 159267 $6.00 $955,602 REG PASS 125 12000 $500.00 $62,500 SR PASS/JUL-DEC 88 0 45107 $0.00 SR PASS/JAN-JUN 89 450 37000 $400.00 $180,000 SR COUPON/JUL 88-JUN 89 15000 $2.50 $37,500 SR DISCOUNT (65+) /JAN-JUN 89 10000 10000 $3.50 $35,000 JR COUPON/JUL 88-JUN 89 1700 1700 $3.00 $5, 100 JR DISCOUNT (17-) /JAN-JUN 89 1500 1500 $3.50 $5,250 REG PASS/JUL-DEC 88 15:90 $0 STUDENT TEAM 1654 1654 $3. 00 $4,962 LIFETIME PASS 4000 $0 GOLF CART/2 BAG 750006.-30472,500 GOLF CART/3 BAG 6900 $7.53 $51 ,957 PRIVATE CART 5000 $2.00 $10,000 DRIVING RANGE 191000 $1.25 $238,750 TOTALS 652147 504250 $3,067,281 PROPOSED FEE SCHEDULE 89/90 TICKETS ROUNDS FEES AMOUNT -------------------------------------------------------------------------- GREEN FEE 371000 346800 $6. 00 $2,080,800 SR PASS 450 79000 $400. 00 $180,000 SR DISCOUNT 40000 40000 $3.50 $140,000 JR DISCOUNT (17-1) 6400 6400 $3.50 $22,400 REG PASS 125 25200 $500.00 $62,500 - STUDENT TEAM 1654 1654 $3. 00 $4,962 LIFETIME PASS 4000 $0 GOLF CART/2 BAG 78500 $6. 60 $518, 100 GOLF CART/3 BAG 6950 $7.53 $52,334 PRIVATE CART 5000 $2. 00 $10,000 DRIVING RANGE 196000 $1.50 $294,000 TOTALS 706079 503054 $3,365,096 PROPOSED FEE SCHEDULE 90/91 TICKETS ROUNDS FEES AMOUNT GREEN FEE 499500 499500 $6. 00 $2,997,000 SR PASS 500 90000 $400. 00 $200,000 SR DISCOUNT 54000 54000 $4.50 $243,000 JR DISCOUNT ( 17-1) 6400 6400 $4.50 $28,800 REG PASS 160 28800 $500.00 $80,000 STUDENT TEAM 1654 1654 $3.00 $4,962 LIFETIME PASS 4000 $0 GOLF CART/2 BAG 127000 $6. 60 $838,200 GOLF CART/3 BAG 10500 $7. 53 $79,065 PRIVATE CART 5000 $2. 00 $10,000 DRIVING RANGE 256000 $1.50 $384,000 TOTALS 960714 684354 $4,865,027 PROPOSED FEE SCHEDULE 91/92 TICKETS ROUNDS FEES AMOUNT -------------------------------------------------------------------------- GREEN FEE 499500 499500 $7.00 $3,496,500 SR PASS 500 90000 $400. 00 $200,000 SR DISCOUNT 54000 54000 $5.50 $297,000 JR DISCOUNT (17-1 ) 6400 6400 $5. 50 $35,200 REG PASS 160 28800 $500. 00 $80,000 STUDENT TEAM 1654 1654 $3. 00 $4,962 LIFETIME PASS 4000 $0 GOLF CART/2 BAG 127000 $6.60 $838,200 GOLF CART/3 BAG 10500 $7.53 $79,065 PRIVATE CART 5000 $2.00 $10,000 DRIVING RANGE 256000 $1.50 $384,000 TOTALS 960714 684354 $5,424,927 PROPOSED FEE SCHEDULE 92/93 TICKETS ROUNDS FEES AMOUNT GREEN FEE 499500 499500 ' $8. 00 $3,996,000 SR PASS 500 90000 $400.00 $200,000 SR DISCOUNT 54000 54000 ., $6.00 $324,000 JR DISCOUNT (17-1) 6400 6400 $6. 00 $38,400 REG PASS 160 28800 $500. 00 $80,000 STUDENT TEAM 1654 1654 $3. 00 $4,962 LIFETIME PASS 4000 . $0 GOLF CART/2 BAG 127000 $6.60 $838,200 GOLF CART/3 BAG 10500 $7. 53 $79,065 - PRIVATE CART 5000 $2.00 $10,000 DRIVING RANGE 256000 $1.50 $384,000 TOTALS 960714 684354 $5,954,627 PROPOSED FEE SCHEDULE 93/94 TICKETS ROUNDS FEES AMOUNT -------------------------------------------------------------------------- GREEN FEE 499500 499500 $8. 00 $3,996,000 SR PASS 500 90000 $400.00 $200,000 SR DISCOUNT 54000 54000 $6.00 $324,000 JR DISCOUNT (17-1) 6400 6400 $6. 00 $38,400 REG PASS 160 28800 $500. 00 $80,000 STUDENT TEAM 1654 1654 $3. 00 $4,962 LIFETIME PASS 4000 $0 GOLF CART/2 BAG 127000 $6. 60 $838,200 GOLF CART/3 BAG 10500 $7.53 $79,065 PRIVATE CART 5000 $2. 00 $10,000 DRIVING RANGE 256000 $1. 50 $384,000 TOTALS 960714 684354 $5,954,627 Ehrlich Bober L J.,Inc. Update to the Salt Lake City Council Regarding SALT LAKE CITY SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BONDS Prepared by Ehrlich Bober& Co., Inc February 10, 1989 Ehrlich Bober e Inc. SALT LAKE CITY SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BONDS During the past several years, Salt Lake City has sold its Special Assessment Bonds through a competitive sale process. Competitive Sales work quite well when a number of institutional investors are interested in buying a particular bond issue. Usually from five to as many as twenty investors submit bids to the City's financial advisor and the lowest bidder is awarded the right to buy the bonds at the bid price. Since the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the municipal finance market has changed considerably. Many of these changes have affected the attractiveness of Salt Lake City Special Assessment Bonds to certain investors. One major change is that banks and other financial institutions can no longer deduct interest carrying costs for all municipal bonds. Under current law, only select municipal bonds qualify for this beneficial exemption. Unfortunately, the City's Special Assessment Bonds do not qualify. The City's Special Assessment Bonds are usually sold in small amounts and in odd lots. They are also sold without an investment grade rating. Furthermore, at the last competitive bond sale for special assessment bonds, only 1 or 2 bids were received. This seems to suggest that the competitive sale process is probably not appropriate any longer. Given all of these changes, retail buyers (individuals) now represent the only viable market for the City's Special Assessment Bonds. The retail market is best accessed through a negotiated underwriting. Rather than selling the bonds to institutional investors through a competitive sale process, we have advised the City to select an underwriter with extensive local sales resources and an extensive understanding of the credit quality of the City's Special Assessment Bonds. Through a competitive RFP process, First Security Bank was selected to underwrite the upcoming special assessment bond issue. We have also worked with Bond Counsel (Dick Fox of Ballard, Spahr, Andrews and Ingersoll), First Security Bank and all City personnel that are typically involved with special assessment bonds to prepare an Official Statement (offering circular) so that First Security Bank can offer these bonds to local retail customers. We have enclosed a draft copy of the Official Statement for your review. A final printed copy will be available by the next Salt Lake City Council meeting. No significant changes to the Official Statement are anticipated at this point. A Bond Resolution and Bond Purchase Agreement for each of the Special Assessment Bond issues have been prepared by Bond Counsel. The Resolutions authorize the issuance and sale of the bonds, fix a range of interest rates to be borne by the Bonds, authorize and approve the form of a Bond Purchase Agreement and set out other related matters. These resolutions need to be adopted in order to proceed with the sale of the Bonds. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Proposed Ordinance Amending Golf Course Green Fees February 10, 1989 STAFF RECOMMENDATION BY: LEE KING ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Adopt a City ordinance amending Section 15. 16. 030 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to golf course green fees. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On January 17, 1989, the Council passed an ordinance raising golf fees to cover the cost of bond payments for the two new golf courses. During the discussion phase and subsequent vote, it became very unclear as to what the final intent of the Council was. The motion, as passed, left out passes for junior golfers. It was staff's understanding that juniors would receive the same pass considerations as seniors. In the Mayor's proposed fee structure passes were not recommended, consequently there was no mention of a state residency requirement that was in the original ordinance being amended. Staff assumed that this was simply an oversight and that you would want to retain this requirement. Additionally, the proposed.change-over date for increasing fees for seniors from $3. 50 to $4. 50 was July 1, 1990. There were several different interpretations of what the actual date was to be. As this might be cumbersome for the Parks Department to change fees in the middle of the golf season, it has been proposed that the change-over might work better if the date was January 1, 1990. The ordinance prohibits private golf carts at Mt Dell Lake and Canyon Courses. It was the Parks Department's intent to allow private carts up until the time that the new courses were opened for play. There is no reason that staff is aware of for prohibiting private carts for the FY 88/89 golf season. The motion and subsequent ordinance did not prohibit passes for weekend and holiday play. All previous discussions up to this point prohibited passes on weekends and holidays. Again, staff assumed that this was your intent. STAFF ANALYSIS: The golf fund will increase by approximately $11,000 by switching the change-over date from July 1 to January 1. It will not change the timing of when the Golf Enterprise Fund will show a negative balance. The ordinance, as passed on January 17, will reflect a negative balance in FY 90/91. A change in fee structure will probably be required in January 1990. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt with changes outlined above. RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move that we adopt the ordinance as adopted on January 17, 1989 with the following changes: * Section A 2a. is changed to reflect Green fees for Juniors and Seniors from January 1, 1989 to December 31, 1989 will be $3.50. On January 1, 1990 this fee will change to $4. 50 * Section A 3b. is changed to read "Senior/Junior Citizen pass rate will be four hundred dollars. " * Section A 5c. is changed to read "Effective July 1, 1990, no private carts at Mt. Dell Canyon & Lake. " * Section B. is changed to read "Only persons whose principal place of residence is within the State of Utah and who, at the time of pass purchase, have a present expectation to continue residency within the state throughout the term of the pass, shall be eligible to purchase or use a season golf pass. " * Section E. is changed to read "Golf passes and discounts provided herein may not be used for weekend or holiday play. " ANTICIPATED OPPOSITION: Senior citizens may continue to voice their opposition to the increase in the pass structure. 1; �1 : d ROGER F. CUTLER SAL" 'If12El itingPO ep i.00 1 RAY IL,AMONTGOMERY CITY ATTORNEY _ ` �• ,- LAW DEPARTMENT GREG R. HAWKINS CHERYL D. LUKE LARRY V. SPENDLOVE CITY PROSECUTOR 324 SOUTH STATE, FIFTH FLOOR STEVEN W. ALLRED SALT LAKE C►TY, UTAH 841.11 BRUCE R. BAIRD •-_ (801.)...535-7788 FRANK M. NAKAMURA FAX (801) 535-7640 ASSISTANT PROSECUTORS DONALD L. GEORGE CECELIA M. ESPENOZA RICHARD G. HAMP February 9, 1989 GLEN A. COOK Christine Richman Salt Lake City Council 324 South State Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: Golf Course Green Fees Ordinance Dear Christine: Enclosed please find the drafts of the ordinance amending Section 15 . 16 . 030 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to golf course green fees. Very t)r'uly ours, ex ay( . c -tee RAY . MONTG Y Ass taut City/Attor RLM:cc Enclosures IC: T "o � SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1988 (Golf course green fees) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 15. 16.030 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO GOLF COURSE GREEN FEES. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That Section 15. 16.030 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to golf course green fees, be, and the same hereby is amended as follows: 15. 16.030 Golf courses--Green fees. A. There is imposed on any person playing golf [at any of the] on city golf courses the following fees: [1 . Nine holes, five dollars; 2. Eighteen holes, ten dollars; 3. Season Pass. b. Senior citizen rate, e hun red seventy five dollars; 4. S anon Coupon ass. a-. Sin-io rate, (th-i rty 9 h l-e- -s) , seventy five dollars. b. Junior rate, (twenty five 9- hole rounds) , seventy 5. Team Special Play. a. Nine hole, two dollars; b. Eighteen hole, four dollars; , 8. Carts. a. Nine hole art, six dollars. b. Eighteen bole cart, twelve dollars; 9. Private Carts. a. Nine hole, one dollar. b. Eighteen hole, one dollar. B. Only persons whose principal—place—of es-idence--is purchase, have a present expectation to continue residency within the state throughout the term of the paw, shall be C. Golf passes- provided for herein may not be used for weekend or holiday play. r to qualify for a senior citizen rate en - asen passes. ] 1. Regular Green Fees. 9 holes 18 holes a. All except Mt. Dell Canyon $6.00 $12.00 b. Mt. Dell Canyon - regular N.A. 12.00 twilight N.A. 9.00 evening 6.00 N.A. 2. Junior (17 and under) and Senior (65 and older) Green Fees. -2- a. All courses except Mt. Dell, Canyon, Lake and Airport 9 holes 18 holes 1 Jan. 89 to 30 June 90 3 . 50 7.00 1 July 90 on 4. 50 9.00 b. Mt. Dell Canyon - regular N.A. 9 .00 twilight N.A. 6. 75 evening 4. 50 N.A. c. Airport and Mt. Dell Lake 6.00 12.00 3. Season golf pass a. Regular rate, five hundred dollars. b. Senior citizen rate, four hundred dollars. 4. Team Special Play 3.00 6 . 00 5. Carts. a. 1 or 2 bag 7 .00 14.00 b. 3 bag 8 .00 16.00 c. Private cart, trail fee 2.00 4.00 (no private cart allowed at Mt. Dell ) 6. Range Balls. a. Small basket 1 . 50 b. Large basket 3.00 B. To receive any discount, the applicant must be a resident of the State of Utah. C. Season passes shall not be valid at the Airport or Mt. Dell Lake Course. D. Discounts provided for herein may be used for weekend or holiday play. -3- Or E. Time for twilight and evening play. shall be set each week on Monday morning by the Director of Parks and Recreation. SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall take effect upon its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s Action: Approved Vetoed MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER RLM:cc -4- D R Staff SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1988 (Golf course green fees) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 15 . 16 .030 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO GOLF COURSE GREEN FEES. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That Section 15. 16.030 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to golf course green fees, be, and the same hereby is amended as follows: 15.16.030 Golf courses--Green fees. A. There is imposed on any person playing golf [may of the] on city golf courses the following fees: [1 . Nine holes, five dollars; 2. Eighteen holes, ten dollars; 3 . Season Pass. b. Senior citizen rate, one hundred seventy five dollars; 4. Season Coupon ass. a. Seni , dollars. b. Junior rate, ( twenty five 9 hole rounds ) , seventy— five dollars; 5. Team Special Play. a. Nine hole, two dollars; , 8. Carts. a. Ninc hole cart, six dollars. b. Eighteen hole art, twelve dollars; 9. Private Carts. a. Nine hole, one dollar. b. Eighteen-hole, one dollar. B. Only persons whose principal place of residence is within the state of Utah and who, at the time of pass ency C. Golf passes provided for herein may not be used for for a senior citizen rate on - ason passes. ] 1. Regular Green Fees. 9 holes 18 holes a. All except Mt. Dell Canyon $6.00 $12.00 b. Mt. Dell Canyon - regular N.A. 12.00 twilight N.A. 9.00 evening 6.00 N.A. 2. Junior (17 and under) and Senior (65 and older) Green Fees. -2- a. All courses except Mt. Dell, Canyon, Lake and Airport 9 holes 18 holes 1 Jan. 89 to 31 Dec. 89 3. 50 7 . 00 1 Jan. 1990 on 4. 50 9 .00 b. Mt. Dell Canyon - regular N.A. 9 .00 twilight N.A. 6. 75 evening 4. 50 N.A. c. Airport and Mt. Dell Lake 6.00 12.00 3. Season a. ar rate, five hundre ollars. b. Senior itizen rate, four hu dred dollars . 4. Team Special Pla 3.00 6. 00 5. s. a. 1 or 2 bag 7 .00 14.00 b. 3 bag 8.00 16 .00 c. Private cart, trail fee 2.00 4.00 (Effective July 1, 1990,no private cart allowed at Mt. Dell Canyon or Lake. ) 6. Range Balls. a. Small basket 1 . 50 b. Large basket 3 .00 B. Only persons whose principal place of residence is within the State of Utah and who, at the time of pass purchase, have a present expectation to continue residency within the State throughout the term of the pass, shall be eligible to purchase or use season golf passes. -3- ti C. To receive any discount, the applicant must be a resident of the State of Utah. D. Season passes shall not be valid at the Airport or Mt. Dell Lake Course. E. Golf passes and discounts provided for herein may not be used for weekend or holiday play. F. Time for twilight and evening play shall be set each week on Monday morning by the Director of Parks and Recreation. SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall take effect upon its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s Action: Approved Vetoed MAYOR -4- ATTEST: CITY RECORDER RLM:cc -5- .Icy i t• r�l 1 SALT LAM G ITY¢CORPORATION: DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES GRAIG E. PETERSON_ 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, SUITE 201 DIRECTOR SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111 535-7777 TO: Salt Lake City Council January 9, 1989 RE: Amending Zoning Ordinance Section 21.78.110, Conditional Non-School Use of Schools to include churches. Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing on February 7, • 1989 at 6:20 p.m. to discuss amending the Zoning Ordinance Section 21.78.110, Conditional Non-School Use of Schools to include churches. Availability of Funds: Not applicable Discussion and Background: The present ordinance allows the Board of Adjustment the authority to permit schools which have been temporarily closed or have reduced enrollment to be used on a temporary basis for office space for limited public, private, charitable or educational purposes as a conditional use. As Salt Lake City's neighborhoods have matured, some of the institutional support facilities are not presently needed. However, as young couples resettle these neighborhoods and begin raising their families, these support facilities may be needed once again. The conditional use review process 'will allow each site to be evaluated against criteria designed to protect the quality of life of Salt Lake City neighborhoods while allowing temporary use of institutional structures that may serve the neighborhood in the future. Legislative Documents: The City Attorney's Office has prepared the necessary ordinance and is ready for your action. Submitted by: •(•_-_;•) •• . _ CRAIG E. PL1' SON Director A? 9 _y SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (Amending Section 21 . 78. 110 to allow conditional charitable uses in closed churches and schools ) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21 . 78. 110 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE DEALING WITH CONDITIONAL USES IN CLOSED CHURCHES AND SCHOOLS. WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City has heard evidence that as the City' s neighborhoods have matured, some of the institutional support facilities, such as churches and schools, may not be presently needed for those uses; and • WHEREAS, as the neighborhoods evolve with the influx of new young families, these support facilities may become necessary in the future; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes it is important to preserve the church and school facilities should they be needed in the future while still retaining the essential character of the neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the City Council has held hearings before its own body and before the Planning Commission concerning recommendations designed to solve this problem; NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That Section 21 . 78. 110 of the Salt Lake City Code dealing with conditional nonschool uses of schools be, and the same hereby is amended to read as follows: (Th ,r 21.78.110 Conditional use of temporarily closed schools and churches. A. Conditional use. As a conditional use, the Planning Commission may permit schools which have been temporarily closed, schools with reduced enrollment, or churches which have been temporarily closed due to an insufficient sized congregation to be used on a temporary basis for office space or educational purposes for public or private charities . B. Application. Applications for conditional uses under this section shall be filed with the Planning and Zoning Commission. Such application shall include detailed information concerning the criteria specified in Section F below. C. Hearing and burden of proof. The Planning Commission shall hold an informal hearing on. applications for conditional uses under this section. The burden of proof shall be on the ' applicant to present evidence as specified below that the proposed conditional use will be in keeping with the neighborhood. The Planning Commission shall have the authority to deny the use if, in its determination, the applicant has not demonstrated that such use would be in keeping With the neighborhood, the uses authorized by the zoning code or existing in the neighborhood, or would not be in keeping with the standards set forth below. D. Notices. Prior to the informal hearing before the Planning Commission, the Planning Division shall send notices of the hearing to all property owners and others residing within six hundred feet of the proposed conditional use at least ten days in advance of the informal hearing. -2- • E. Neighborhood participation. The applicant shall take reasonable steps to review the project and provide information to the local community council, neighborhood council or neighboring ' residents and receive their comments prior to submittal of the application to the Planning Commission. Evidence of the efforts made by the applicant to obtain neighborhood comment and evidence of neighborhood opinion or comment on the proposed conditional use shall be submitted with the conditional use application. F. Approval criteria. The Planning and Zoning Commission may authorize the issuance of a permit for the proposed conditional use if it finds from balancing the factors and criteria below that the proposed conditional use substantially supports the desirable development pattern for the area. The factors and criteria to be considered include: 1 . Evidence that the proposed use at the particular location is necessary or desirable to. provide a service or facility that will contribute to the general well-being of the neighborhood and community; 2. Evidence that the proposed use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity; 3. Evidence of the proposed conditional use' s impact on adjoining properties; 4. Evidence that the proposed conditional use has received a favorable recommendation for parking and traffic issues from the Salt Lake City Transportation Engineer; -3- 5 . Evidence of any proposed demolition of adjacent residential structures in conjunction with modifying the existing use to the proposed conditional use; 6 . Evidence of the proposed use plan including: a. Hours and days of operation; b. Evidence of noise, odor or vibration emissions; c, Evidence of the number of classes, including hours taught, days taught and the expected class size; d. Average number of clients per day and the frequency of turnover of the clients; e. Number of employees, staff or volunteers, both total and expected to be on the premises at any given time; 7 . Evidence that the proposed use will be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, in that the use will not adversely affect the neighborhood' s desirability or stability or be in conflict with the City' s adopted long-range planning policies or master plans; 8. Evidence that the proposed conditional use has received a favorable recommendation from the Public Utilities Department concerning any changes in utilization of the Public Utilities facilities occasioned by the change in use; and 9 . Evidence from a traffic generation study identifying impacts on the neighborhood transportation system. G. Building plans. As part of the application, the applicant shall provide a site plan drawn to scale showing -4- dr, existing structures, auxiliary buildings, existing parking and landscaping, and any proposed changes to the site. In converting the existing facility to the proposed conditional use, no major • exterior or interior alterations of the building shall be made which renders the building incompatible with a return to its use as a school or church. H. Prohibition. No provision of this section shall be construed to allow any use in a closed school or church for retail, residential or industrial purposes or any use involving any type of correctional or institutional facility. I. Ownership. The school board or church shall remain the owner of the property during the period of time for which the conditional use is granted and any change of ownership away from the school board or church shall immediately cause the conditional use to terminate. J. Automatic termination of use. If the school board or church group determines that no future public or religious use will be made of the building as a public school or church, the conditional use as granted under this section shall immediately cease and the property shall thereafter be used- only for uses permitted in the zoning district: K. Temporary use. The conditional uses provided by this section shall be temporary only. The time of such use shall be subject to the decision of the Planning Commission based on its consideration of the criteria specified in Section G above. The Planning Commission may authorize the conditional use for a period not to exceed five years which may be renewed for additional periods not in excess of five years. -5- Rn SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (Amending Section 21 .78. 110 to allow conditional charitable uses in closed churches and schools) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21 .78 . 110 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE DEALING WITH CONDITIONAL USES IN CLOSED CHURCHES AND SCHOOLS. WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City has heard evidence that as the City' s neighborhoods have matured, some of the institutional support facilities, such as churches and schools, may not be presently needed for those uses; and WHEREAS, as the neighborhoods evolve with the influx of new young families, these support facilities may become necessary in the future; and - WHEREAS, the City Council believes it is important to preserve the church and school facilities should they be needed in the future while still retaining the essential character of the neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the City Council has held hearings before its own body and before the Planning Commission concerning recommendations designed to solve this problem; NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That Section 21 .78. 110 of the Salt Lake City Code dealing with conditional nonschool uses of schools be, and the same hereby is amended to read as follows : } • 171 21.78.110 Conditional [nenseheel] use of temporarily closed schools and churches. A. Conditional use. As a [opecial caeeption to the zoning ordinances, ] conditional use, the [board of adjustment] Planning Commission may permit schools which have been temporarily closed, [or] schools with reduced enrollment, or churches which have been temporarily closed due to an insufficient sized congregation to be used on a temporary basis for office space [ ] or educational purposes [as a conditional u3c] for public or private charities. B. Application. [Approval of an prepo3cd uoc shall be and a public hearing ha3 been con L - contained in Chap'`- 2' .0` s—title-3'Fe—ee ional use 3�h a �oposed-uss of zhe- tcular location i—neees sa — community; �u1-se—wig-net--,--under the t 3 of the parti , vicinity. ] -2- 4 Applications for conditional uses under this section shall be filed with the Planning and Zoning Commission. Such application shall include detailed information concerning the criteria specified in Section G below. C. Hearing and burden of proof. [The—o ara sha l the authority to deny the U3C if, i , d, or would not be in keeping w ' • cct the neighborhood. ] The Planning Commission shall hold an informal hearing on applications for conditional uses under this section. The burden of` proof shall be on the applicant to present evidence as specified below that the proposed conditional use will be in keeping with the neighborhood. The Planning Commission shall have the authority to deny the use if, in its determination, the applicant has not demonstrated that such use would be in keeping with the neighborhood, the uses authorized by the zoning code or existing in the neighborhood, or would not be in keeping with the standards set forth below. D. Notices. • [ • • ' al use is granted; -3- (e) . ;:'' 11) `Au" vent shall ' 7 The bea • • 'C'�fi'S'G9P'TtL.IC-u-.�S.'C-eT the school property to determine whether the use—should—be continued in light of ite impact en the neighborhood; ' aid - = ' , approval of the- board. ] Prior to the informal hearing before the Planning Commission, the Planning Division shall send notices of the hearing to all property owners and others residing within six hundred feet of the proposed conditional use at least ten days in advance of the informal hearing. E. Neighborhood participation. [In the event the school /-51 ordinances. ] The applicant shall take reasonable steps to review -4- t. • ( the project and provide information to the local community council, neighborhood council or neighboring residents and receive their comments prior to submittal of the application to the Planning Commission. Evidence of the efforts made by the applicant to obtain neighborhood comment and evidence of neighborhood opinion or comment on the proposed conditional use shall be submitted with the conditional use application. F. Approval criteria. The Planning and Zoning Commission may authorize the issuance of a permit for the proposed conditional use if it finds from balancing the factors and criteria below that the proposed conditional use substantially supports the desirable development pattern for the area. The factors and criteria to be .considered include: 1. Evidence that the proposed use at the particular location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility that will contribute to the general well-being of the neighborhood and community; 2. Evidence that the proposed use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity; 3. Evidence of the proposed conditional use' s impact on adjoining properties; 4. Evidence that the proposed conditional use has received a favorable recommendation for parking and traffic issues from the Salt Lake City Transportation Engineer; -5- f: f 5. Evidence of any proposed demolition of adjacent residential structures in conjunction with modifying the existing - use to the proposed conditional use; 6. Evidence of the proposed use plan including: a. Hours and days of operation; b. Evidence of noise, odor or vibration emissions; c, Evidence of the number of classes, including hours taught, days taught and the expected class size; d. Average number of clients per day and the frequency of turnover of the clients; e. Number of employees, staff or volunteers, both total and expected to be on the premises at any given time; 7. Evidence that the proposed use will be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, in that the use will not adversely affect the neighborhood' s desirability or stability or be in conflict with the City's adopted long-range planning policies or master plans; 8. Evidence that the proposed conditional use has received a favorable recommendation from the Public Utilities Department concerning any changes in utilization of the Public Utilities facilities occasioned by the change in use; and 9. Evidence from a traffic generation study identifying impacts on the neighborhood transportation system. G. Building plans. As part of the application, the applicant shall provide a site plan drawn to scale showing -6- L. Termination for excess use. If the Planning Commission determines that the conditional use is being used substantially in excess of the plan for use submitted pursuant to subsection G. 6 above, the Planning Commission may, after an informal hearing, revoke the conditional use if it determines that the excess use is having a negative impact on the neighborhood. SECTION 2 . This ordinance shall take effect on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 198 CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: cr •L rrr - ' 'r /'// CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on 1z- 9gg z Mayor' s Action: Approved Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER BRB:pp -6- • ALLEN C. JOHNSON MEMBERS: PLANNING DIRECTOR CINDY CROMER SANDRA MARLER SALT LAKE'CITY CORPORATION THOAS A. ELLISON LAVO EML DDLE-GAMONAL SECRETARY :.s ,.... .. .._._ .. .. .a. .._ DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES RICHARD HOWA EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS: RALPH P. NEILSON MAYOR OF SALT LAKE CITY Planning and Zoning Commission GORGE NICOLATUS CITY ENGINEER 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 200 JOHN M. SCHUMANN CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111 F. KEITH STEPAN CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL PETER VANALSTYNE 535-7757 • KATHY WACKER November 16, 1988 Mr. Craig Peterson, Director Development Services 324 S. State, Suite 201 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Re: Petition 400-657 - Amend Zoning Ordinance Sec. 21.78.110, Conditional Non-School. Use of Schools to include churches. Dear Craig: At it's meeting November 12, 1988, the Planning Commission voted to recommend to the City Council that this petition be approved and Section 21.78.110, Conditional Non-school Use of Schools be amended to add churches with the addition of the changes outlined in the draft ordinance and staff report (copies of each are attached) . Section 21.78.110 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance presently allows the Board of Adjustment authority to permit schools which have been temporarily closed or have reduced enrollment to be used on a temporary basis for office space for limited public, private, charitable or educational purposes as a conditional use. As Salt Lake City's neighborhoods have matured, some of the institutional support facilities are not presently needed. However, as young couples resettle these neighborhoods and begin raising their families, these support facilities may be needed once again. • ;. • SALT LAKE CITY P A NIlNKC (M'ITSSTCN STAFF BKR. T Petition 400-657 from the American Red Crox Requesting Conditional lases of Schools to include Churches • CVERVU1 This is a request from Mr. Dallis J. Pierson of the American Red Cross requesting Salt Lake City to amend Section 21.78.110 Conditional Nonschool Use of Schools to include churches. BACKGROUND Section 21.78.110 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance presently allows the Board of Adjustment authority to permit schools which have been temporarily closed or have reduced enrollment to be used on a temporary basis for office space for limited public, private, charitable or educational purposes as a conditional use. ANALYSIS • Planning issues to be considered in including public, private, charitable or educational uses as a conditional use in churches include: - the compatibility of the use within the residential neighborhoods in which it will be located, - the increase of intensity in use of the building on a daily basis, - adequate parking for the increase in use; and . - the impact of additional traffic traveling through the surrounding area. According to available land use information, there are approximately 181 churches in Salt Lake City with approximately 149 located in residential zoning districts. There are approximately 184 schools in the City with approximately 156 located in residential 'zoning districts. An ordinance change which would allow conditional uses in churches in addition to schools would create an impact on a large number of residential neighborhoods. However, with the conditions presently outlined in the ordinance and the addition of conditions required to specifically address parking and traffic issues, many locations might be excluded due to an inability to meet the requirements. A planning goal of all Salt Lake City neighborhoods is to have a diverse population by providing housing opportunities to all age groups. As Salt Lake City's neighborhoods have matured, some of the institutional support facilities are not presently needed. However, as young couples resettle these neighborhoods and begin raising their families, these support facilities will • be needed once again. Using these valued buildings in the interim can add to the quality of the neighborhood and retain an institutional centerpiece for the future. 471, The planning staff believes .a conditional use review process will allow each circumstance to be evaluated against criteria designed to protect the y qualit of life of Salt Lake City neighborhoods while allowing temporary use of • institutional structures that may serve the neighborhood in -the future. A draft of the ordinance with proposed changes from the staff is attached to • this report. Because the planning issues are the key to evaluating each circumstance, the staff recommends that the "conditional use" review be entirely under the purview of the Planning Commission and not the Board of Adjustment. RDCOMMENDATICN The staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that this petition be approved and Section 21.78.110, Conditional Nonschool Use of Schools be amended to add churches with the addition of the changes outlined in the draft ordinance. October 25, 1988 Janice M. Jardine _ • • �} f v'ti'r ADDITIONAL STAFF os• i i ICNS PETITION 400-657 - American Red Cross Requesting Conditional Utco of Schools to include Churches • Based on comments received the staff is recommending the following items to be included in the draft ordinance change. NEIGHBORHOOD NOTIFICATION The applicant shall take reasonable steps to review the project and provide . information to the local community council, neighborhood council or neighboring residents and receive their comments prior to submittal of the application to the Planning Commission. Evidence of neighborhood opinion or comment on the proposed conditional use shall be submitted with the conditional use application. • DIICLITION The use will be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, and that the use will not adversely affect the neighborhood's desirability or stability. A project may be denied as having an adverse impact solely on the basis where (a) the project involves demolition of existing residential structures where the demolition is unacceptable because it destroys viable housing stock; and/or (b) the scale of demolition will result in an adverse effect on the residential character of the area. A project may also be denied if the scale is incompatible and will detract from the existing character of the area. In lieu of demolition, the Planning Commission may impose limits relating to demolition or scale. • • • • -� • 21.78.100 . 6. The maximum density which shall be 14. All parks must provide and maintain allowed is eight trailer spaces per gross acre; landscaped recreational areas with a minimum 7. Off-street parking areas shall be provided at size of one hundred square feet for each lot; the rate of at least 1.5 car spaces for each mobile 15. Signs are to be kept to an absolute mini- home lot; mum and when-located in a residential district . - 8. There shall be a completely landscaped the board shall approve only a minimum size - buffer of at least twenty-five feet surrounding the• sign necessary for identification purposes, not to mobile home park. and the mobile home parks exceed nine square feet.Under no condition may shall be fenced according to the requirements of such signs be of exposed neon or have any flash- ing or moving parts; the board: 16. All other provisions of the Salt Lake City 9. There shall be at least twenty feet between ordinances respecting the standards of construc- the mobile homes, and at least fifteen feet tion and the licensing of trailer parks must be between an individual mobile home and any complied with. adjoining pavement areas of a park, street or B. Where the mobile home park has direct •side•.valk or a common parking area or other access to a major highway, the board of adjust- -.common area. There shall be at least a ten-foot ment may approve the use of a portion of the rear yard for each trailer on which an accessory park as a travel trailer park, provided the same :building not to exceed eighty square feet shall be outlined design standards are maintained. • • allowed. Awnings open on three sides shall be C. The board shall have the right in approving • .allowed as an attachment to the side of a mobile' a mobile home park under this section to impose home. provided there is at least ten feet from the any additional conditions: including increasing awning to any other mobile home or attachment the above standards and requiring the approval to the mobile home on an adjoining area. of operating and management standards. which• 10. All mobile home parks shall be provided are found by the board necessary to insure the with safe and convenient vehicular access from proper development of the park in accordance abutting major streets and access shall be with the area within which it is located. (Prior designed to minimize congestion and allow free code§ 51-6-11) flow of traffic on such adjacent streets. The .entrance road connecting the park with a public 21.78.110 Conditional nonschool use of street shall have a minimum paved width of schools. 'thirty-four feet.Internal streets shall have a mini- A. As a special exception to the zoning ordi- • nances, the board of adjustment may permit mum paved width of twenty-four feet; schools which have been temporarily closed or 11. No mobile home park shall be allowed schools with reduced enrollment to be used on a where access to the park is through a residential temporary basis for office space for limited pub- neighborhood, necessitating the use of a residen- lic,private,charitable or educational purposes as tial-type street system; a conditional use. 12. Concrete sidewalks shall be provided from B. Approval of any proposed use shall be all mobile home sites to the park streets and all granted only after the board has received a favor- community facilities: able recommendation from the planning com- 13. A drainage system must be provided to mission regarding such use,and a public hearing f• °:. completely handle all surface drainage within the has been conducted by the board of adjustment park in a manner approved by the city engineer's regarding the proposed use. Notice of the time • office: and place of hearing shall be given pursuant to 905 • • • 21.78.110 the provisions contained in Chapter 21.06 of this residential or industrial purposes, or any use title. No conditional use shall be approved unless involving any type of correctional or institu- the board of adjustment finds: tional facility; and 1. That the proposed use of the particular 5. No exterior or interior alterations of the location is necessary or desirable to provide a building shall be made which are incompatible service or facility which will contribute to the with the building's use as a public school. All general well-being ofthe neighborhood and corn- modifications must receive prior approval of the munity; board. 2. Such use will not, under the circumstances E. In the event the school board determines of the particular case. be detrimental to the that no future public use will be made of the health. safety or general welfare of persons resid- building as a public school, all conditional uses ing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to shall cease and the property be used only for uses property or improvements in the vicinity. permitted by existing zoning ordinances. (Prior C. The board shall have the authority to deny code § 51-6-16) the use if,in its opinion, such use would not be in keeping with the neighborhood, the uses autho- 21.78.120 Legalization of excess multi-family rized by the zoning ordinance or existing in the dwelling units in existing neighborhood, or would not be in keeping with residential structures. the standards set forth above. In the event the A. Special Exception to Legalize Excess board approves such use, it shall have the power Dwelling Units in Existing Residential Struc- to impose any reasonable conditions deemed tures. Where not otherwise authorized by this nece vtry to protect the neighborhood. , title, as a special exception hereto, the board of D. Notwithstanding the above, no condi- adjustment is authorized that it may legalize. in tional use shall be approved unless the following an existing residential structure, a number of conditions are met: dwelling units in excess of the maximum other- '. The school board shall remain the owner of wise lawful in the district or under applicable the property during the period of time for which ordinances.Approval of such a special exception the conditional use is granted; may be granted only on a very restricted basis, 2. The right to use property for other than after a public hearing before the board, a favor- public school purposes shall be temporary only. able recommendation from the planning corn- The length of the use shall be subject to the mission, and findings by the board that the decision of the board.In no event shall the board exception complies with the requirements and authorize a use for an initial period of time in standards set forth below. Notice of the time and excess of five years or a renewal period in excess 'place of such hearing shall be published and a of five years: courtesy letter sent to surrounding property 3. The board shall periodically review the use owners identified under subsection B of this sec- of the school property to determine whether the tion at least five days prior to hearing before the use should be continued in light of its impact on board,as provided for in Section 21.12.060,or its the neighborhood; successor. 4. All conditional uses allowed by the ordi- B. Requirements for Application.No applica- nance codified herein shall be limited to tion for such special exception shall be accepted approved public, private, charitable or educa- unless it bears as part thereof. satisfactory proof tional purposes. No provision of said ordinance to demonstrate it satisfies the following objective shall be construed to allow any use for retail, requirements: 906 • s American Red Cross Salt Lake Area Chapter 555 Foothill Boulevard _- P.O. Box 8687 Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 (801)582-3431 September 15 , 1988 • Allen C. Johnson, AICP Director Salt Lake City Planning and Zoning Department 324 South State Street, Room 200 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear Allen, • On behalf of Dick Hinckley, Pepper Martin and myself , thank you for taking the time to meet with us on Tuesday. We appreciate your reviewing with us our necessary course of action to occupy the LDS Church building at 545 East 14th South. We greatly appreciate - the option available to us of having all of the interested parties to the property agree in advance , thereby allowing us usage before the ordinance change . We also understand that if the ordinance does not change, we are obligated to vacate the property. 'ie look forward to working with you and your staff to change the ordinance which we feel will benefit the Salt Lake community. Lastly, I read in Tuesday ' s Deseret News that Mayor DePaulis has officially appointed you as the Director of Planning and Zoning . Congratulations to you for this important appointment. I 'm certain you are pleased that Mayor DePaulis .is confident and supportive of your abilities and accomplishments . Sincerely, gat% • Dallis J. Pierson Manager