The URL can be used to link to this page

01/17/1989 - Minutes PROCE•INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 1989 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met as the Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, January 17, 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. Paul present a separation of powers Kroesche prior to consideration of issue. He said the proposed ordi- his proposed appointment to the nance defined the pool from which Salt Lake City Arts Council. Mr. the Mayor could make appointments, Kroesche said he was a lawyer and which restricted his authority. had practiced in Los Angeles, Councilmember Fonnesbeck said California, and was currently similar restrictions were put on working in Salt Lake. He said he the Landmarks Committee and asked was active in the "Utah Lawyers why they couldn't be applied to for the Arts, " group which promot- all the city boards. Mr. Cutler ed local arts and sponsored public said the issue wasn' t raised at awareness projects. He said the the time the Landmark Committee Arts Council was suggested as a changes were made. way to increase his participation in the arts community. Councilmember Godfrey asked if there was a difference between Linda Hamilton, Executive Director defining the Mayor' s pool of of the Council, said the Council potential appointees vs. limiting needed to generate agenda ideas the number of terms those appoin- for their winter retreat and get tees could serve. Mr. Cutler said them to the staff as soon as the decision had not been made yet possible so background work could but the Mayor did have some con- be done. cerns about how the ordinance was written. Mike Zuhl, Mayor ' s Chief Lee King reviewed the upcoming of Staff, said the Mayor would schedule of olympic committee probably let the ordinance go into meetings and passed out copies of effect and then ask for a legal the minutes of the meetings he had opinion on the separation of attended. Council Chairman powers issue. Mr. Cutler said the Stoler asked the Council to inform ordinance may be challenged if Ms. Hamilton or Mr. King if they passed. were going to attend the committee meetings so an agenda could be Ms. Hamilton said the Avenues posted if needed. Master Plan (agenda item D-3 ) was already being used by the city and Ms. Hamilton then reviewed the the Council would just be making agenda. She said Roger Cutler, it official. She said the chari- City Attorney, was concerned with table use hearing ( item D-4 ) the proposed ordinance limiting needed to be pulled from the con- the number of terms that could be sent agenda so the hearing date served on city boards ( item D-2 ) . could be changed and then set by a Mr. Cutler said the ordinance may separate motion. 89-18 PROCEEINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITE, UTAH TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 1989 Ms. Hamilton passed out proposed a new set of numbers in the com- motions relating to item E-1, the puter spreadsheet. Mr. King said Canterbury Apartments interlocal he had set up a spread sheet for agreement ( Exhibit 1 ) . She said the five proposals that Council- items E-1 and E-2 represented the members had submitted. He said city' s best solution at solving that from a financial standpoint, the problems with the Housing the staff recommended option #1 Development Corporation. Council- (Exhibit 3 ) , which was the fee member Kirk said she was uncom- structure as proposed by the fortable with the small margin in Mayor. Mr. King pointed out that the financing. Mr. Stoler asked this proposal was the one proposal that a copy of the staff recommen- that eliminated the passes. Mr. dation concerning these items be King said all of the proposals placed in the historical file on were "best case" scenarios. Ms. the HDC. Councilmember Hardman Hamilton said that any delay in passed out a proposed motion construction, weather problems, or concerning possible legal action a shortfall in number of actual against those who provided "erro- rounds played would create a neous information" to the Council deficit sooner than predicted which led them into the HDC prob- lems (Exhibit 2 ) . Councilmember Hardman asked what the fees for carts was and what Ms. Hamilton suggested that the the change in revenue would be. Bell petition, item G-1, be re- Mr. Scott Gardner, Recreation Dir- f erred back to the planning staff ector, said the old fee was $6 .00 if there were any problems. plus tax. He said the new fee Councilmember Godfrey said he would be $7.00 including tax which hadn't heard any problems from the was a 550 increase. Councilmember neighborhood and that it should go Bittner said all of the phone through. calls she had been receiving were in favor of some kind of pass Ms. Hamilton said the City Creek system, and that she agreed the Annexation shouldn' t pose any seniors should get some kind of problems as the three main proper- break on the fees. Councilmember ty owners were in agreement with Kirk said she had been getting the annexation plan. Mr. Allen complaints from golfers who re- Johnson, Director of Planning and sented subsidizing the senior pass Zoning, said the property owners system. Mr. Hardman asked if the all agreed except one family that passes were good on all of the owned an old mining claim in the courses. Mr. Gardner said they canyon. He said there was no were but not on the weekends or access to the plot so the annex- holidays. Mr. Stoler said all of ation wouldn't be changing its the proposals assumed that the use. revenue and expenditure projec- tions were correct. He asked Mr. Speaking of the proposed changes King if he thought the figures to the golf fee schedule, Ms. were good. Mr. King said the ex- Hamilton said the original ordi- penditures wouldn' t change signif- nance would be referred to as a icantly unless capital improve- starting point when discussing the ment projects were cancelled or changes. She said Mr. King would postponed. have his computer in the chambers to analyze new proposals but it The meeting adjourned at 6: 00 p.m. would take about 10 minutes to put 89-19 • EXHIBIT 1 • CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 17, 1989 Salt Lake City Council Meeting January 17, 1989 Motions relating to agenda item "E. 1" Cooperation Agreement - HUD -- Canterbury Apartments 1. I move we adopt the resolution authorizing the execution of a Cooperative Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. • 2. I move we authorize the use of funds from the City pooled investment account to act as an interim loan, until such time as the Section 108 permanent financing through the_ sale of a long-term bond instrument is available, with interest paid to the pooled investment account commensurate with the rate paid by other pooled account investments. Staff comment: Both of these motions are consistent with intent expressed by the Council in the RDA retreat on Saturday, January 7. • • 89-19A • CITY COUNCIL MINUTES EXHIBIT 2 • JANUARY 17, 1989 I MOVE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ENCOURAGE THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE CITY - - ADMINISTRATION TO VIGOROUSLY PURSUE-ANY-AND- ALL LEGAL ACTIONS AND REMEDIES - - AGAINST ANY AND ALL PARTIES ASSOCIATED WITH PROVIDING ERRONEOUS INFORMATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL, UPON WHICH THE ORIGINAL DECISION TO PROCEED WITH THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PROJECT WAS PREDICATED. I have discussed this motion with Roger Cutler. His preference would be that the motion not be made for two reasons. First, it simply gives advance notice to the parties involved that the City intends to sue them. Second, he indicates that it is not clear at this time whether the City has a cause of action against anyone. He says, however, that it would not create a significant problem if the motion were to be made. He does ask that the motion not include the specific names of individuals or companies, since it is not clear whether there are causes of action against anyone in specific. 89-19B m w H LNO l t11_ i:A_.:F1 BALANCE Z 1'31:17: ,.1 J.-1:;�a,.•'r:l4a 1990/r-41 1 9.31/' :' 1.�+9:':•95 l(a�+3/9-1 OPTION 1 $..:.,6: 1 00r 1 $05,1. �100 $9 F; _ i 0 i $1 091} 00►0 r-a ` , � , 1_,OGIF;i �1,r�13F_i,131:11;1 $1 .� 1`I`-, - 7 f H n U OPTION 2 sr ,5 96,000 $'4 r' 001-1 $9r' 0o1:1 ($156 000) i$1., 141.,000) ($2,251,000) O OPTION 3 $5,.566,BOO $415,001_i ($ 1,000) ($601 ,BOO) ($1,271,BOB) ($2,669,0[00) ›-4 OPTION 4 $5,630,201 $596,931 $4i'3,239 $231,54"r' ($143, 146) ($9'25,9 8) it' U OPTION 5 $6,550,201 $660,460 $536, 766 $295,0e4 ($79,6 19) ($862,311) i OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 3 NO PASSES $5010 F:EG PASS $450 REG PASS $1.50:$6.00 GREEN FEE $40€3 SENIOR rnss $550 SENIOF.' PASS ORIGINAL ORDINANCE $5/$6 GREEN FEE $4.7 5i K6 GREEN FEE OPTION 1• OPTION 5 crl NO PASS NO PASS H GPAOUATEO GPEEN FEES GRADUATED GREEN FEES rn m $5.5 - $4 - $4.5 $3.5 - $1.5 -$4.5 H 1 x. m DC 00 w • PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 1989 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in regular session on Tuesday, January 17, 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 Mike Zuhl, Chief of Staff, Roger Cutler, City Attorney, Kathryn Marshall, City Recorder, and Lynda Domino, Chief Deputy City Recorder, were present. Mayor Palmer DePaulis was absent. Councilmember Stoler presided at and conducted the meeting. OPENING CEREMONIES of the Salt Lake City Code, relat- ing to board appointments. #1. The invocation was given (0 89-5) by Dale McArthur, First United Methodist Church. #3. RE: Adopting Resolution 16 of 1989 adopting the Avenues #2. The Council led the Community Master Plan Update, Pledge of Allegiance, supplementing the 1967 Master Plan of Salt Lake City. #3. Councilmember Godfrey (T 86-35) moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to approve the minutes of #4. RE: Set a date for a the Salt Lake City Council for the public hearing to be held Tuesday, regular meeting held Tuesday, February 14, 1989, at 6:20 p.m. to January 10, 1989, which motion obtain public comment concerning a carried, all members voted aye. proposed amendment to the Zoning (M 89-1) Ordinance, Section 21 . 78 . 110, to allow conditional charitable uses CONSENT AGENDA in closed churches and schools. Councilmember Godfrey moved ACTION: Councilmember and Councilmember Bittner second- Godfrey moved and Councilmember ed to approve the consent agenda, Kirk seconded to set the date for except item #4, which motion Tuesday, February 14, 1989 , at carried, all members voted aye. 6:20 p.m. , which motion carried, all members voted aye. #1. RE: Approving the ap- (0 89-4) pointment of Guy Kroesche to the Salt Lake City Arts Council. NEW COUNCIL BUSINESS ( I 88-23) #1. RE: A resolution author- #2. RE: Adopting Ordinance 1 izing the execution of a Coopera- of 1989 enacting Section 2.04. 055 tive Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban 89-20 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 1989 Development for loan guarantee apartment complex in direct compe- assistance under Section 108 of tition with the private sector. the Housing and Community Develop- He said he thought the city would ment Act of 1974 the proceeds of be criticized since this public which will be applied in a manner housing project would include a consistent with the terms and swimming pool and a club house. conditions outlined in Exhibit C. He said he understood that the city needed to resolve this prob- ACTION: Councilmember lem and in the past he supported Bittner moved and Councilmember those efforts as long as the city Godfrey seconded to suspend the did not have direct ownership of rules and on first reading adopt the properties. Resolution 14 of 1989, which motion carried, all members voted He said he thought the HDC aye except Councilmember Hardman should own the Canterbury Apart- who voted nay. ments and have the Redevelopment Agency manage them to alleviate Councilmember Bittner moved the fears of the neighborhood. He and Councilmember Horrocks second- said he felt that since the Hous- ed to authorize the use of funds ing Authority and the HDC created from the city pooled investment this problem they should be re- account to act as an interim loan sponsible for future problems. He until such time as the Section 108 didn' t think Salt Lake City Corpo- permanent financing through the ration should have the risks and sale of a long-term bond instru- responsibilities associated with ment is available, with interest owning and managing rental proper- paid to the pooled investment ties. account commensurate with the rate paid by other pooled account He said rarely did govern- investments, which motion carried, ment get out of or diminish its all members voted aye except role in a project; rather their Councilmember Hardman who voted role tended to expand and become nay. more deeply involved. He said in his opinion if the city took DISCUSSION: Councilmember direct ownership of this property, Hardman said he was opposed to the Salt Lake City would be in the city becoming involved in this public housing business forever. project. He said two or three (C 89-14) years ago the Housing Authority and the Housing Development Corpo- #2. RE: A resolution approv- ration (HDC) , in their desire to ing action taken by the Board of provide low-income housing for the Directors of the Housing Develop- elderly, wanted to use the city' s ment Corporation of Salt Lake City credit rating to issue their bonds on December 19, 1988, declaring but after the bonds were issued the Housing Development Corpora- this project turned in a problem tion Multi-Family Housing Project with allegations of incompetence, complete, authorizing the invest- mismanagement and gross negli- ment of bond proceeds, providing gence. / !. set asides and reserves, acknow- :.�;; ledging market risks for long term He 'said to solve this prob- investments, providing for future lem it was now proposed that the reconsideration of the scope of city get into the public-housing the project and other miscel- business by directly owning this laneous matters. 89-21 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 1989 ACTION: Councilmember the successful resolution of the Bittner moved and Councilmember Select Telephone Technologies sit- Horrocks seconded to suspend the uation. He said given the allega- rules and on first reading adopt tions of mismanagement and flawed Resolution 15 of 1989, which information he thought the city motion carried, all members voted had an excellent chance of recov- aye. ering much of its loss the same as in the STT case. He said he Councilmember Hardman moved thought the city would be guilty and Councilmember Bittner seconded of gross negligence if it didn' t that the City Council encourage aggressively pursue any and all the City Attorney and the City legal remedies available in order Administration to vigorously to protect the tax payers . pursue any and all legal actions and remedies against any and all Councilmember Godfrey asked parties associated with providing the city attorney to respond. erroneous information to the City Roger Cutler, city attorney, said Council, upon which the original it was appropriate for the Council decision to proceed with the to be concerned. He said the city Housing Development Corporation had an ongoing interest in some of project was predicated, which the previous management in the motion carried, all members voted Housing Authority and other compa- aye. nies. He said if there were appropriate remedies and causes of Councilmember Godfrey moved action he would advise the Council and Councilmember Kirk seconded to and proceed. He said, however, request the Housing Authority to there were still difficult issues provide to the City Council semi- to resolve and the facts were not annually a report on the status of entirely clear. this project, and that the Council (C 85-564) ask the Administration to desig- nate a liaison with the Housing PUBLIC HEARINGS Authority to monitor the financial investments, sale of property and #1. RE: A public hearing management of projects, which scheduled for 6: 20 p.m. to obtain motion carried, all members voted public comment concerning Petition aye. No. 400-660 submitted by Mrs. Fred Bell et. al. requesting that Salt Councilmember Godfrey moved Lake City vacate a portion of an and Councilmember Kirk seconded to alley located between 1489-1515 request the Administration to file South 300 East Street; and consid- the documents necessary to ensure er adopting the ordinance relating that a future City Council will thereto. have the opportunity to review the situation and make a decision on ACTION: Councilmember Kirk the disposition of the properties moved and Councilmember Godfrey that have been paid for with seconded to close the public contributions from or through Salt hearing, which motion carried, all Lake City, which motion carried, members voted aye. all members voted aye. Councilmember Godfrey moved DISCUSSION: Councilmember and Councilmember Kirk seconded to Hardman said he hoped there was a adopt Ordinance 2 of 1989 vacating parallel between this problem and a portion of an alley running 89-22 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 1989 north from Kensington Avenue ( 1500 #2. RE: A public hearing South) behind 1489-1515 South 300 scheduled for 6:30 p.m. to obtain East, which motion carried, all public comment concerning the members voted aye. proposed annexation of City Creek Canyon with the proposed zoning DISCUSSION: Janice Jardine, classification of "P-1" Foothill planning and zoning department, Preservation Zone. outlined the area on a map and said the alley ran north from ACTION: Councilmember Kirk Kensington behind the houses on moved and Councilmember Godfrey 300 East and it intersected with seconded to close the public an east/west alley which ran from hearing, which motion carried, all 300 to 400 East. She said this members voted aye. request excluded about 120 feet of the northern section of the alley Councilmember Kirk moved and which would be left open for Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded access by the property owners and to approve the annexation. No vote said it was under the 150 foot was taken on this motion. maximum for dead ends. Councilmember Hardman moved She said the petitioners and Councilmember Bittner seconded stated that they wanted the alley to make a substitute motion and vacated because of the increase in refer this matter to the Committee crime. She said the alley had of the Whole to discuss it, which been used for burglaries and the motion carried, Councilmembers property owners along 300 East had Bittner, Horrocks, Hardman, Kirk problems with renters in the and Stoler voted aye and Council- apartments cutting through their members Godfrey and Fonnesbeck property. She said it was the voted nay. property owners ' intention to install a fence and put up gates DISCUSSION: Allen Johnson, with locks. planning director, outlined the area to be annexed on a map and She recommended that the said this was a city-sponsored alley be vacated as requested and initiative aimed at implementing divided between the abutting the City Creek Master Plan, which property owners with the stipula- was adopted by the City Council in tion that the property owners April of 1986. He said the city provide a private right of way to proposed to annex 5, 811 acres of those properties which required property to the north and east of off-street parking access the present city limits which would extend the city limits ap- Mrs. Bell, petitioner living proximately 4 miles up the canyon at 1511 South 300 East, said she (about 3 miles past Rotary Park) . made this request for the protec- tion of the homes in the area. He said there were three proper- Councilmember Godfrey asked if ty owners included in the annexa- everyone who abutted the alley tion: Salt Lake City and the U. S. understood that they had to agree Forest Service were the dominant to access and asked if anyone had property owners and the other objected. Mrs. Bell said they property was a mining claim. He would have written agreements. No said they had letters from the one opposed this request. trustee of the mining claim and (P 88-397) the U.S. Forest Service stating 89-23 PROCEPINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 1989 they were not opposed to the said the city had the master plan annexation. in place which hopefully future councils and administrators would He said Salt Lake City was abide by. anxious to annex the canyon since it was an implementation of the Councilmember Horrocks also master plan and having the proper- said when the Council passed the ty in Salt Lake City' s jurisdic- ordinance allowing hunting he tion would give greater protection understood that the city con- with respect to activities on the trolled the canyon and if the city watershed and future land use owned and controlled the canyon he issues. He said they were not asked why they needed to annex expecting any land use issues in it. Mr. Johnson said currently the canyon since the master plan the land use policies were dictat- designated the area as a pristine ed by Salt Lake County. He said wilderness with very limited it was possible that Salt Lake recreation. County could change the zoning on the property and allow development He said the annexation would if people could access the area. give the city more control over He said their intent by annexing the area by placing it in its own the property was that the Council jurisdiction. He said there would would also control the land use be no impact to the city budget or policy. the delivery or urban services. Councilmember Horrocks asked Councilmember Fonnesbeck who the land owners were that asked why this was being zoned "P- refused to be part of the annex- 1" . Mr. Johnson said the "P-1" ation. Mr. Johnson said he under- was the most restrictive zoning stood that the properties outside classification that Salt Lake City the area to be annexed were held had. He said they were in the in large trusts. Councilmember process of working with the Forest Horrocks asked what would happen Service to secure all the owner- if the owners wanted to develop ships within the drainage in Salt the property. Mr. Johnson said Lake City in exchange for proper- the city could deny them access ties the U.S. Forest Services across city property. wanted to control. Councilmember Hardman asked He reiterated that they were if there were other municipalities not expecting any development to that had annexed a canyon. Mr. occur since developers would have Johnson said it wasn't a novel to meet the "P-1" zoning ordinance approach to bring property which as well as the site development you owned into your jurisdiction ordinance which would restrain and from a planning standpoint it development and in essence was the made a lot of sense to extend the closest zone they had to a "no north and east boundaries to the build" zone. county limit. He said City Creek was a unique urban amenity and Councilmember Horrocks asked annexation would further protect about stopping future councils this environment. from allowing development. Mr. Johnson said there was nothing Councilmember Hardman ex- that could stop future councils pressed his concern that the "P-l" from changing the zoning but he zoning would invite development. 89-24 PROCEE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE Cr, UTAH TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 1989 He also asked if the city would to close the canyon to hunting. face any additional liabilities by Mr. Hooton said the present ordi- annexing the property. Mr. John- nance allowed hunting with the son said there would be the same one-mile radius safety zone. jurisdictional responsibilities as with any property within the Russ Hone, public utilities limits of Salt Lake. Council- staff member, said the Council member Hardman said he would feel could technically repeal the or- more comfortable with additional dinance and petition the Big Game time to explore this issue. Board. Mr. Hooton said Salt Lake City would have more control of Councilmember Kirk reiterated the canyon once it was annexed and that this annexation was part of he thought that was where the the City Creek Master Plan. power ought to be. Mr. Hone said the city owned, managed and regu- LeRoy Hooton, director of lated the canyon presently and public utilities, said this annex- Mr. Hooton said if the Council ation would give Salt Lake City didn' t annex the canyon it would more control over the watershed remain in the county' s juris- and said they would be able to diction to resolve issues. control the canyon from both a law enforcement point of view and land Councilmember Horrocks asked use planning. He said it was if the canyon was closed to mass better to own and control than to public use. Mr. Hooton said peo- exercise extraterritorial juris- ple were allowed in the canyon but diction to try and manage the if people wanted to drive their areas. cars then they had to have reser- vation to use the canyon. Mr. Councilmember Horrocks asked Horrocks asked if there would be if there was another zoning which more pressure to open the canyon would eliminate the connotation of if it was annexed. Mr. Hone said development possibilities. Mr. the present user policy was work- Johnson said not at the present ing and he didn' t see this policy time and reiterated that the "P-1" changing. currently was the most restrictive zoning. He said they were plan- Councilmember Hardman wanted ning to rewrite the zoning code to refer this issue to the Commit- and would investigate the possi- tee of the Whole for further bility of a "no build" zone for discussion. Councilmember Godfrey publicly-owned properties. He said he opposed referring this also said that from a geotechnical since the issue had been discussed standpoint they had basically before and there were no land use eliminated the possibility of problems. Councilmember Fonnes- development. beck said this had been an issue for five years and she didn't Councilmember Hardman asked understand why this needed further about the hunting issue and re- discussion. Councilmember Bittner ferred to the state code which said two members of the Council indicated that communities could had not been present during origi- close areas to hunting for safety nal discussions and she thought reasons after confirmation by the everyone needed enough time to Wildlife Board. He was concerned discuss questions they had. that once City Creek was annexed then a petition would be initiated 89-25 A', PROCEE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI UTAH TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 1989 Councilmember Fonnesbeck institute the following fee sched- asked what the issues were. ule: Regular green fees - $12.00 Councilmember Hardman said he was for 18 holes ( $6.00 per 9 holes) , concerned about the hunting issue senior rate - $4. 50 for 9 holes and if annexation would open the (eliminate all passes) , 2-bag door for a future council to cart - $7.00 and $14.00, 3-bag prohibit it, and Councilmember cart - $8.00 and $16.00, a private Horrocks said he was concerned cart trail fee of $2.00 for 9 about the property owners who holes and $4.00 for 18 holes, refused to be annexed and whether small bucket of balls - $1 . 50, or not they had a hidden agenda. large bucket of balls - $3.00. He wanted more information about this issue. He said they were building two new courses which were under No one from the audience construction. He said Salt Lake addressed this issue. City had some of the finest munic- (P 88-395) ipal courses in the country and with the two new courses had one #3. RE: A public hearing of the largest municipal systems scheduled for 6:40 p.m. to obtain in the country. He said it was a public comment concerning a pro- good system which was well main- posed ordinance increasing fees at tained, and he said they needed to the City's golf courses. not only build the new courses but also needed to make sure capital ACTION: Councilmember was spent on existing courses to Godfrey moved and Councilmember update and properly improve them. Kirk seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all He indicated that in the members voted aye. short run the passes were fine but in the long run revenue shortages Councilmember Bittner moved would occur and it would be very and Councilmember Horrocks second- costly. ed to approve the Mayor' s proposal with the following changes: ( 1 ) Councilmember Horrocks asked regular green fees be $6.00 for 9 the actual cost for maintenance holes; junior and senior be $3. 50 per round. Mr. Gust said current- for 1989-90, $4. 50 for 1990-91, ly there were about 505, 000 rounds $4. 50 for 1991-92; (2 ) senior played and maintenance cost about passes $400.00, (3 ) regular passes $2, 365, 000 which averaged $4. 69 $500.00, (4) passes not to be per round to maintain the golf usable on either of the new cours- courses. es; golf cart fees, private cart fees, and driving range fees The following people spoke in remain as proposed by the Mayor, opposition: which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmembers Dean Robinson, 2015 Wasatch Dr. Fonnesbeck and Godfrey who voted Edward Lenz, 3291 Fairfield Rd. nay. Ottis Plant, 2168 Bel Aire Dr. Barbara Frederickson, 2333 DISCUSSION: John Gust, dir- Country Club Cir. ector of parks, said they had Louise Garcia, 1820 So. Main submitted a proposal to raise Jerry Mika, 480 Wakara Way green fees and carts, eliminate D.B. Taufer, 851 Deistal Rd. senior and regular passes and Max Judd, 1181 Sierra Way 89-26 PROCEE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 1989 Lew Galli, 2298 So. Scenic Dr. Some commented that fees for Marvin Hess, 468 J St. golf courses in other surrounding Maurice Clayton, 2427 Emerson states were not as high as the Monroe Tucker, 2322 So. 2300 E. proposed fees, which they felt Jim McKee, 830 Bryan Ave. were beyond inflation. Several Bess Jacob, 2240 East 9th So. people mentioned that the passes William Russell, 950 E. 3765 So. could not be used on Saturday, LuAnn Ruff, 2675 Imperial Street Sunday or holidays which were the Buck Lamphere, 1146 Laird Ave. busiest times. Many commented D. J. Malin, 1078 Garnette St. that the seniors were the people Gene Sain, 2197 Blaine Avenue who originally paid for the golf Bill Allen, 1617 East 900 So. courses and having the younger Wayne Mickelsen, 2337 Country players "subsidize" the senior Club Cir. passes shouldn' t be considered C.R. Stark, 3399 Mile High Dr. unfair. Also seniors were now Dolores Buchanan, 947 American being asked to pay more to help Beauty Dr. build two new courses that they Martin Van Nood, 343 Center Sr. may not get to use. Fred Sanford, 1046 W. 600 No. Kerry Johnson, 1943 Wilson Ave. Several people suggested Paul Soren, 377 N. 1000 W. having marshals on the courses to Darwin Butler, 7231 Chari Cr. help move players along, and Peggy Skinner, 2955 So. Adams rather than eliminate passes J. Morris, 4752 Ichabod perhaps put a limit on the number Art Atack, 1149 Mercedes Way of rounds of golf which could be Gina Mitchell, 6072 Vixen Way played. Some commented that rates Ferron Foresgren, 1711 Wasatch Dr. for all seniors needed to be Norman Dean, 1090 Taffeta Dr. equitable and not just for those who bought passes. Also several These citizens opposed citizens pointed out that the golf eliminating the senior passes and courses were the only program commented that seniors with passes supported entirely by user fees played during off times and while the city didn't charge fees seasons, took good care of the for people to use parks or soccer courses, and played faster. And fields and also subsidized the if seniors didn't play during the fine arts. off times the courses would be empty and would not make money. Many said they were not opposed to a reasonable increase They also commented that many in fees and passes but didn't want seniors were on fixed incomes and the passes eliminated. Many said would be unable to play much golf they felt that the new courses without the benefit of a pass, and shouldn't be paid for with revenue golf was the only recreation for from other courses and thought many seniors who were some of the areas of waste needed to be elimi- biggest supporters of the golf nated such as over watering, free courses. Several commented that passes, and lifetime passes. they would golf on other courses if the city courses eliminated Many people mentioned that passes and raised green fees. Some they purchased passes as a conve- noted that avid golfers also nience and didn't "over use" the supported the club houses, range pass. Several people mentioned balls, and golf carts. that because they had a pass they brought their non-pass-holding 89-27 • PROCEINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI UTAH TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 1989 friends with them to city courses. He said the group that could Many also mentioned that even least afford the higher fees was though they had a pass they still the non-pass player. He said it played on the weekends at the was true that seniors received 1/3 regular price. less cash income than the average family but they also had smaller There were 40 people who households and benefited more from opposed but did not wish to speak. non-cash aid, such as medicare. He said they also paid lower taxes The following people spoke in and had fewer expenses than fami- support: lies raising children. He said 63% of seniors owned their homes Stephen Hemingway, 1336 So. and had no mortgage payment. 2nd East Judd Jackson, 866 So. 23rd E. He asked the Council to remember that they represented all Mr. Hemingway said golf golfers and not just seniors. He needed to pay for itself and said they all wanted the seniors suggested that the Council form a to receive a fair discount but did committee to work on the fees to not want them to abuse the system. make them a more reasonable rate. He asked that everyone pay their fair share. He said at the Golf Mr. Jackson, member of the Advisory Board' s last meeting the Golf Advisory Board, said that the majority supported the proposal . average golfer (those paying full fare) had no representation and Councilmember Kirk said the that was why he wanted to serve on Council had information that some the Board. He said it seemed to municipal golf fees in other him that the average player was cities around the West were much paying a higher fee than they higher than those proposed for should pay because the pass play- Salt Lake City courses. ers weren' t paying their fair share. Councilmember Fonnesbeck re- iterated that the cost per round He said senior pass players was about $4. 69 plus debt service. generated only $1 .36 revenue per She said with unlimited passes round but the average cost per some people were paying half this round was $4.76. The average cost which meant the city had a player had to subsidize the senior deficit for each of those rounds. pass player by $3.40 per round. She was concerned about this He said the senior pass player, as because somebody had to make up a group, played 29% of the rounds the deficit and it seemed that and generated 9% of the revenue. non-pass players were carrying the burden. He said in order to offset this loss the fees for average She said the seniors were not players tripled from $4.00 for 18 the poorest group in the nation. holes in the 1970s to the newly She said it didn' t seem fair to proposed $12.00 per round figure. her that non-pass players should He said unless they altered the pay 150% of the cost of a round to pass situation it was likely that enable someone else to pay 50%. In the regular player would be paying reference to the two new golf over $15.00 per round in the near courses, Councilmember Fonnesbeck future. 89-28 PROCEOPINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 1989 said the Council and the Golf revenues generated by the fees and Advisory Board anticipated that took the operating cost in order there would be changes. to determine the cost per round. Councilmember Godfrey said Councilmember Godfrey said he the Council had an independent thought the revenues from the audit of the Parks and Recreation driving range, concessions and Department, including the golf carts were used to subsidize the courses, done by Hughes Heiss and pass fees. Mr. King said that was Associates from California. He what they had done to keep all said this audit suggested elimi- fees down but now those revenues nating the golf passes and also would be used to pay for new said the audit was available for equipment and improvements on public inspection, existing courses and would not be used for debt service or operating In response to Gene Sain' s costs of the courses. question as to why the city was building two golf courses at the Councilmember Bittner, said same time instead of one at a the Council had agonized over this time, Councilmember Kirk said issue and they were very concerned their consultant told them the about it. She said when the golf bonding costs would be cheaper to enterprise fund was created it was build the courses together. to protect the golfers so their fees would be used strictly for Councilmember Hardman said the golf courses and not to subsi- when the City Council voted for dize other activities. In refer- the two golf courses, they re- ence to lifetime passes she said ceived information from the golf they were not given any more but enterprise fund that beginning the city couldn' t take those away January 1, 1989, the fees would that had been given a number of increase by 25%. Beginning Janu- years ago. In regards to the ary 1, 1993, the fees would in- impact on senior citizens, she crease by 14% and beginning Janu- said the longer they were retired ary 1, 1997, by 11%. He said the the tighter their money became and Council voted for the two new golf she also said some seniors were courses based upon fee increases still helping their children so this year of only 25% and not 200% she understood their situation. or eliminating senior passes. She said she felt the older Councilmember Kirk said in- people in the community bought and creasing the price of passes and paid for the golf courses and felt green fees would not make up the there was an equity owed to those deficit. She said they needed to who had played for many years . determine how to subsidize the She said when the Council decided seniors but not at the expense of to build the two new golf courses other players. they got very little comment from golfers in opposition. The main In response to a question by thing the Council heard was that Norman Dean about whether the the golf courses were fully uti- revenues from the driving range, lizied and the city needed addi- coffee shop and carts were used to tional golf courses. project the cost of a golf round, Lee King, Council Staff, said no, She said she was concerned the independent auditor took the about the appearance of Salt Lake 89-29 PROCEE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 1989 City from the west and was con- He said the Council had taken the vinced that the new golf course at senior citizens ' concerns into the airport would pay for itself consideration and had asked for many times over because of new something fair for the seniors. business it would attract. She He said if the Council voted for said the Council had to be fiscal- Mrs. Bittner' s option the people ly responsible and had to meet who could not afford to buy a pass costs. would pay more. He said there were other options which kept a She proposed that the Council lower fee for senior citizens adopt the Mayor' s proposal with while eliminating the pass. He the following changes: ( 1 ) regular said the Council ' s intent was to green fees be $6.00 for 9 holes; make sure the golf fund was pro- junior and senior be $3. 50 for tected and could pay for itself 1989-90, $4. 50 for 1990-91, $4. 50 and said he was uncomfortable with for 1991-92; (2) senior passes Councilmember Bittner' s option. $400, (3) regular passes $500, (4) passes not to be usable on either Councilmember Hardman said he of the new courses; golf cart thought that when the senior fees, private cart fees, and citizen green fees changed from driving range fees remain as $3. 50 to $4. 50 then the senior proposed by the Mayor. passes also needed to increase from $400 to $450. He asked what Mr. King explained what the revenues this would generate. surpluses and deficits would be with Mrs. Bittner's proposal: Mr. King said with an in- 1988-89, $5, 572, 108 surplus; 1989- crease cost the projected number 90, $438,085 surplus; 1990-91, of passes sold would decrease and $16, 593 surplus; 1991-92, $540,408 he outlined the surplus/deficit deficit. situation: 1988-89, $5, 572, 108 surplus; 1989-90, $460, 585 sur- Councilmember Fonnesbeck said plus; 1990-91, $64,093 surplus; she was not opposed to the passes 1991-92, $492, 908 deficit. He or giving seniors a break, but she said he made a basic assumption was concerned with continuing to that fewer people would purchase have passes for unlimited play. passes at $450 than at $400. She also felt that all seniors should be charged the same rate. Councilmember Bittner said her proposal did not increase the She said she thought the price of regular pay; her increas- Council was being shortsighted es were in the senior citizen since if there would be a short- area. She said if the senior pass fall in 1991-92, the Council would was increased then she suggested have to raise fees again. She that the regular pass should be said the Mayor's proposal put the increased too. deficit off until 1997 and she thought they would be better off Councilmember Horrocks said to look at a long-range plan. he was concerned about initially increasing the fees considerably Councilmember Godfrey said and pricing the people in his all the options the Council con- district out of the golfing mar- sidered were best-case scenarios. ket. He pointed out that if He was also concerned about being Councilmember Bittner' s option in a deficit situation in 1991-92. passed, there would have to be 89-30 PROCEEilINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITt UTAH TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 1989 another increase in two years. Councilmember Kirk said her preference was to have green fees at $3. 50 and eliminate passes, but there were not enough votes for her option. She said she received many phone calls from senior citi- zens who told her that if the Council raised the fee to $4. 50 and continued with the pass, then seniors who didn' t play as much would subsidize those who did. She said that was why it seemed more equitable to have all seniors pay $3. 50 but since her option didn't have enough votes she said she would support Councilmember Bittner since she thought seniors needed a break. Councilmember Stoler said he couldn' t remember any negative comments when the Council had the public hearing about the new golf courses. And he said under Mrs. Bittner' s proposal senior citizens would not pay for improvements or the new courses. He said the question was devising a system that was fair and equitable for the senior citizens since the amount of golf which individuals played varied so greatly. (0 89-3) The meetin djourned at 10: 10 p.m. Caird 0/7 Cral 41 lirVIL/4441ta 89-31 rZ_ -- ;v1/ d14-1A4 SALT LAKE CITY U IL AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER SUITE 300, CITY HALL 324 SOUTH STATE STREET Tuesday, January 17, 1989 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. 5 (:_ro s 1‘0. 2. The City Council will interview Guy Kroesche prior to consideration of his proposed appointment to the Salt Lake City Arts 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 Appointment. 10 Consider approving the appointment of Guy Kroesche to the Salt Lake City Arts Council. (I 88-23) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve . 2. Board Membership Appointments. Consider adopting an ordinance enacting Section 2.04.055 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to board appointments. (0 89-5) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt . 3. Avenues Community Master Plan Update. Consider adopting a resolution adopting the Avenues Community Master Plan Update , supplementing the 1967 Master Plan of Salt Lake City. aftj2 (T 86-35) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt. D. CONSENT Cont'd 4. Conditional Charitable Uses. Set a date for a public hearing to be held Tuesday, Februaryf , 1989, at 0 6:20 p.m. to obtain public comment concerning a proposed amendment to the )f e Zoning Ordinance, Section 21 .78. 110, to allow conditional charitable uses in closed churches and schools. -'7-5 a l/ow rho r ' ' J 4 ,-,..-F,7-.1 (0 89-4) .6..4-p- 4 'r . - s STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Set date. �/ E. NEW COUNCIL BUSINESS: 1 . Cooperation Agreement - HUD -- Canterbury Apartments. Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution of a Cooperative l/r , ,1y ' Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for loan guarantee assistance under Section 108 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 the proceeds of which will be applied in a manner consistent with the terms and conditions outlined in Exhibit C. — te r., n..... mac: , ,414/ (C 89-14) /it.'y ,4.f 7Ci,r.4- STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Suspend the Rules and Adopt on First Reading. 2. Housing Development Corporation. Consider adopting a resolution approving action taken by the Board of I Directors of the Housing Development Corporation of Salt Lake City on IA December 19, 1988, declaring the Housing Development Corporation Multi- Family Housing Project complete, authorizing the investment of bond ' � proceeds, providing set asides and reserves, acknowledging market risks for i long term investments, providing for future reconsideration of the scope of /10 the project and other miscellaneous matters. ' ..4-�C (C 85-564) + n STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Suspend the Rules and Adopt on First Reading. G. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1 . Petition No. 400-660 - Mrs. Fred Bell. - ,G 6:20 a.m. Obtain public comment concerning Petition No. 400-660 submitted by Mrs. Fred Bell et. al. requesting that Salt Lake City vacate a portion of an alley located between 1489-1515 South 00 East Street' and consider adopting the ordinance relating thereto `C/ ,�.� — �d aQc (P 88-397) ��`17 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Close Hear' and Adopt. ril .4°: -----fra-#1-41. A*1-( 1-- 1-1°-' 44-- ±:,4,4_,74—a-7A_ .5;7:772•411A-11141"----: /41.'-'1:1. -------- • £1/6t Dom._ c717 / fy s -ea . ls�o s - G. PUBLIC HEARINGS "-)nt 'd. 2. Petition No. 4Uu-537 - City Creek Canyon Annexata.on. 6:30 p.m. Obtain public comment concerning the proposed annexation of City Creek Canyon with the proposed zoning classification of "P-1" Foothill Preservation Zone. Qa t - / caoLiI ,4,,�� _ (P 88-395) /no" �✓ '..`� STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Close Hearin and ap ove annexation. 3. Golf Fees. 6:40 p.m. Obtain public comment concerning a proposed ordinance increasing fees at the City's golf courses. (0 89-3) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Close Hearing. H. DJOURNMENT. -7`K -mod v2- � " FINAL ACTION HAY BE TAKEN AND/OR ORDINANCES ADOPTED CONCERNING ANY ITEH ON THIS AGENDA DATED: January 13, 1989 BY: 1)1_4441L, C Y RE ER STATE OF UTAH COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) ss. On the 13th day of January, 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. CI RECO Subscribed and sworn to before me this 13th day of January, 1989. • Nota Public residing in the State of Utah My Commission Expires: 51q APPROVAL: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR I MOVE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ENCOURAGE THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE CITY ADMINISTRATION TO VIGOROUSLY PURSUE ANY AND ALL LEGAL ACTIONS AND REMEDIES AGAINST ANY AND ALL PARTIES ASSOCIATED WITH PROVIDING ERRONEOUS INFORMATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL, UPON WHICH THE ORIGINAL DECISION TO PROCEED WITH THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PROJECT WAS PREDICATED. I have discussed this motion with Roger Cutler. His preference would be that the motion not be made for two reasons. First, it simply gives advance notice to the parties involved that the City intends to sue them. Second, he indicates that it is not clear at this time whether the City has a cause of action against anyone. He says, however, that it would not create a significant problem if the motion were to be made. He does ask that the motion not include the specific names of individuals or companies, since it is not clear whether there are causes of action against anyone in specific. ENE:11E1G cosil ROI...FINC:ES • 1 9.:,11.'3„,'r•:1 1 1'.:-.4,....!1./92 1 9 9 2/9:7:-.• 1 99:5/91 0 F'T T.ON 1 $:III,621,000 4;;35.i 11-1 $•'::'.I 10,0 E•TICI 1;1„ Ci 00, o 0 0 :It „ 11-5,000 $:i.,0 9 9-,13 f.11E1 OPT I ON 2:I $5, 'Fir.':,,1•30P1 z...•1 3:2,,c.3.:10 $`..96.•,171C.11•.1 11:1.7‘}5 6,001D) 17.$1, 11.1 ,ID 0 Erl::, ($2,2:51,003 Op I I 01'.1 75 •.$!:.:,,, 11z.,E,7.,i 0 1.;:i $41.5,9!":317::1 ,:;$2.1,00G'...• c,1..7.-.,;:•::-.1,1,5 1:11:10::1 (11:1 2?1,riFjr11 r.;$12, 51,...:,9 5 E71 0 i•,:j•-,1 017T I ON 'I. :•::E:`•_'.•,5 0 2 3:i •_+.:r•-•,stis,9:2;I $.1.7 7., 9 :$...?.-.5 1 ,51.1:•' I::1:1 1-7.-5, 1 46) 1::$925,0 717::7.1 CiPT I ON 5 fr.:.,.;,5-...".2.,1.::i, E:::1 7$4,:,I ,E.i, -1 51::::: :t:E72,311-,,, 7 ist::. $:2'17.0E.-:i,07.21. 1::,$-,•••"9.6 1 9::• C.$E.3 62,75 1 1) OPTION 7' ::E:!-.:F.i, 5 T.:31,6 01.3 $21:.'.'.;1,9I.'' $.1,G, 1-R5 ,T.SC:„ 1 CZ'? 1-.$1,236,F.31.6) $2,3.7,1,51 E. OPT T.0 r.4 1. . OPT 11 ON '2 CiPT I LIN 75 ---•-- ___________ _._........._....._______ r-lo PFISSES $500 Pf...:13 P HIE;S $1.I7.;0 RE( 1:-.0'•_:-..S 00 C-•P E..:FN FF. E.7. Sl-E10 :-;EN I OP PFA!:5S 1.,''SSID SEN I OR PIGS OR ID I NEIL ORO I NIAN GEE $57',E.:i,...7, GREEN FEE $4.:;"5 i':!11, C:-.•1::?.E.:EN FEE • OF'T I 0 r.4 -1. OPTION 5 OPT T.ON -,' NC:' P A S,,:-::.:. NO PASS $If.ii-.7.I 0 PEG P FR SS G vr.,.ADu A T EL' r3R.EFT"..1 FEE G P HOUR IF 0 GP.E.E1',1 FEE:- $4C10 SE IN I OR pA5S $3.5 -- V+ — $,1-_5 '.E::.'.:'.;.5 — 1.:•=1.!.=_-; —$1. 5 GREID UHT Ell GREEN PEES 1,-,4 —2:-+.5 . • , . , . .• ' Salt Lake City Council Meeting January 17, 1989 Motions relating to agenda item "E. 1" Cooperation Agreement - HUD -- Canterbury Apartments 1. I move we adopt the resolution authorizing the execution of a Cooperative Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2. I move we authorize the use of funds from the City pooled investment account to act as an interim loan, until such time as the Section 108 permanent financing through the sale of a long-term bond instrument is available, with interest paid to the pooled investment account commensurate with the rate paid by other pooled account investments. Staff comment: Both of these motions are consistent with intent expressed by the Council in the RDA retreat on Saturday, January 7. MINUTES SALT LAKE WINTER GAMES SKATING COMMITTEE Monday, January 9 , 1989 ; 7: 30 a.m. Development Services Conference Room 203 Salt Lake City Hall Those in Attendance: Neil Richardson , Chair Richardson Associates Michael Allegra UTA Bob Cron U.S . Forest Service Lee King City Council Staff Bob Gore SLC Capital Planning Bob Hunter Weber County Commission John Pingree UTA Susan Norris SLC Capital Planning Doug Dansie SLC Planning and Zoning Rob Rice Deseret News Commissioner Bob Hunter of Weber County addressed the committee on behalf of Weber County and Ogden. He said that the Ogden area is planning to build additional ice skating facilities in the future as part of an overall capital improvement program that would most likely be financed by a megabond . He further said that the Weber County Commission and Ogden City Council would be glad to work with the Olympic Committee in terms of designing these facilities to host Olympic skating events . Based on this information, the committee recommended that the Ogden area be considered as a primary site for speed skating. Doug Dansie, from the Salt Lake City Planning Division, suggested to the committee that Salt Lake City also be considered as a site for speed skating. He' said that there are a number of possible locations within the City that could be used for such a facility. The committee recommended that Salt Lake City be considered as a secondary site for speed skating . In terms of ice hockey, the committee recommended that either Salt Lake City or Provo be selected as a primary site. The Salt Palace and the Marriott Center were the two facilities discussed . In terms of figure skating , the committee recommended that the Salt Palace be the primmary site with the Cottonwood Community Center serving as the secondary site. MINUTES SALT LAKE WINTER GAMES MOUNTAIN SPORTS COMMITTEE Tuesday, January 10, 1989; 7: 30 a.m. Development Services Conference Room 203 Salt Lake City Hall Those in Attendance: Neil Richardson, Chair Richardson Associates Michael Allegra UTA Bob Cron U. S. Forest Service Dick Bass Snowbird Ann Wechsler Save Our Canyons Jock Glidden Environmental Rep - Ogden William Spencer U.S. Biathlon Association Rainer Kolb Snowbasin Mike Goar Solitude Bob Bailey Ski Utah Lee King City Council Staff Tom Berggren Executive Committee Craig Badami Park City/Ski Utah David Johnson Sports Foundation Bob Gore SLC Capital Planning Susan Norris . SLC Capital Planning Doug Dansie SLC Planning and Zoning Rob Rice Deseret News Neil Richardson welcomed the committee. Jack Turner discussed technical criteria for selecting sites for mountain sports events , and Bob Cron discussed environmental criteria. They both distributed information for the Technical Committee to use in the form of checklists to facilitate evaluation of technical and environmental criteria . Jack Turner briefed the committee on the planned development of an Olympic-caliber cross-country course at Mountain Dell . The committee noted that although Mountain Dell is within Salt Lake City' s watershed, the City ' s Director of Public Utilities has approved the use of this site for cross-country skiing. Therefore, the committee recommended Mountain Dell to be the primary site for Nordic events, and Trapper ' s Loop to be considered the secondary site. In terms of Alpine events, the committee decided to work through Ski Utah to obtain a list of homologated runs to use for recommending primary and secondary sites. MINUTES SALT LAKE WINTER GAMES FACILITIES AND CEREMONIES COMMITTEE Wednesday, January 11 , 1989; 7: 30 a .m. Development Services Conference Room 203 Salt Lake City Hall Those in Attendance: Neil Richardson, Chair Richardson Associates Michael Allegra UTA Bob Cron U. S . Forest Service Gale Dick University of Utah Fred Hillyard Fort Douglas Brian Wilkinson Intermountain Health Care Jack Turner Utah Winter Games Julie Peck Utah Hotel Motel Association Lee King City Council Staff Bob Gore SLC Capital Planning Rosemary Davis SLC Capital Planning Susan Norris SLC Capital Planning Doug Dansie SLC Planning and Zoning Jill Remington Local Business Advocacy Rob Rice Deseret News Neil Richardson welcomed the committee and _asked Commander Fred Hillyard of Fort Douglas to discuss the housing and office space potential of that facility in terms of hosting the Olympics. Commander Hillyard said that Fort Douglas is a realistic possibility in terms of providing Olympic office space and housing, although the future use of Fort Douglas is yet to be determined . In terms of using the University of Utah for housing or other related Olympic activities, Gale Dick cautioned that it could not be taken for granted that the University or its facilities would be necessarily available. However, the committee decided to recommend Salt Lake City and the University of Utah/Fort Douglas/Research Park as the primary site for the Olympic Village. In terms of possible secondary sites, the committee discussed using downtown hotels or the State fairgrounds . The committee also briefly discussed the possibilities of using BYU and Weber State for housing Olympic athletes. The Committee recommended using the Salt Palace Exhibition Center as the primary site for the Olympic Press Center , and the State Fairgrounds as a possible secondary site. The Committee also recommended that the Opening and Closing Ceremonies be held in one location and that Rice Stadium be considered as the primary site. The possibility of using BYU Cougar stadium was briefly as a secondary site. 15 117) • MINUTES SALT LAKE WINTER GAMES BOB SLED, LUGE, SKI JUMP COMMITTEE Friday, January 13 , 1989; 7: 30 a.m. Development Services Conference Room 203 Salt Lake City Hall Those in Attendance: Neil Richardson, Chair Richardson Associates Bob Cron U.S. Forest Service Jack Turner Utah Winter Games David Eckhoff EWP Engineering John Pingree UTA Tom Bergrren Executive Committee Michael Allegra UTA Lee King City Council Staff Bob Gore SLC Capital Planning Jill Remington Local Business Advocacy Rob Rice Deseret News Susan Norris SLC Capital Planning Neil Richardson welcomed the committee. Jack Turner presented plans from the Summit County Winter Sports Foundation, Inc. ski jumping complex. This Foundation has been working for nearly two years and has completed a significant amount of research pertaining to the development of a world class ski jumping complex in Summit County. The committee decided to recommend the Summit County Winter Sports Foundation proposal to be the primary site for ski jumping. As a backup site, the committee briefly discussed the possibility of Wasatch County. In terms of locating the bob sled and luge venues, the committee decided to recommend combining or siting in close proximity the ski jumping area with the bob sled and luge facilities. Therefore, the committee recommended that the Summit County proposal also be considered as the primary site for the bob sled ,and luge venue, if possible. The committee discussed the possibility of the secondary bob sled and luge site being located at the head of Parley's Canyon or in the Pererson area . Wally Wright suggested the possibility of exploring the use of several sites near downtown Salt Lake City, including City Creek Canyon, Red Butte Canyon, Pioneer Trails State Park, and Emigration Canyon. n �jS "Celebrating 50 Years of Unforgettable Skiing" 44, 17\\ 1938 - 1988 SK_I AREA/RUN HOMOLOGATION INFORMATION - (J.1Tk.: Not interested Certified: Nothing at this time is homologated at Brighton. Meets Specs: No one knows which runs , if any, could be homologated. Planned Lev: No plans exist, at this time , for homologation. Olympic Dcv: Owner would need event proposal to consider hornologation. D r F `'°,r !' '~ =rti ie J. Big Stick-GS (meets NCAA & F I J specs . ) Meets Spos : Solid. Uuldoon-SL; Reward-GS; Hawkeye-SGS; Big Stick(Lower) -SL Pia.:ned Dev: Homol ogation is underway for runs that meet criteria. De :: They are working towards hosting increasingly bigger events . :*%1._ ti.LIL E 1_ Certified: Valulia SL _'feet;_ Specs: They are most interested in Freestyle events and have terrain available for these competitions . Flan:_edDev: VeryNo definite plans atthe present. OlympicDev: interested, would complyr requirements ' ��,'.. ?nt ._ ,t. with any �eq�.�ir.elr,er.ts FO ;JEE. '?=iO `?TyIi•; Certi:_ied: ;!uickdraw--SL ; WhitePine- H; White Pine-GS Meets Specs: Sidewinder-DH lanned Dev: No definite plans at present. Olympic Dcv: Very interested , would comply with any requirements . • Certified: Pay Day-SL , GS . SG; Clel',entine-SL; Ski Team L" ift-2GS runs , 2SL runs . Me ts Specs: Dev: Clementine Slalom Stadium. • A wholly owned subsidiary oJtbe Utah Ski Association. 307 West 200 South,Suite 1003 Salt Lake City,Utah 84101 Phone(801)534.1779 PARKWEST Certified: Pale Face-Ballet, Race Track-Moguls Meets Specs: Planned Dev: Olympic Dev: SNOWBASIN Certified: Porcupine - Rock Garden-SG; Needles/Porcupine-DH Meets Specs: John Paul-DH (2) Planned Dev: They are working on homologation of John Paul (2) . Olympic Dev: Very interested, would comply with any requirements. SNOWBIRD Certified: Chips Run-DH; Chips Run (w/Primrose Path)-GS; Wilbur Ridge-SL Meets Specs: Planned Dev: Gad Valley-DH Olympic Dev: Very interested, would comply with any requirements. SOLITUDE Certified: Serenity/Grumble-GS; Grumble-SL Meets Specs: New Race Trail-GS Planned Dev: Homologation is not currently being sought. Olympic Dev: Very interested, would comply with any requirements. SUNDANCE Certified: None Meets Specs: Wildflower/Bearclaw-GS Planned Dev: No specific plans at this time Olympic Dev: Specifics would need to be presented to owners. PROCEEDINGS L_ THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT .-•-IKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 1989 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met as the Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, January 10, 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 Ms. said that she had been doing a lot Catherine Dee, prior to consider- of fund raising and had helped ation of her proposed appointment with some of the legal matters the to the salt Lake City Arts Coun- theatre was involved with. She cil. Ms. Dee said that she had said that she looked forward to many years of involvement with helping the Arts Council in the various community organizations same way. Councilmember Godfrey and was a frequent and involved said that the legal help was patron of the arts in Utah. She needed. Ms. Noda said that she said that she had the time to work was looking at helping put togeth- with the Council and was looking er more federal grant application forward to doing her part. packets and helping with some of Councilmember Stoler thanked her the contractual problems that for her time and said that she had arise. a very impressive resume. Lee King, Staff Budget Auditor, reviewed the schedule for upcoming The Council interviewed Mr. meetings of the Winter Games Stephan Hausknecht, prior to Organizing Committee. He asked consideration of his proposed the Council to inform him if they appointment to the Salt Lake City were going to attend the meetings Arts Council. Mr. Hausknecht said so staff could post a Council that he had spent the last couple agenda, if necessary. Linda of years working with the Arts Hamilton, Executive Director, said Council as a volunteer and was that the staff would inform the interested in working as an offi- Council of upcoming meetings as cial member of the Council. soon as they were scheduled. Councilmember Horrocks asked if he had enough time to be involved. Ms. Hamilton then reviewed the He said that by being a volunteer Council agenda. She said that the he got used to just how much time draft ordinance relating to golf the Council involved. course greens fees was based on the recommendations from the Parks The Council interviewed Ms. Laurie Department and the Mayor. She Noda, prior to consideration of said that the Council would be her proposed appointment to the given a briefing on the changes in Salt Lake City Arts Council. Ms. the next Committee of the Whole Noda said that she was an attorney meeting. and had been working with the Children' s Dance Theatre as Chair Councilmember Florence Bittner of the Finance Committee. She said that she appreciated the 89-11 PROCEEDINGS L_ THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT ._..IKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 1989 executive summary that was put that it would take time to estab- with the County Landfill Budget lish a system of inspections, packet. She said that it made it follow-ups and awarding permits. much more understandable. Ms. Ms. Bittner said that she wanted Hamilton said that the staff had the priority to be put on the some issues that they thought inspections and not the fees that worth studying during the next came from the permits. Mr. budget process such as dumping Caldwell said that the permit fees fees for other cities, long term weren't to raise money but were planning and recycling programs. set to cover the cost of the Councilmember Sydney Fonnesbeck process. Chief Sumner said that said that landfill and solid waste the process would be "permit disposal was becoming a major driven" , centralizing the process problem in most cities and that for better control and scheduling Salt Lake had a good opportunity of inspections, and putting a high to develop long range plans to level of safety as the main prior- avoid the problems before they ity. Ms. Bittner asked how the became a crisis. Councilmember department found out about new Roselyn Kirk asked if the new sites. Chief Sumner said that position proposed in the budget they• worked with local engine was really needed. Mr. Brad companies and the business licens- Stewart of Public Works, said ing division to track new sites. there was a problem with a "back- door" entrance to the dump. Mr. Mr. Godfrey asked if the Fire Bond said that they were trying to Department agreed with Cam ' s control the traffic at that point proposal to put all 44 permits in without putting a person there. use. Chief Sumner said that the department could not handle in- Mr. Cam Caldwell, Staff Budget spections for all 44 permits at Analyst, reviewed proposed changes this time. He said that he felt to the Uniform Fire Code (see very uncomfortable putting a law attachment) . Battalion Chief on the books that the department George Sumner said that the Fire could not implement. Department agreed in principle Councilmember Stoler asked if the with Mr. Caldwell ' s recommendation existing staff could handle the but that he felt uncomfortable workload. Chief Sumner said no, requiring permits and inspections but said as revenue from the for all of the 44 proposed sites permits increased, more staff before he had the resources to could be brought on to expand the actually do the work. He said program. that by starting with the proposed categories, the Department would be able to work into the program slowly, building the program as revenues increased. He said that it was the department ' s goal to involve all 44 permits as soon as possible. Ms. Fonnesbeck asked what the department needed to be ready for all the inspections. Chief Sumner said that the department had never had a program like this one and 89-12 . • PROCEEDINGS THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT _ _+KE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 1989 (Attachment #1) ADOPTION OF 1988 UNIFORM FIRE CODE STAFF RECOMMENDATION STAFF RECOMMENDATION BY: Cam' Caldwell ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: To adopt the 1988 edition of the Uniform Fire Code. BACKGROUND ' INFORMATION: The City formally adopted the 1982 edition of the Uniform Fire Code several years ago. The Fire Department is now propos- ing that this code be formally updated, consistent with the recommenda- tions of the Western Fire Chief ' s Association and the International Conference of Building Officials. The 1988 code is proposed for adoption with a few changes. Those changes have been reviewed with the City Attorney' s Office and the Fire Depart- ment staff. The most significant amendment to the code is the deletion of the requirement for permits for thirty-six uses and locations identi- fied as high hazard locations in the code. The proposed amendments seek to establish permit fees, adopted by the City Council, for only eight locations and uses. In the existing language of the code, fees for the inspections associated with awarding permits are established administra- tively. The Fire Department has indicated that no fees have been established in the past. The Fire Department projects that $22, 700 in new revenue will be generated if the eight locations and uses are charged permit fees. The proposed fee structure was intended to achieve legislative intent to generate $33, 000 in hazardous materials inspection fees. This money was to be generated by the Fire Department to finance a fire prevention inspector position which had been proposed for elimination in the pro- posed budget submitted by the Mayor. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: The Council staff support the adoption of the revised version of the Uniform Fire Code, with the exception of the amendments to eliminate permit requirements for the thirty-six uses. The Uniform Fire Code requires permits for these locations because of their high hazard potential. Council staff take the position that the requiring of permits for the thirty-six additional locations and uses will 1 ) bring more locations into compliance with the code and thereby prevent possible fires, and 2 ) assist firefighters to extinguish fires that may occur at these high hazard locations by familiarizing them with any hazardous materials or life threatening conditions which may exist. • Inspections are currently conducted by the fire prevention staff or by department engine companies. Council staff recommend that permit fees be established for each of these high hazard locations. We recommend that 89-13 PROCEEDINGS L THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT _ .KE CITY, UTAH • TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 1989 • the administration continue to set these fees, and that they be based upon the full cost of preparing for and conducting the inspections, including all reasonable costs associated with processing the permits. Council staff also recommend that the proposed code include 1 ) a penalty clause of up to $1,000 for flagrant violations of the code which endanger the public, and 2 ) a penalty of double the price of the permit for inad- vertent failure to obtain a permit. The double charge for the inadvert- ent failure to obtain a permit is the current practice of the Engineering Department. The City Attorney' s Office concurs with this recommendation. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: I move that we close this hearing concerning the Uniform Fire Code. • I move that we refer the ordinance adopting the Uniform Fire Code to the City Attorney' s Office to redraft 1 ) Section 4. 108 defining the opera- tions, activities, practices or functions for which a permit is required; and 2 ) •to establish penalties for flagrant violation of the code, and inadvertent failure to obtain a permit. ANTICIPATED OPPOSITION: Opposition may be voiced by businesses which are required to pay for the permit fees. Council staff recommend that those who 1 ) have a business use identified as a high hazard location, and 2 ) receive the benefit of a permit inspection should pay for the reasonable costs associated with making that inspection. This was Council ' s origi- nal position in designating that the fees should be established when the legislative intent was proposed. The Fire Department may also oppose the Council staff position on the basis that they are currently inadequately staffed to perform the inspec- tions out of the Fire Prevention Bureau. Council staff believe that these inspections can be performed by the engine companies, if they are not conducted by the Fire Prevention Bureau. 89-14 PROCEEDINGS l._ THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT .-..AKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 1989 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in regular session on Tuesday, January 10, 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 and conducted the meeting. OPENING CEREMONIES the trolley, the downtown free fare zone, ski bus service, and #1. The invocation was given the BYU Football Flyer. They also by Police Chaplain David Raisor. had a school education program about public transportation. #2. The Council led the Pledge of Allegiance. Street Life - Brown Bag Concert Series, for providing #3. Councilmember Godfrey music, dance, performance arts, moved and Councilmember Kirk and literary readings in various seconded to approve the minutes of city parks during the summer. the Salt Lake City Council for the regular meeting held Tuesday, Neighborhood Focus - First January 3, 1989, which motion Step House, for setting a good carried, all members voted aye. example in their neighborhoods by (M 89-1) providing all-night security, clearing trees and providing good #4. Mayor Palmer DePaulis lighting, and acting as a neigh- presented the 1988 Urban Design borhood watch and providing infor- Awards. Mayor DePaulis said this mation to the community councils. annual event had great meaning and had become a good forum to recog- Balance - Tanner Park, for nize individuals and groups who preserving green space. worked to make Salt Lake City more livable. He thanked the Salt Lake Dedicated Participants - City Arts Council, the Deseret R/UDAT participants, for preparing News, and the Urban Design Coali- a 66 page comprehensive pamphlet tion for their support and work in laying out goals to better plan making the awards possible. He Salt Lake City and make it a more presented awards in the following livable, exciting city. categories: In conclusion Mayor DePaulis Transportation - UTA, for said he thought it was important cooperative support in alternative to celebrate the city and its transportation systems including arts. He said he thought awards 89-15 PROCEEDINGS L_ THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT _ _EKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 1989 such as these would be an impor- NEW COUNCIL BUSINESS tant criteria for cities that would lead the county forward and #1. RE: A resolution ap- be recognized. proving the City and County Land- fill Budget for 1989 . CONSENT AGENDA ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Councilmember Kirk moved and Hardman seconded to suspend the Councilmember Godfrey seconded to rules and on first reading adopt approve the consent agenda, which Resolution 12 of 1989, which motion carried, all members voted motion carried, all members voted aye. aye. (B 89-1) #1. RE: Approving the ap- pointment of Joe Duke-Rosati to the Salt Lake City/County Board of UNFINISHED COUNCIL BUSINESS Health. ( I 89-1 ) #1. RE: A resolution author- izing the execution of a fourth #2. RE: Approving the ap- supplemental indenture for the pointments of Catherine Dee, $8, 800, 000 Salt Lake City, Utah Stephen Hausknecht, and Laurie Industrial Development Revenue Noda to the Salt Lake City Arts Bonds ( Landmark Hotel - Airport Council . Holiday Inn) Series 1986. (I 88-23) ACTION: Councilmember Kirk #3. RE: Set a date for a moved and Councilmember Godfrey public hearing to be held Tuesday, seconded to adopt Resolution 9 of January 17, 1989, at 6:40 p.m. to 1989, which motion carried, all obtain public comment concerning a members voted aye. proposed ordinance increasing fees (Q 86-18) at the city' s golf courses. (0 89-3) #2. RE: A resolution adopt- ing the Downtown Master Plan, #4. RE: Resolution 10 of supplementing the 1967 Master Plan 1989 authorizing the execution of of Salt Lake City. an interlocal cooperation agree- ment between Salt Lake City Corpo- ACTION: Councilmember ration and the Utah Department of Godfrey moved and Councilmember Transportation for UDOT to repair Hardman seconded to adopt Resolu- and replace guardrail as needed tion 13 of 1989, which motion upon request of Salt Lake City. carried, all members voted aye. (C 89-2 ) (T 88-26) #5. RE: Resolution 11 of 1989, authorizing the execution of PUBLIC HEARINGS an interlocal cooperation agree- ment between Salt Lake City Corpo- #1. RE: A public hearing ration and the Utah Department of scheduled for 6: 20 p.m. to obtain Transportation whereby the city public comment concerning the agrees to sweep certain streets Uniform Fire Code of the Salt Lake for which it will be paid by UDOT. City Code, 1988, with various (C 89-3) deletions and additions. 89-16 PROCEEDINGS G_ THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 1989 ACTION: Councilmember because he could foresee a draft- Godfrey moved and Councilmember ing problem. Hardman seconded to close the public hearing, which motion Linda Hamilton, Council Exec- carried, all members voted aye. utive Director, suggested that Council Staff meet with the Fire Councilmember Godfrey moved Department and the Attorney' s and Councilmember Kirk seconded to Office to discuss the most practi- refer the ordinance adopting the cal way to handle this. She then Uniform Fire Code to the. City indicated she would let the Coun- Attorney' s Office to redraft 1 ) cil know what they decided. Section 4. 108 defining the opera- (0 89-2) tions, activities, practices or functions for which a permit is required; and 2 ) to establish The meeting adjourned at 6:40 penalties for flagrant violation p.m. of the code and inadvertent fail- ure to obtain a permit, which motion carried, all members voted aye. COUNCIL CHAIRPERSON DISCUSSION: No one from city staff gave a report on this item and no one from the audience spoke. CITY RECORDER Councilmember Fonnesbeck said the Council realized that there would be a period of time to phase in the permit system as altered, perhaps two or three years. Roger Cutler, City Attorney, asked if the Council wanted his office to specify deadlines for when various provisions would take effect. • Councilmember Godfrey indi- cated that they weren' t actually asking for dates but just to phase the new .procedure in over a. period of time. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said they . didn' t want to set specific dates when provisions would become effective because this encompased man power and training issues. Mr. Cutler said in order to give notice to the public they would probably need a more defi- nite schedule. . He said he would have to give some thought 'to this 89-17 • ti �Ci i . II Sr ROGER F. CUTLER �✓w�'.I, r A• 1, V CDs B, di) I,. , ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS CITY ATTORNEY _ _ • .�! t RAY L. MONTGOMERY + U ^"' 'LAW,DEPARTMENT:: ;,, GREG R. HAWKINS CHERYL D. LUKE ;r �;-- - - _ LARRY V. SPENDLOVE CITY PROSECUTOR 324 SOUTH STATE, FIFTH FLOOR STEVEN W. ALLRED ', SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84.11.1`i' BRUCE R. BAIRD -_ , `} (8014;,535-7788"- _ FRANK M. NAKAMURA FAX (801) 535-7640 ASSISTANT PROSECUTORS DONALD L. GEORGE CECELIA M. ESPENOZA �1 c� OO RICHARD G. HAMP January 9, 1988 GLEN A. COOK Willie Stoler, Chairman Salt Lake City Council. 324 South State, #300 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: Board Appointments Dear Willie: Enclosed for your action and pursuant- to the- Council ' s request, is a proposed ordinance dealing with the terms of the office of appointed board .members. I trust you will find this ordinance to be in accordance with the Council ' s intent. est personal regards, TEVEN W. ALLRED . SWA:rc - Enclosure I ` i?1!,f r;f) , -\7A M 0 91989 • , J SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1988 (Board Membership Appointments ) AN ORDINANCE ENACTING SECTION 2.04.055 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO BOARD APPOINTMENTS. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Section 2 .04.055 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to board appointments is enacted to read as follows: Sec. 2.04.055 Board appointments--Terms of office. A. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code to the contrary, no person shall be appointed for more than two consecutive terms, or eight years, whichever is greater, to any board, committee, panel or similar body over which the mayor has the power of appointment and the council has the power of confirmation. Any portion of a term that exceeds one half of the term outlined in ordinance shall be considered a full term. B. A record of all appointments, including the name of the appointee, the board, committee, panel or body to which the appointment pertains and the term for which the appointment is made, shall be maintained by the city recorder and made available for public inspection. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect upon its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1988. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s action: Approved Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER AP'31.7 i Salt 1-.-1`;-_. • :y (SEAL) BILL NO. OF 1988. Published: SWA:rc -2- SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1988 (Board Membership Appointments) AN ORDINANCE ENACTING SECTION 2.04.055 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO BOARD APPOINTMENTS. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Section 2.04.055 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to board appointments is enacted to read as follows: Sec. 2.04.055 Board appointments--Terms of office. A. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code to the contrary, no person shall be appointed for more than two consecutive terms, oreight years, whichever is greater, to any board, committee, panel or similar body over which the mayor has the power of appointment and the council has the power of confirmation. Any portion of a term that exceeds one half of the term outlined in ordinance shall be considered a full term. B. A record of all appointments, including the name of the appointee, the board, committee, panel or body to which the appointment pertains and the term for which the appointment is made, shall be maintained by the city recorder and made available for public inspection. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect upon its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1988. r - CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor ' s action: Approved Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER (SEAL) BILL NO. OF 1988. Published: SWA:rc -2- STAFF RECOMMENDATION Avenues Community Master Plan Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION BY: Christine Richman ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Adoption of the resolution finalizing the Avenues Community Master Plan Update. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On December 9, 1986, the City Council held a public hearing concerning the adoption of the Avenues Community Master Plan Update. At that time there was a debate concerning the method by which a Master Plan should be adopted. The City had adopted Master Plans by resolution in the past, but Assistant City Attorney Bruce Baird indicated that because of a provision in State Statute Master Plans should be adopted by Ordinance. The Council referred the document to the Attorney's Office for a definitive answer on the issue. In addition, the Council referred the Plan to the Department of Planning and Zoning directing them to change the designation of 2nd and 3rd Avenues from Collector Streets to Residential Streets. The Council's motion also directed Planning to continue to work with the Community Council to guarantee that all of their concerns were addressed. The City Attorney's Office has now determined that Master Plans should continue to be adopted by Resolution and has forwarded the resolution doing so to you for final adoption. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: After receiving the resolution adopting the plan, I contacted Brent Wilde who did the work on the Master Plan Update. ` He indicated that the Plan was published in mid-1987, and they have received no complaints. In addition, I verified that the designation of 2nd and 3rd Avenues has been changed to residential. I have also included a copy of a letter from Terry Becker, then-Chairperson of the Greater Avenues Community Council, indicating their satisfaction with the Master Plan. Based upon the fact that the Plan has been published for almost two years, and that it has been utilized without any complaints, I recommend that you adopt the resolution finalizing the Planning process for the Avenues. RECOMMENDED MOTION: This item is included on the Consent Agenda, and does not require a separate motion. ANTICIPATED OPPOSITION: None. RESOLUTION NO. OF 1989 (Adopting the Avenues Community Master Plan Update, Supplementing the 1967 Master Plan of Salt Lake City) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of Salt Lake City, Utah, after extensive review and discussion by the Commission, its staff, and citizen advisory groups, has promulgated a document entitled "Avenues Community Master Plan Update" which contains the results of its research, analysis, and in-depth refinement of the 1967 Master Plan of Salt Lake City, Utah, as it relates to the Avenues Community of Salt Lake City; and WHEREAS, said Avenues Community Master Plan Update was official adopted by the Planning Commission as an official amendment and revision to the -1967 Master Plan, as it relates to the Avenues Community and was subsequently published; and WHEREAS, it is the intention that said Master Plan Update, adopted pursuant to the responsibility and authority vested in the Planning Commission, pursuant to Chapter 9 of Title 10, Utah Code Annotated, guide the growth and development of this community of the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed said Avenues Community Master Plan Update and concurs that its recommendations are valuable to guide the growth and development of this community, and it is in the best interest of the City to endorse and adopt such plan as the legislative policy of this city to promote orderly long-range development within the Avenues Community. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, that the document entitled "Avenues Community Master Plan Update" , properly promulgated and adopted by the Planning Commission, is hereby officially adopted by this legislative body as part of the official Master Plan of Salt Lake City, Utah, as a general guide for the future development within the Avenues Community. A copy of said plan is incorporated by reference and three (3 ) copies of said plan shall be retained on file at the Office of the City Recorder and shall be made available for public review and inspection. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of ,. 1989 . SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL • By CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: I 6. '` ✓ CITY RECORDER BRB:rc -2- LUUnt,1L nU i iun rUKI T o� l'2, Date: December 9, 1986 Submitted By: ( 'velopment Services ....— Subject: (g73 Resolution to adopt the Avenues Community Master Plan update #1 . MOTION MOVED: 2ND: • RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: I move t a his r ion approving the Avenues Community Master P pdate • Ctiej,p14,1„_g_ 2 -.6-Zei glet.t.t1/4—, AAA. al../2±A— -1;. de-u-74-e_t:12 -- a ./.41:1&61-1-€441,ki-i-te-2f CivIAA,24 :0,3_41_tr--ittr-r-4 4--tt -,A-4-. -du, (-7n-e-igirl 0 .4.<4iia&24.,_, , elitt--40 --ILAY-.. sdife:I_J a./27, 444-ec_12 ...e-a, 4.-tatz. - —&- / 6-2-4-,-Th (r1-6-eL-e -4-12-- , #2. VOTE Aye: Nay: Absent: UNANIMOUS g UNANIMOUS 7I Bittner _I Bittner In Bittner t71 Mabey Mabey 11 Mabey I Fonnesbeck Fonnesbeck Fonnesbeck 1 Hardwick _ Hardwick _ _ Hardwick Godfrey _ - Godfrey Godfrey Kirk Kirk I_ Kirk Stoler _ Stoler I_ Stoler —) • The above action, as indicated by paragraphs 1 and 2, constitutes the official tion taken by the Salt Lake City Council on the above date. ATTEST: CITY RECORDER COU I CHAIRPERSON MINUTE ENTRY Avenues Community Master Plan Update RE: A public hearing at 6:30 p.m. concerning the Avenues Community Master Plan Update. ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye. Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to approve the Avenues Community Master Plan Update, changing the status of 2nd and 3rd Avenues east of I Street from collector to residential streets and asking the Council Staff to send a letter to the Planning and Zoning Commission asking them to consider amend- ing the major street plan with this change; and request a resolution adopting the plan with final approval subject to resolving the additions and modifications as requested by the Avenues Community Council , which motion carried, all members voting aye. DISCUSSION: Brent Wilde, planning and zoning, said the city adopted a master plan for the Avenues community in 1979 as part of the original community planning theory and they were now in the process of updating many of the original plans. He said they worked extensively with the Avenues Community Council who endorsed the plan subject to specific additions and modifications regarding traffic and circula- tion, foothill development, and helath services; and said the Planning Commission adopted the plan on September 11 , 1986. He then briefly outlined the plan. He showed the proposed land use map and said the major changes were zoning changes which had occurred since the late 1970s. He recommended changing a few "B-3" corners occupied by homes back to residential zones, which was the only area where the proposed map was not consistent with present zoning. He also recommended changing the zoning at Primary Children's Hospital from "H" to a lower density residential zone. In terms of long-range land use policy, he said the plan indicated that there was ample multiple-family dwelling zoning for the future and plenty of business zoning. In regards to foothill development he said they attempted to put together a foothill growth management plan which categorized privately-owned undeveloped property into four area: properties to develop, properties for the city to acquire to preclude development, properties controlled by easements. to negotiate vegetation preservation easements through the subdivision process , and properties regulated by access and zoning. He said an amendment to the plan had been prepared regarding density of future foothill developments and he recommended modifying the site development ordi- nance to enable the Planning Commission to have additional discretion with regards to the size of lots with geologic problems. He addressed the issue of traffic and circulation and said, a big issue was the llth Avenue extension. He said the plan did not have a solution hut addressed the issue and said the Planning Commission acknowledged the possibility of extending llth Avenue as a local two-lane road which would dead end at the University of Utah with assurance from the University that the dead end would be permanent. He said the Planning Commission also felt strongly that the city needed to push for a commitment from the University regarding traffic circulation, parking problems , and growth issues. In conclusion he addressed the issue -of a future use for the old Primary Children's Hospital site. He recommended changing the zoning to a low-density resi- dential zone and indicated that the hospital committed to develop a less intensive use. He indicated that they were considering an extended health care facility or low-density elderly housing with a health services component. He recommended a three-step approval process for any specific project: Community Council approval , City Council conceptual approval , and Planning Commission approval . Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that when the street map was passed about a year ago the status of 2nd and 3rd Avenues east of I Street was designated as collector streets. She asked that the Avenues master plan update he amended so 2nd and 3rd Avenues would be designated as residential streets rather than collector streets east of I Street. She said a letter would need to he sent to the Planning Commission asking them to consider changing this on the street map. Jennifer Harrington, 480 F Street, asked Mr. Wilde to outline the. additions and modifications requested bythe Community Council , which he did (this list is included as part of the minutes). She then thanked the City staff for their willingness to work with the Community Council and she asked that the plan be passed with the option to discuss these additional issues. John Tudor, 1309 Federal Heights Drive, suggested that as the Community Council 's modifications were considered, hearings be held so they could get input from a larger representation of the Avenues area. Terry Becker, chairman of the Avenues Community Council , thanked the City staff and asked that the plan be approved as written with the provision to discuss the additional items with the Avenues Community Council . Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked the Council if they felt any of the Community Council 's modifications needed their input on a decision. She thought most of the changes would be in the wording. The Council did not indicate that they needed to be part of this process. fmw 17) 1.341r35. ADDITIONS AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE AVENUES MASTER PLAN UPDATE AS REQUESTED BY THE AVENUES COMMUNITY COUNCIL TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION - Address problems associated with collector street status on 2nd and 3rd Avenues east of I Street, llth Avenue, and minor arterial status for South Temple Street. Consider redefining the collector street designation in the Avenues. Specific problems include traffic speed, quantity of street lighting, etc. - Consider charging the designation of the llth Avenue extension on the Major Street Plan map. - Expand on language that stresses the need to protect the Avenues from "through traffic." Include a statement regarding the I-15 - North Temple interchange and other traffic generated from outside the Avenues accessing the University of Utah. - Consider a 25 mile per hour speed limit on all streets including collectors. - The bicycle path, pedestrian circulation, -and parks and recreation sections of the plan need to be better integrated with a map that identifies their inter-relationships, additional routes, and possible links. Priorities include improved pedestrian access to schools and recreation/openspace facilities. - FOOTHILL DEVELOPMENT - Stabilize and revegetate cuts and fills in the foothills. HEALTH SERVIfl S • - Consider requiring all institutions in the Avenues residential community -to submit future development plans for review prior to approving major additions. Parking, building mass, site development, etc., are concerns. OTHER - Include statements prepared to address "street lighting on collector streets", and "density of future foothill developments". //101631: ? . STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Avenues Master Plan Update / gelt) - 3 5 STAFF RECOMMENDATION BY: Larry Livingston ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The Planning Department is requesting that you hold a hearing concerning this update of an existing Community Master Plan and adopt a resolution finalizing same. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In 1979 the City adopted the Avenues Community Master Plan. This study updates and refines the 1979 plan. Land use, housing, foothill development, traffic circulation, parks and open space, and public facilities are all re-evaluated with regard to established goals and policies, and present needs. A Capital Improvement Program element is also included in this update to refine recomendations and help implement the plan. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: This update has been in process now for about two years, receiving significant citizen input. Revisions made are in harmony with changes in the neighborhood since the original Master Plan was adopted. I recommend the adoption of the resolution approving the changes made. 4 RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: I move that we close this hearing concerning the Avenues Community Master Plan Update. I move that we adopt this resolution approving the Avenues Community Master Plan Update. u - ANTICIPATED OPPOSITION: None. RECEIVED CITY A.?To! NETS, SALT Eatkle CRY MOZPONI ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT_ KATHRYN MARSHALL -. City Recorder-}7. ;__ PALMER DEPAULIS CITY RECORDER 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, 5TH FLOOR MAYOR SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 8411 7-7-(8O1)"535-7671 December 15, 1986 Memo to Roger Cutler, City Attorney 5th Floor, Salt Lake City Hall On December 9, 1986, the Salt Lake City Council held a hearing to discuss the Avenues Community Master Plan Update. After public comment the Council closed the hearing and voted to approve the Avenues Community Master Plan Update, changing the status of 2nd and 3rd Avenues east of I Street from collector to residential streets and asking the Council Staff to send a letter to the Planning and Zoning Commission asking them to consider • amending the major street plan with this change. They also requested that a resolution .be prepared adopting the plan with final approval subject to resolving the additions and modifications as requested by the Avenues Community Council . Attached is the original ordinance which was prepared. Kat arshall City Recorder KM/bh Enclosure - T 86-32 • 1500 Tomahawk Drive Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 January 8, 1987 Brent Wilde City Planner Planning & Zoning Commission 324 South State, Room 200 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111-2958 Dear Brent: Thank you for your time both last night and with members of the Greater Avenues Community Council concerning the Avenues Master Plan and the modifications you have drafted for the City Council . You have done a wonderful job and I , for one, appreciate your accomplishments and patience working on some of the problem areas of the plan. As you know, there were some changes made to the modifications, specifically to foothill and urban trails, wildlife preservation (which will be addressed in the sub-division ordinance), and traffic circulation. However, I feel that the Community Council 's endorsement of the modifications and their changes should give the City Council something on which to base their decision regarding the master plan. Also, as a reminder, I would like to get at least 30 copies of the City Creek Master Plan for distribution at our next meeting and will contact you prior to February 4 . I would also like to pursue the question Ramon asked about a joint clean-up effort in Memory Grove this spring. Perhaps we could- discuss this sometime soon. Again, thank you for all your time and energy on the Master Plan. Since ely, Terry B. cker Chairpers n Greater Avenues Community Council cc: Sydney Fonnesbeck SALT LAKE'CITY-CORPORATION DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES !'RAIG E. PETERSON DIRECTOR 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, SUITE 201 SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111 535-7777 TO: Salt Lake City Council January 9, 1989 RE: Amending Zoning Ordinance Section 21.78.1.10, 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 Lhe necessary ordinance and is ready for your action. Submitted by: CRAIG E. PEU RSON Director 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: 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- 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- 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: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on 9g Mayor' s Action: Approved Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER BRB:pp -6- {FY j 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: 21.78.110 Conditional [nonsehoo-f] use of temporarily closed schools and churches. A. Conditional use. As a [special exception to the zoning ordinances, ] conditional use, the [board of adjustment] Planning Commission may permit schools which have been temporarily closed, [er] 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 [for limited public, private, charitable] or educational purposes [es---a-ewnd-it-ional use] for public or private charities. B. Application. [Approval of any proposed use shall be granted only after the board had received a favorable reeoxmendati fission regarding suuch---use-, and ducted by the board of adjustment regarding-the proposed use-. Notice-of-the-time-and place of hearing shall be given-pursuant to the provisions contained in Chapter 21 .06 of -this e. Ne--cond oz,-al-use justment finds: ide a service or facility which community; 2. Such use will not, under the circumstances of the tal to the healt , welfare of persons r eta in the ] -2- 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 board shall have the authority to deny the use if, in its opinion, sueh use would not be in keeping -by th , not be in keeping with the-s-tandards set-fort T the event the board apprev , impose any reasonable conditions deemed necessary to protect 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. [Notwithstanding the above, no conditional use shall be approved unless the following conditions- are-metes 1 . The 9ehee-lbeard sha'lTz em-oin the-owner-e-f-t-he property-during-the-period of time-for which-the--conditional use is granted; -3- her than public shall be subject to the decision of the board. In no event shall the board authorize- a use fer an initial period of time in excess 3. The board shall periodically review the use of e 4. All conditional uses allowed by the ordinance codified herein shall be limited , ordinance shall be construed to allow il, of correctional or institutional facility; and 5. No exterior -or interior alterations of the building shall be made which are incompatible with the building' s use as a public school. 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. [mac-event-tthe-school board determinesmade of the building as a public st flr -condi-t-ional uses---ssh l cease and d by existing zoning ordinances. ] The applicant shall take reasonable steps to review -4- 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- 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- 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. -7- Co L mz S ?'e svb sz oi) spa de az s It • to of vbse a all r"1z� for zi c�zo z� es �`ce th �o2,4aZ G.6 .3b excess ha t the ss z/e . a the heart i °ve, og the c°�d hborh excess , rev°k he Alai Zap oo Use e �Zn 4.� S4cT j 4 s h he co c°�n oN a vZ ��z mz„ Zr � , � a �zo� A pubZ Thzs he a aZ as Z c o �� d , bj' the �Z°' . r�1/la/le 4 ve 1,1 e Q ay or he Qz t. e steal d c°��eZ 1 fake e�.6 ATT�h °F S eL''< "T r a1 t A 98 Lake Ty R4 Traisoz coRbt4R ci4 _ A�� Mayor, ��ed \ SON sAct. © the 1• o., Mayor o2 ATT SST. \\App rot, el CjT y R . ��8: �c0.�d �AyO �e pp �� 1R oe°, '8 ALLEN C. JOHNSON MEMBERS: PLANNING DIRECTOR CINDY CROMER SANDRA MARLER SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION LAVONE L DDLE GAMONAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES RICHARDLPHP. HOWA FFICIO MEMBERS: RALPH P. NEILSON MAYOR OF SALT LAKE CITY Planning and Zoning Commission GEORGE NICOLATUS CITY ENGINEER 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 200 JOHN M. SCHUMANN CI I V 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. Page 2 Craig Peterson November 16, 1988 The planning staff believes a conditional use review process will allow each circumstance 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. The Panning Commission recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing on the proposed ordinance change. If you have any questions, please contact either myself or Janice Jardine. Sincerely, lAllen C. Johnson, AICP 'ir-Planning Director attachments ACJ:JJ cc: John Schuman, Planning Commission Chairman Dallis J. Pierson, American Red Cross file SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING CTT?MTSSTON STAFF RF;l'UKI' Petition 400-657 fran the American Red Cross Requesting Conditional tces of Schools to include Church OVERVIEW 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. The planning staff believes a conditional use review process will allow each circumstance 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. 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 Co mission and not the Board of Adjustment. RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends that the Planning Co mission 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 ADDTTICNAL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS PEITUICN 400-657 - American Red Cross Requesting Conditional Uses of Schools to include Churches Based on ccun nts 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. DEMOLITION 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 I . 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- the board: ing or moving parts; 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 sidewalk 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 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 of the 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-(6) 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 necessary 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- 1. 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 I 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 16, 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 Mr. Johnson, The Officers and Directors of the Salt Lake Area Red Cross request the opportunity to meet with the Planning and Zoning Commission for the purpose of gaining their support to amend Section 51-6-16 (Conditional Uses of Schools) to include the word "Churches". The leadership of the Salt Lake Area Red Cross approached the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints seeking space for our Chapter operations. The LDS Church responded positively, indicating that the former McKay Ward chapel , vacant for four years at 545 East, 14th South, would be available to us for up to 25 years. The availability of space is contingent upon compliance to planning and zoning ordinances by the City of Salt Lake. It is our understanding that the property available to us is zoned R-2. We seek to amend Section 51-6-16 (Conditional Uses of Schools) to (Conditional Uses of Schools and Chur-,ices) . We thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, Dallis J. Pierson Manager 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 . We 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 , gag-Z; Dallis J . Pierson Manager SAL L' �s GIT coRPO mo DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES . ROSEMARY DAVIS Capital Planning and Programming DIRECTOR 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 240 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 535-7902 January 10 , 1989 TO: Willie Stoler , Chair Salt Lake City, Council RE: RESOLUTION AND AMENDMENT OF EXHIBIT "C" OF RESOLUTION 137 OF 1988, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT FOR A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY AND THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the City Council amend its intent regarding ownership of the Canterbury Apartments. This change would allow Salt Lake City to purchase and hold title to the Apartments. However , project oversight, administration and management of the property will be vested with the Redevelopment Agency through a separate agreement. RECOMMENDATION: 2 . That the City Council authorize the use of funds from the City pooled investment account to act as an interim loan, until such time as the Section 108 permanent financing through the sale of a long-term bond instrument is available. Interest will be paid to the pooled investment account commensurate with the rate paid by other pooled account investments. As originally submitted to you, as a legislative body, Exhibit "C" of the proposed use of funds of the Section 108 Loan for acquisition of the Canterbury Apartments (Page C-3 , paragraph 1) stated, "After purchase by the City, ownership of the Canterbury Apartments will be immediately transferred to the Redevelopment Agency. . . for operating and maintenance purposes subject to a contract. . . . " It was determined during the pre- closing review of paperwork that if title were vested with the Redevelopment Agency the property would be subject to taxes . The tax, as learned from the Salt Lake County Assessor ' s Office would not be a property tax but, a "privilege-tax" in lieu of, but in the same amount as the property tax. Property taxes are estimated to be $25, 000 per year , or $150, 000 over the 6 year term. This additional expense was not figured into the cash flow and seriously jeopardized the profitability and payoff of the 108 loan. The ownership options are outlined below. OWNERSHIP ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES Redevelopment Application for 108 Annual rents Agency Loan as submitted available for debt to HUD need not be service would be amended (minor reduced by $25, 000 . technicality) . Shortfalls would have to be made up Management from CDBG funds. functions are direct. Housing City would not have Requires letter to Authority ownership HUD requesting liability, and amendment to property would not application. be taxable. Neighborhood may object to HA involvement even though RDA provides management. City Nontaxable, saving Possible liability $25 , 000 per year . even with special insurance coverage The second issue the Council is requested to consider is a potential savings in the interim financing arrangement. The permanent financing for purchase of the Canterbury is derived from the sale of U. S . government backed securities, generally sold twice each year . Projects requiring immediate financing must arrange for their own interim funds or await the availability of Section 108 bridge funds. It is expected that the Section 108 bridge financing will carry an interest rate between 9% and 10o however , it is not likely to be available before the purchase closing date at the end of January. Money borrowed from private institutional sources would probably cost about 1 . 5% , or approximately $2 , 000 per month more than if internal City funds were used. In addition, setup fees would add another $2 , 000 and the City Council would have to take a formal action to procure the funds . The City ' s pooled account is regularly put into short term investments that are currently yielding about 9% interest. Since the Canterbury will now be owned by the City, using the pooled account to provide the interim financing and repaying the account along with accrued interest from the proceeds of the Section 108 Loan it becomes a rather simple transaction. Because of the potential savings of thousands of dollars , which can best be used to repay the Section 108 Loan, we recommend that City pooled funds be use for the interim financing (up to 6 months) of the Canterbury in the event that the HUD bridge financing is not available by the purchase closing date. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Rosemary Davis , Director JR/Sh cc: Mayor Palmer DePaulis Craig Peterson Bruce Baird Eric Thorpe Bob Buchanan File RESOLUTION NO OF 1989 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND THE U. S . DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13 , Utah Code Annotated, 1953 , as amended , allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, the attached agreement has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council to Salt Lake City, Utah; 1 . It does hereby approve the attached grant agreement (which is generally described below) including such modifications thereto as may be determined necessary to comply with all applicable statutes, rules or regulations of such grant agreement and to make any necessary or reasonable changes in plans or documents : A grant agreement for loan guarantee assistance under Section 108 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-383 ) , as amended, between Salt Lake City Corporation and the U. S . Department of Housing and Urban Development, the proceeds of which will be applied in a manner consistent with the terms and conditions outlined in Exhibit C. 2 . Palmer A. DePaulis , Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah is hereby authorized to execute said agreement, including such modifications thereto as may be determined necessary to comply with all applicable statutes, rules or regulations, on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation and to act in accordance with its terms. Passes by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of , 1989 . SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL CHAIRPERSON CITY RECORDER Exhibit C DESCRIPTION OF SECTION 108 LOAN ACTIVITIES AND HOW EACH MEETS ONE OF THE BROAD NATIONAL OBJECTIVES Activity: Acquisition of low/moderate income housing National Objective: Activity benefiting low and moderate income persons where at least a majority of the beneficiaries are low and moderate income persons . The 108 Loan and purchase of the Canterbury Apartments is part of a commitment by Salt Lake City to provide affordable housing other than through traditional programs offered by the Housing Authority or other HUD subsidized projects. A major strategy in this plan was the formation of the Housing Development Corporation (HDC) which was created as a nonprofit agency charged with assembling a portfolio of elderly and family units to provide low/moderate assisted housing and stable rents . The program has evolved into four major elements: 1 . Issuance of low yield City backed Housing Authority bends in December 1985 to allow the HDC to construct elderly housing. The purpose of these bonds was to provide below market rents to assist the sizable local population of elderly with incomes between 50% and 80% of median not qualifying for Housing Authority subsidized programs . This group has limited earning power and cannot afford market rents. In addition, they need a secure environment among their peers to retain an independent life style. Dramatic changes in the rental market due to stifled economic growth changed the demand for new units and rendered the program inoperable without further subsidy, necessitating elements 3 and 4 below. 2 . Construction of the Riverside Apartments (already under way when the rental market collapsed) with 41 elderly, specially designed units utilizing HDC bonds. This project is highly successful but not capable of carrying sufficient debt service to allow HDC bond money to be dedicated exclusively to low-income housing. 3 . Acquisition of existing elderly housing with sufficient funds not requiring debt service to maintain low rental rates and also provide surplus income for program debt service. A Secretary ' s Discretionary grant of $500, 000 is being sought to supplement an allocation of $300, 000 from C-1 CDRG funds and $864 , 000 from HDC bonds to assist in the purchase of the 68 unit Ben Albert Apartments at a cost of $1, 664 , 000 . Annual surplus income under the proposed purchase arrangement and rent structure will provide approximately $67, 880 annually for direct infusion into the HDC debt service budget. 4 . Purchase of the 78 unit Canterbury Apartments for low/moderate income families through a Section 108 Loan Guarantee at a cost of $1 , 675 , 000 . Approximately $20 , 000 of the loan will be used to make repairs and minor improvement to the property and $55 , 000 has been allowed for closing costs and loan servicing and/or interim financing charges. Annual surplus income from the Canterbury Apartments is estimated at $120 , 000 per year after the loan has been repaid . The Housing Development Corporation can meet program goals by investing their remaining bond proceeds to assure low-income housing only if investments not requiring full debt service can be acquired . Under the bond repayment schedule the need for surplus funds will grow to approximately $100 , 000 annually in about five years . The course of action described above will substantially meet that obligation and the Section 108 Loan is an essential ingredient in implementing the HDC program by providing future cash flow. This complex is in a mixed , single-family detached and multiple unit neighborhood . The project is aesthetically designed and quality constructed with the principal amenity being an outdoor swimming pool and club house. The cost per unit is $20, 513 which is about 40% below current new construction costs. Characteristics of the complex are as follows : 1 . 78 units in 6 buildings 2 . Total 73 , 930 sq. ft. 3 . 839 sq. ft. in 2-bedroom units 4 . 1 , 075 sq. ft. in 3-bedroom units 5 . 156 parking stalls (total) 6 . 78 covered stalls 7 . Built in 1985 8 . 2 1/2 story walk-up 9 . Stucco and aluminum siding 10 . Asphalt shingles 11 . Swimming pool and clubhouse Approximately 44% of the present tenant mix is moderate income and an additional 20% is in the low income category. There are 42 two-bedroom and 36 three-bedroom units with average rents of $310 and $385 respectively. Section 8 fair market rents have been established at $455 for the two-bedroom units and $564 for the three-bedroom units . Using the 30% median income cap, rents could be $626 and $696 respectively, thus rendering these units as "affordable housing" . C-2 City involvement in securing undervalued housing in the current depressed market is intended to assure that rents will remain affordable for low and moderate income persons as rents increase in the future. Since the complex will have no debt service after six years when the Section 108 Loan has been repaid , annual surplus income can then be directed to broader community-wide programs for low and moderate income elderly and family projects. After purchase by the City, ownership and title of the Canterbury Apartments will remain with Salt Lake City. A separate management agreement will be entered into between the City and the Redevelopment Agency to administer , operate and maintain the property. The total management fee shall not exceed 5% of gross project cash flow, which will be payable to the Redevelopment Agency and/or any management which the Redevelopment Agency may contract with. The contract with the Redevelopment Agency will provide that $120 , 000 of the cash flow from the apartments, in excess of the amounts reasonably necessary to operate and maintain the complex, will be directed to repay the loan. A Community Development Block Grant allocation (entitlement funds) of $300 , 000 per year for approximately 6 years will also be used to assist the loan repayment . The loan will be repaid solely from project cash flow and CDBG funds . Any surplus cash flow from the apartments over the debt service and operating and maintenance requirements will be deposited in a reserve account to be used by the City at its discretion either for additional payments on the Section 108 Loan or for low/moderate or elderly assisted housing. When the 108 Loan has been repaid , the City presently intends , subject to future actions , to enter into a contract with the Housing Development Corporation (HDC) which will provide that all cash flow in excess of the amounts needed to manage the Canterbury will be used to service HDC housing bonds. C-3 Funding Approval and Urban Development , Under Title I of the Housing and Community i r Development Act of 1974 (Public L 33-383 as Amended B=�ck Grant PreDev 'pment Block Grant Pre �m HI-00515R 1. Name of Grantee 2 Grant No. Salt Lake City, Utah B-88-MC-49-0004 3. Grantee's Address ,- .._< >.rect C.'I- r...,, ",,,,I,r. i. 4. Date of Submission 324 So. State Street 5. Dale of HUD Receipt of Submission Salt Lake City, Utah Dale Grantee Notified Start of program Year Jul y 1, 1988 s. LI Original Funding Approval f2) Admendment.Admendmenl No All section references below are to the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974,as amended,unless otherwise indicated. 7 Category of Community Development Olock Grant for This Funding Action a iE Entitlement (Sec. 106(b)1 te ❑ HUD Administered Smali.Cities ‘Sec- 106) (d) (2) (3) c_ ❑ Secretary s Discretionary (Sec 107) 8 Amount of Community Development Block Grant FY __ ___ FY _.—__..—. _ FY a Amount of CD3G Funds Cur entty Reserved for tnis Grantee S S ——_._—___ S .-___ b Amount of CDBG Funds Now Being Approved for this Grantee S S —_.——_.___ c Amount of Reservation to be Canceled (Line as minus 8b) S - . . _- S S HUD ACCOUNTING USE ONLY B irH �.. rtrx,.nc+ - .-I I- ;tt-- — —,r.•�I r; -� ltiAls'H 5 5 3` — T — 1 r 117,61 1 l _�t _J L7 0 8 2 _ L 1 4 9 12 13 14 16 18 23 30 35 C7+T=,30HY .-.,,A,_ Jt.l 1 -. ...'IVL! ,f I ,,01)11F11 SCHEDULE NO 1 1 -i —i 1 1 _LI 38 41 45 30 54 60 61 65 70 74 79 9. Distribution of Community Development Block Grant FY - FY ---- -- .— FY _ a. Grant amount withheld for payment of principal,Ind interest on loans guaranteed pursuant to Sec 108 S -. S -- --_-- S —_-- b Grant amount deducted by HUD tJ settle outstanding Urban Renewal Loans(Sec 112(a)(1)i S S — —--— S --- c_ Sum of lines 9a and 9b d. Amount of CDBG Funds available for rjisb,arsement S S - (Line 8b m;n ,a Sc ti. ------ 10. Amount of Surplus Urban Renewal Fonda approvod and balance available(Sec.112(b)) a_ Amount of surplus U R. Funds fos.....—.' lo; Om,grantee 5 a Amount of surplus U.R Funds now being approved S c_ Balance of Sufplus U R Funds available for future use (I lne 10a n,Inun; (Ohv $ HUD-7082 (12-83) 24 CFR 570 .. j„ ._.— 777 ::%..., 1-.' .,;d."r' 4:`;.i- X,rn;),i q),,, ,,p4-vgs ' ., X j'' arf�1 HUDACUOUt\ ii ILl .0�c v BATCI'. T.AC PROGRAM A REG AREA DOCUMENT NC) PROJECT NUMBER — S 1 5 3 1 7 6 I I I 7 0 8 2 1 4 9 12 13 14 16 18 23 30 35 CATEGORY AMOUNT EFF EC T IVE DATE F AMUUNF2 SCHEDULE NO. 1 r � 38 41 45 50 54 60 61 65 70 74 79 11. Maximum amount of loan guarantee commitment available and amount now being approved. .. • - . a. Grantee's latest entitlement amount--- S 3,7 94,000 x 3 S 11 ,382,000 b. Principal amount of outstanding loans pursuant to Section 108 $ -0- c. Amount of outstanding loan guarantee commitments approved pursuant to Section 108 $ -0- d. Maximum amount of loan guarantee commitment available(Line 11a minus 11b,and 11c) $ 11 ,382,000 e. Amount of loan guarantee commitment now being approved $ 1 ,825,000 12. Recipient of loan guarantee i Clock app6.-ab+e a. ® Grantee identified in block No. 1 b. ❑ Public Agency designated to receive loan guarantee(Name and address; 13. Special conditions-Check oppr'car.'v boo) a. ❑ Not applicable b ® Attached U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Nancy C. Silvers _ o,l 1ti; %4c�' By Deputy Assistant Secretary for _Program Management___-__ Title . i_.. ' Date HUD-7082(12-83) Grant Agreement and Loan U.S.Departmentct Housing v® and Urban Development 444 Guarantee Acceptance P' visions Community Developme Block Grant Program Grant Agreement This Grant Agreement is made by and between the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Sal t Lake City„Utah - (the Grantee) pursuant to the authority of Title I of the Housing and Community Devel- opment Act of 1974(Public Law 93-383).as amended. The Grantees submissions for Title I assistance and the HUD regulations at 24 CFR Part 570(as now in effect and as may be amended from time to tune).which are incorporated by reference,together with the HUD Funding Approval Form 7082 and any special conditions, which are Hereto attached, constitute part of the Agreement. In reliance upon and in consideration of the mutual representations and obligations hereunder,HUD and the Grantee agree as follows: Sublec:t to the provisions of this Grant Agreement, HUD will make the landing assistance for Fiscal Year 19_ specified in the attached HUD Funding Approval Form 7082 available to the Grantee upon execution of the Agreement by the parties.The obligation and utilization of the funding assistance provided is subject to the requirements of the regulations and any special conditions set forth in the HUL) Funding Approval Form 7082. including the requirement for a release of funds by MUD under the Environmental Review Procedures at 24 CFR Part 58 for any activities requiring such release. The Grantee agrees to comply with all applicable requirements of Titles II and Ill of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970(42 U.S.0 4601) as specified in regulations issued by the Secretary and published in 24 CFR Part 42. The Grantee further agrees to assume all of the responsibilities f„renvironmental review,decision making and actions,as specified and required in regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to iri,iction 104(f) of the Act and published in 24 CFR Part 58. The Grantee further agrees to accept responsibility for adherence to the Agreement by subrecipient entities to which it makes funding assistance hereunder available. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development NancyC. Silvers % t_ By Deputy Assistant Secretary for Program Management__ Title Date The Grantee Salt Lake City, Utah By Title - -- - Date Loan Guarantee Acceptance Provisions (Use only for Section 108 Loan Guarantee Assistance to designated public agency) The public agency hereby accepts the Grant Agreement executed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development on with respect to grant number ,as Grantee designated to receive loan guarantee assistance,and agrees to comply with the terms and conditions of the Agreement,applicable regulations,and other requirements of HUD now or hereafter in effect,pertaining to the assistance provided it. Name of Public Agency/Grantee Signature of Authorized Official ---------------- Title Title HUD-7082.1 112-83) 24 CFR 570 Instructions for Completing U.S.Department of Housing ®®® and Urban Development Funding Approval Form Community Developm ' air -1 w2 Block Grant Program HUD (a) Enter the amount to be withheld for payment of principal Block No. and interest due the purchaser of notes or other obligations 1. Enter the Grantee's name as shown in Item d of Standard form guaranteed pursuant to section 108, or, if applicable, for 424. repayment due the United States as a result of guarantees made pursuant to section 108. 2. Enter the number shown in Ite'a 30 of Standard Form 424.and (b) Enter the amount deducted by HUD pursuant to 24 CFR indicate the Fiscal Year for which the funding is to be made 570 302 to be used for repayment of urban renewal loans. NOTE:If reallocated funds are hein,t made available as a supple Attach schedule, indicating the following for each loan: nient to an existing grant.enter in addition to the grant number for the current fiscal year.the grant number'or the grantee applicable Project Number to the reallocated fund ca if the grantee:,FY 1935 rlrant number is Amount of CDBG funds to be applied to loan repayment: B-85-MC-99-0001 and the grantee will also receive allocated funds appropriated in FY 1984. a,'.0 cuter B-34-MC-99--0001) S —.-- 3. Enter the Grantees complete address as shon�n in Item ,1 of (c) Add the amounts on lines 9a and 9b and enter the sum on this line. Standard Form 424. (d) Subtract the amount on line 9c from the amount on line 4. Enter the date of submission or arro ndatory shown in Item 23 8b and enter the difference on this line.This is the amount of of Standard Form 424. CDBG funds made available by this Funding approval form for disbursement through the grant payment system (e.g., 5. (a) Enter 'he month, day and year that the submission or letter of credit). amendatory was received. pro'..ided that it was jodg d to be complete If the submission was incomplete. enter the date 10. Complete only if surplus grant funds remained after the that the additions which made it complete were received- financial settlement of urban renewal and/or NDP project(s),and b) Enter the date that the Grantee is notified of funding those funds have been reserved to this Grantee Reference:24 CFR approval. This will be the date appearing on the letter trans- 570.801. mitting the HUD-7082 to the Grantee and is considered the (a) Enter the amount of surplus U.R. funds reserved for this point of obligation for accounting purposes. Grantee. Verify this amount with the Regional Accounting c)- Enter date program year starts Division. On the first Funding Approval form in which this block is completed, enter the total amount of surplus U.R. 6. Check the appropriate box Check"Original Funding Approval- funds reserved for this Grantee via Form HUD-718. On sub- for the first funding approval executed under the grant sequent Funding Approval forms,whether original or amend- number shown in Block No 2- Check Amendment for sub merit. enter the balance of surplus U.R. funds available for sequent fr•ndmg approval forms executed under the same grant future use, as shown on line 10c of the previous Funding number. Number amendments under the grant nLnnbcr consecu Approval form, plus any additional amount of surplus U.R. tiveiy starting veth 'I. funds reserved for this Grantee via Form(s) HUD-718. • (b) Enter the amount of surplus U.R. funds now being 7. Check the appropriate box. approved for use by this Grantee. This amount will be dis- bursed through the grant payment system being used for 8. The amounts entered in this block shall per only to funds CDBG funds(e.g., letter of credit). If a letter of credit is being appropriated to CD Block Grants.They shall not include amount_, used to disburse CDBG funds,the same letter of credit will be pertaining to surplus urban renewal funds. which ale handled used to disburse surplus U.R.funds. separately in Block No. 10. If granttre is to receive reallocated funds from prior Fiscal Year(s) in addition to its formula amount Ic) Subtract the amount on line 10b from the amount on line from the current Fiscal Year, complete one column for each 10a and enter the difference on this line. separate Fiscal Year otherwise leave the fnsf two Fiscal Year 11. (a) Enter an amount equal to three times the Grantee's cur- columns blank. rent entitlement amount. (a) Enter the amount of CDBG funds currently reserved for this Grantee under the grant number shown in Block No.2. If (b) Enter the principal amount of outstanding loans guaran- amendment, enter the amount of CDBG funds which have teed pursuant to Section 108. been reserved since the completion of the previous Funding (c) Enter the amount of outstanding commitments toguaran- Approval form. tee loans made pursuant to Section 108 (approved commit- (b) Enter the amount of CDBG funds now being provided to raaents minus outstanding loans guaranteed). this Grantee. If amendment. enter only the increase (+) or (d) Subtract the amounts on line 11b and 11c from the decrease (-) in the amount of CDBG funds approved for use amount on line 11a and enter the difference on this line. by this Grantee under the grant number shown in Block No.2. (e) Enter the amount of the loan guarantee commitment now (c) Subtract the amount on line 8B from the amount on line being approved for this Grantee.NOTE:the amount approved 8a and enter the difference on this line. cannot exceed the amount on line 11e. 9. The amount entered in this block shall pertain only the distri- 12. Check the appropriate box. If applicable,enter the nameand bution of the grant amount shown on line 8b. If grantee is to complete address (Street, City, County, State and ZIP Code) of receive reallocated funds from prior Fiscal Year(s)in addition to its any public agency designated and attach special Acceptance formula amount from the current Fiscal Year, complete one Provision. column for each separate Fiscal Year;otherwise leave the first two Fiscal Year columns blank. 13. Add Special Conditions, if applicable. HUD-7082(12-83) 13 . Special Conditions : ( continued ) ( a ) In the event the applicant shall fail to submit a promissory note or other obligation to HUD for inspection and guarantee before May 1 , 1989 , this commitment shall terminate and expire as of such date . ( b ) The applicant shall , as a condition for receiving the loan guarantee assistance , provide additional information concerning compliance with the requirements specified in 24 CFR §570 . 20b regarding the national objectives of the Community Development Block Grant program with respect to the North West Community Park project . No guaranteed loan funds may be obligated or expended with respect to activities included in the North West Community Park project prior to receipt of a written determination by the HUD Denver Office that such activities comply with one or more of the national objectives . STAFF RECOMMENDATION RESOLUTION ON HDC'S PLAN January 17, 1989 STAFF RECOMMENDATION BY: Cindy Gust-Jenson ACTION REQUESTED BY COUNCIL: Adopt resolution in support of the Housing Development Corporation's plans to: (1 .) Keep and continue operations at Ben Albert and Riverside, (2.) . Continue to attempt to sell excess properties, (3.) Invest remaining bond proceeds in investment securities, including AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) bonds and taxable bonds. The remaining bond proceeds would be invested at a higher interest rate than is being paid to the purchasers of HDC bonds. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Council reviewed the HDC's overall plan in August, and has since received periodic updates, due to the purchase of the Ben Albert and the Canterbury. This resolution formalizes the Council 's support of the HDC's plan. The Council has had the opportunity to discuss parts one and two, the housing unit acquisitions and the sale of excess property, but in-depth discussion has not been held on the idea of investing the remaining funds in investment securities. STAFF ANALYSIS: Cam Caldwell and I have reviewed this proposal with Dan Franks of the Housing Development Corporation, and have found the plan to be a reasonable approach. Success of the plan is dependent on numerous factors, though. The Housing Authority Board and the Housing Development Corporation Board have both voted in support of the proposal. You'll recall that the components of the overall HDC solution were as follows: A. Restructure Bonds B. Obtain $500,000 in federal discretionary funds C. Allocate $300,000 in CDBG slippage this year D. Obtain Section 8 rent subsidies (a benefit, but not critical) E. Shift $300,000 per year of CDBG funds from homeless projects to the HDC low income housing project Items A, B and C have been completed. Item D has _not been completed, and will most likely not be achieved, due to the technical requirements for rent subsidies. It would have been nice to have the properties eligible for rent subsidies, but it is not considered to be critical. Item E is an action item for future years. Now that most of these items have been completed, HDC would like to move on to the next step in their plans, and that is the investing of the bond money that is available because the total number of housing units that were planned at the project 's inception have not been built or acquired under the revised plan. There are a few items we think you should be aware of as you consider this resolution: I 1 . The revenue projections assume an average vacancy rate of five percent at the Ben Albert , Riverside and Canterbury properties over the next 40 years. The current vacancy rate at the Canterbury is three percent and the vacancy rate at the Ben Albert is nine percent. Riverside is still in its initial opening stages, and has a vacancy rate of 30-35 percent. The start-up time needed for Riverside was taken into account in the HDC's revenue projections. The current vacancy rate in the private sector is estimated to be 10.3 percent as of November, 1988, according to the Utah Apartment Association. It is reasonable to assume that the occupancy rate in the HDC facilities will be somewhat higher than the private market, since rents will be slightly lower, but management of the HDC facilities will have to continue to meet a high standard in order to continue to attract clients and maintain a high occupancy rate. The Apartment Association does report that the occupancy is improving in apartments. The vacancy rate was 14. 1 percent in May of 1988 in the Salt Lake valley, and it was 10.3 percent as of November, 1988. 2. The projections assume an interest rate of 9.5 percent on the taxable bonds and from 6.5 to 8.25 percent on the AMT bonds. It is, of course, difficult to project what interest rates will be available in coming years. HDC is well aware of this, and they plan to invest in the bonds only as the appropriate opportunities arise. If the projected interest rates are not available, the plan will have to be revised. HDC will invest only in AA rated bonds, as is required by their bond documents. HDC is paying an average of 7.23 percent on the bonds for their project. 3. The plan assumes that the HDC excess properties would be sold by 1991 . This appears to be a conservative estimate, but you should be aware that the cash flows would not be as positive if the sale of properties was delayed beyond 1991 . 4. The plan assumes that the net difference between expenses and revenues would increase by one percent each year. One percent can be considered a modest increase, and this appears to be a reasonable assumption. The Council should be aware that rents in the Salt Lake area have actually decreased, rather that increased, since 1983. The rents in Salt Lake valley started to decrease in 1983 due to an excess number of apartments built in the County, to the west and south of the City. Rents had been on a steady, rapid decline until last year, and then they started leveling off. According to the Utah Apartment Association, rents for City apartments tend to be the last to recover, because apartments within the City are typically smaller and older. Fortunately, the HDC apartments are in good condition, and they may suffer less from this problem than many of the other apartments in the City. The Apartment Association's projection is that the vacancy factor will continue to decline, because new apartments are not being built . While it is likely that the market will get better, you should be aware that if rents were to increase in these projects while rents in other properties were declining, the occupancy rate could be negatively effected. The overall economy will be the major factor in determining the success of this aspect of the plan. HDC has included, as Exhibit 6 in their documentation, their revenue predictions if the net operating income increased three percent per year, rather than one percent . The three percent scenario does provide more cash, but under the rental rate circumstances noted here, we consider the one percent scenario to be more reliable. 5. The plan assumes that the Canterbury would be turned over to the HDC after it is paid for. If the City were to sell the Canterbury and give the proceeds to the HDC, the HDC may not experience the same rate of return on the money as is anticipated from the project . This would, of course, have a negative effect on the overall plan. This issue will have to be carefully evaluated once the Canterbury is paid for. 6. The implementation of this plan marks the completion of the charge of the HDC Board and staff. If this strategy is adopted and the proposed investments are made, full-time staff will not be needed, and it is likely that the current HDC Board would resign, since they have completed their charge. It is likely that the Housing Authority Board members would then play a dual role as the HDC Board to manage the plan, although the logistics of this are still under discussion. As is required by the bond documents, the Housing Authority would continue to operate the two housing projects, Riverside and Ben Albert. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Support the HDC resolution. SUGGESTED MOTIONS: 1 . I move that we suspend the rules and adopt on the first reading the resolution approving action taken by the Board of Directors of the Housing Development Corporation of Salt Lake City. 2. I move we request the Housing Authority to provide to the City Council semiannually a report on the status of this project, and that we ask the Administration to designate a liaison with the Housing Authority to monitor the financial investments, sale of property and management of projects. 3. I move we request the Administration to file the documents necessary to ensure that a future City Council will have the opportunity to review the situation and make a decision on the disposition of the properties that have been paid for with contributions from or through Salt Lake City. HOUSING DE\ELOP\IL.\T CORPOILVFIO\ OF S:\LT L\KE CITY January 9, 1989 I°Nl,Ipl,f W.M. Stoler Salt Lake City Council 324 South State, Third Floor Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Dear Council Member Stoler: The Housing Development Corporation of Salt Lake City requests to be on the Salt Lake City Council January 17, 1989 agenda. The Housing Development Corporation will be requesting the Salt Lake City Council to adopt the attached resolution to • approve action of the Housing Development Corporation to declare its project complete subject to any set asides for property acquisition in process and miscellaneous overhead and to approve the decision to invest remaining bond proceeds in investment securities. Sincerely, Dan Franks Executive Director Sl Ill-.;O4 ISUU)t) III\1i IF\JI'LI. Sri.r L\Li:CJ1.Li •ill' (Sin) of-i41)- BD6826 Salt Lake City, Utah January 17, 1989 A regular meeting of the City Council (the "Council" ) City, Salt Lake County, Utah was held on Tuesday the 17th day of January, 1989, at the hour of 6:00 p.m. , at the temporary offices of the City Council at 324 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah, at which meeting there were present and answering roll call the following members who constituted a quorum: W. M. "Willie" Stoler Chairperson Roselyn N. Kirk Councilmember L. Wayne Horrocks Councilmember Florence B. Bittner Councilmember Thomas M. Godfrey Councilmember Sydney Reed Fonnesbeck Councilmember Alan Hardman Councilmember Also present: Palmer A. DePaulis Mayor Kathryn Marshall City Recorder Absent: Thereupon the following proceedings, among others, were duly had and taken: Councilmember introduced the following resolution in writing, which was read by title and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. of 1989 A RESOLUTION APPROVING ACTION TAKEN BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF SALT LAKE CITY ON DECEMBER 19, 1988 DECLARING THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT COMPLETE, AUTHORIZING THE INVESTMENT OF BOND PROCEEDS, PROVIDING SET ASIDES AND RESERVES, ACKNOWLEDGING MARKET RISKS FOR LONG TERM INVESTMENTS, PROVIDING FOR FUTURE RECONSIDERATION OF THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS. WHEREAS, on December 23 , 1985 the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City issued its Adjustable/Fixed Rate Housing Revenue Bonds (Housing Development Corporation of Salt Lake City, Housing for the Elderly Project) 1985 Series A (the "Bonds" ) . All words, phrases or titles used herein and designated with initial capital letters shall have the same meaning as defined and set out in pertinent documents pertaining to the issuance and remarketing of the Bonds; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that construction or acquisition of approximately 330 multi-family dwelling units as originally anticipated, is not feasible or desirable under existing real estate market conditions; and WHEREAS, under Resolution No . 31 of 1988, the Council on April 12 , 1988 approved Supplemental Indenture No. 2 BD6826 2 01/06/89 allowing, among other things, the down-sizing of the Housing Development Corporation Project; and WHEREAS, on December 19, 1988 the Board of Directors of the Housing Development Corporation of Salt Lake City (the "HDC" ) adopted a resolution taking the action summarized in the title to this resolution which action included a declaration of completion of the Project and authorization for investment of bond proceeds in long term Investment Obligations and other appropriate investments; and WHEREAS, on January 9, 1989 the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City, Utah passed Resolution No. 241. 7-89 approving the actions of HDC in its resolution of December 19, 1988; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest for the' Council to approve the actions described above. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: This Council approves and ratifies the actions taken by the HDC on December 19 , 1988 in a Resolution, copy of which is attached as Exhibit "B" . In summary, without limiting the scope of the Exhibit"B" Resolution, the action hereby approved includes ( 1) a declaration of completion of a multi-family housing project, (2 ) provisions for setting aside sufficient amounts for uncompleted acquisition, renovation and construction, (3) authorization to instruct the Trustee to invest the Debt Service Reserves, (4) BD6826 3 01/06/89 acknowledgement that future governing bodies may reconsider the Project size under different market conditions, (5) direction to the Trustee to pay any unpaid construction costs in connection with the Project and (6) authorization to invest the remaining moneys in the Construction Fund in long term Investment Obligations which, if sold prior to maturity, will be subject to market fluctuations. Councilmember seconded the motion to adopt the foregoing resolution. The motion and resolution were unanimously adopted on the following recorded vote: Those voting AYE: Those voting Nay: After the conduct of other business not pertinent to the above, the meeting was, on motion duly made and seconded, adjourned. Chairperson ATTEST: City Recorder ( S E A L ) BD6826 4 01/06/89 PRESENTATION TO THE MAYOR The foregoing resolution was presented to the Mayor for his approval or disapproval on the 17th day of January, 1989 . Chairperson MAYOR' S APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this 17th day of January, 1989. Mayor BD6826 5 01/06/89 STATE OF UTAH ) . SS . COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) I , Kathryn Marshall , the duly qualified and acting City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah do hereby certify as follows : 1 . That the foregoing typewritten pages constitute a full , true and correct copy of the record of proceedings of the City Council at a regular meeting thereof held in said Municipality on January 17, 1989 at the hour of 6:00 p.m. , insofar as said proceeding relate to the consideration and adoption of a resolution amending documents pertaining to the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City Adjustable/Fixed Rate Housing Revenue Bonds originally issued on December 23 , 1987 for the Housing Development Corporation of Salt Lake City, Housing for the Elderly Project, 1985 Series A as the same appears of record in my office; that I personally attended said meeting, and that the proceedings were in fact held as in said minutes specified. 2 . That due, legal and timely notice4 of said meeting was served upon all members as required by law and the rules and ordinances of said Municipality. 3 . That the above resolution was deposited in my office on January 17 , 1989, has been been recorded by me, and is a part of the permanent records of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah. BD6826 6 01/06/89 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my official signature and affixed the seal of said municipality this 17th day of January, 1989 . City Recorder ( S E A L ) BD6826 7 01/06/89 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH OPEN MEETING LAW I , the undersigned City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County (the "City Recorder" ) , do hereby certify, according to the records of the City Council in my official possession, and upon my own knowledge and belief, that in accordance with the requirements of Section 52-4-6(2 ) , Utah Code Annotated 1953 , as amended, I gave not less than twenty-four (24) hours public notice of the agenda, date, time and place of the January 17th, 1989 public meeting held by the City Council as follows: ( a) By causing a Notice in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "A" , to be posted at the temporary offices of the Salt Lake City Council on January 13 , 1989, at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the convening of the meeting, said Notice having continuously remained so posted and available for public inspection until the completion of the meeting; and (b) By causing a copy of such Notice, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "A" , to be delivered to the Deseret News on January 13 , 1989, at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the convening of the meeting. BD6826 8 01/06/89 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my official signature this 17th day of January, 1989 . City Recorder ( S E A L ) BD6826 9 01/06/89 EXHIBIT "A" MEETING NOTICE BD6826 10 01/06/89 EXHIBIT "B" RESOLUTION OF HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BD6826 11 01/06/89 BD6554 Salt Lake City, Utah December 19, 1988 The Board of Directors of the Housing Development Corporation of Salt Lake City (the "Board" ) met in a regular public session on the 19th day of December, 1988, at the hour of 11:00 a.m. at the regular meeting place of the Board at 1800 South West Temple, in Salt Lake City, Utah. The meeting was called to order and on roll call the following members were determined present: Franklin L. Child President Alice Larkin Steiner Vice President Leland R. White Director Frederick Montmorency Director William L. Hunt Director and Secretary/Treasurer Also present: Dan Franks Executive Director Absent: Thereupon the following proceedings, among others, were duly had and taken: The following resolution had been circulated earlier to the Directors for prior review. After a discussion of its contents, Director Steiner moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 88 A RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO THE $14,900, 000 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SALT LAKE CITY ADJUSTABLE/FIXED RATE HOUSING REVENUE BONDS (HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF SALT LAKE CITY, HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY PROJECT) 1985 SERIES A DETERMINING COMPLETION OF THE FACILITIES, AUTHORIZING THE ALLOCATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION FUND BALANCE, THE PURCHASE OF INVESTMENT OBLIGATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION FUND AND THE DEBT SERVICE RESERVE; AND RELATED MATTERS. WHEREAS, on December 23 , 1985 the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City issued its Adjustable/Fixed Rate Housing Revenue Bonds (Housing Development Corporation of Salt Lake City, Housing for the Elderly Project) 1985 Series A (the "Bonds" ) . All words, phrases or titles used herein and designated with initial capital letters shall have the same meaning as defined and set out in pertinent documents pertaining to the issuance and remarketing of the Bonds; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that construction or acquisition of approximately 330 multi-family dwelling units as originally anticipated, is not feasible or desirable under existing real estate market conditions; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of all affected participants to declare the Project complete and invest the Construction Fund balance and the Debt Service Reserve Fund in qualified Investment Obligations. BD6554 2 11/09/88 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF SALT LAKE CITY: Section 1 . Subject to the approval of Salt Lake City, the Project is hereby declared to be complete with the inclusion of the facilities presently being occupied, or as to which negotiations for acquisition are in progress. Portions of the Construction Fund shall be set aside and used to acquire and renovate a multi-family dwelling complex such as the facility known as the Ben Albert Apartments. Section 2 . After setting aside a sufficient amount for acquisition, renovation and construction of units in the facility known as the Ben Albert Apartments, or its equivalent, agents of the Company, after evaluating market conditions, may instruct the Trustee to purchase Investment Obligations with the monies remaining in the Construction •Fund. The investments must comply with the requirements and guidelines of the Indenture, the Supplemental Indenture and Supplemental Indenture No.2. Maturities of the Investment • Obligations shall be selected, when available over a period of time, so as to allow for payment of Debt Service as .the Bonds mature, interest payments become due or sinking fund requirements must be met. Section 3. Agents of the Company are further authorized, when in their discretion market conditions are favorable, to instruct the Trustee to invest the Debt Service Reserve in unrestricted yield obligations maturing in not more than 30 years from the date of purchase. BD6554 3 11/09/88 Section 4. It is acknowledged this decision does not bind future governing bodies who may reconsider the Project size under different market conditions . In addition, the Project may require more from the Construction Fund because actual operating income and/or sale receipts from the sale of unused real property sites may be less than is presently estimated. Long term Investment Obligations may be liquidated in the future to take advantage of an opportunity to enlarge the Project, to purchase Bonds on the secondary market or to provide monies needed for the Project. At the time of such liquidation the principal of the , Investment Obligations will be more or less than on the date of investment. Thus, the acquisition of Investment Obligations offers both a possibility of principal gain and a risk of principal loss should they be liquidated prior to maturity. Any subsequent decision to enlarge the Project must be approved by the City and must be supported by the approving opinion of Bond Counsel . Section 5 . The Trustee shall be instructed to pay any construction costs not yet paid, if any, prior to the use of the Construction Fund balance to purchase of Investment Obligations. Section 6. This action is subject to the approving opinion of Bond Counsel that the investment of funds in the Construction Fund at yields which may possibly exceed the net effective interest on the Bonds, does not adversely BD6554 4 11/09/88 STATE OF UTAH ) : SS. COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) I , William L. Hunt, the duly qualified and acting Secretary of the Housing Development Corporation of Salt Lake City do hereby certify, according to the records of said Housing Development Corporation of Salt Lake City in my official possession, and upon my own knowledge and belief, that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of a portion of the minutes of a regular public meeting of the Board of Directors of the Housing Development Corporation of Salt Lake City held on December 19, 1988, a resolution adopted at said meeting and all exhibits relating to said resolution and affidavit, insofar as said minutes pertain to the matters therein set out. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my official signature and impressed hereon the official seal of the Housing Development Corporation of Salt Lake City this 19th day of December, 1988 . HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF SALT AKE CITY � r Secretary ( S E A L ) BD6554 7 11/09/88 HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAN SUBMITTED JANUARY 17, 1989 PART I The implementation of the plan submitted in this report will conclude the mission of the Housing Development Corporation of Salt Lake City's Board of Directors installed on December 10, 1987 and the Executive Director appointed on December 15, 1987 . Before proceeding with an explanation of the plan, a short history of the Housing Development Corporation since the current Board of Directors was installed follows. The Board and Executive Director spent its initial months identifying and resolving legal, construction, liability, insurance and bond issues among others. The Housing Development Corporation Board then reviewed the original Housing Development Corporation objectives, the Housing Development Corporation current financial condition, the governing bond documents and the current market conditions in an effort to determine all viable investment alternatives. On April 12, 1988 the Housing Development Corporation presented the "Flexible Option" plan to the Salt Lake City Council as the recommended approach to resolve the Housing Development Corporation shortfall. A resolution adopting this plan was approved by the Council on April 12 , 1988 . A brief description of the "Flexible Option" and the August 11, 1988 status report are found in Exhibit 1. The amendment of the bond documents, the cornerstone of the "Flexible Option" was not achieved until November 2 , 1988 , several months later than originally estimated. Concurrently with the amendment efforts, funds became available principally through the efforts of Salt Lake City Corporation that could be used for the -2- acquisition of multi-family units for the benefit of the Housing Development Corporation. Several desirable properties were iden- tified and put under contract, of which the Ben Albert was closed on December 28 , 1988 and the Canterbury will be closed by January 31, 1989 . A status report regarding these activities was made on November 1, 1988--see Exhibit 2 . With the acquisition of these properties near completion, the Housing Development Corporation proceeded to evaluate all alternatives including any new ones now allowed by the bond amendment. It has determined that the plan presented in this report is the optimal way to proceed. Before final implementation of this plan the required accounting proce- dures and legal opinions will be completed. Resolutions support- ing this plan have been adopted by the Housing Development Corpo- ration Board of Directors on December 19, 1988 and the Salt Lake City Housing Authority on January 9, 1989 . Upon the adoption of the resolution by the Salt Lake City Council supporting this plan on January 17 , 1988 , the Housing Development Corporation will be in position to proceed with the plan assuming market conditions are propitious. -3- PART II SUMMARY The plan the Housing Development Corporation has adopted and hopes to implement with the concurrence of the Salt Lake City Council consists of the investment of bond funds in two areas: real estate and investment securities. The first area of investment is in low and moderate multi- family income property (apartments) described in Exhibit 3 . Title to the Riverside and Ben Albert apartments are held in the Housing Development Corporation's name while title to the Canterbury Apartments will be held in Salt Lake City Corporation's name with the Redevelopment Agency as the property manager. The cash flows from this latter property will not be received by the Housing Development Corporation until approximately July 1994 when the HUD Section 108 Loan used to acquire the property will be paid off. The Riverside property was developed and constructed by the Hous- ing Development Corporation in one of the original target areas. The Ben Albert property was acquired using funds from the Housing Development Corporation bond issue, Salt Lake City Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds, and a HUD Secretary Discre- tionary Fund Grant. The second area of investment will be into yield restricted investment securities as allowed by the Housing Authority Series A Bond Documents. These investments will have maturities and yields tailored to the plan's requirements. -4- These two areas of investment along with the timely liquida- tion of the Housing Development Corporation's excess real estate over three years are projected to generate enough cash flow to service the Housing Development Corporation bond debt, the annual trustee fees, and any miscellaneous Housing Development Corpora- tion overhead over the life of the bonds. The Housing Development Corporation Board strongly emphasizes that this projection is based on certain critical assumptions. Since the investment in bonds are AA rated and the maturities are fixed, the risk associ- ated with these cash flows is minimal. On the other hand, the performance of the real estate and the ability to liquidate the Housing Development Corporation's excess real estate are subject to many more variables. The Housing Development Corporation Board has reviewed the real estate projections and feels that with proper management and a reasonable recovery of the current real estate market the projected cash flows are attainable. THE PLAN Please refer to Exhibit 4 for the complete cash flow projec- tion of the proposed Housing Development Corporation Plan over the life of the bonds. Debt Service Columns A-G refer to the total cost of debt servicing the Salt Lake City Housing Authority Bonds, 1985 Series A including a reasonable annual trustee fee charged by Moore Trust. Column G then is the negative cash flow the Housing Development Corporation must cover on an annual basis. -5- Investment Portfolio Income Columns H-M describes the cash flows from the investment of $8, 850, 000 into a portfolio of investment securities. The bulk of the funds, $7, 565 , 000 will be invested in tax exempt AMT bonds-- Columns J-L. The smaller amount of $1, 135, 000 which is equal to the Housing Development Corporation debt service reserve is allow- ed to be invested in taxable securities providing a higher yield-- see Columns H-I . The balance of $150, 000 will be kept liquid to apply to the projected shortfall in July 1989 . Column M is the total portfolio investment principal and interest that can be applied to the Gross Bond Costs--Column G. The remaining bond costs less portfolio income is described in Column N. While the projected yields for these investments can currently be obtained in the market, it should be understood that market conditions change daily. Therefore, the sooner the Housing Development Corporation puts itself in a position to invest, the more likely the plan's chances of finding the required yields. Project NOI The second source of cash flow to apply to Column N is from the Net Operating Income (NOI) from the apartments--Columns 0-S. The rent levels, operating expenses, and other assumptions are de- scribed in Exhibit 5 . These assumptions seem to be reasonable and with proper management these cash flows should be attainable. Given that the average annual increase in the Consumer Price Index -6- between 1967-1987 has been approximately 6. 2%, * the projection's assumption of an annual 1% increase in NOI starting in July 1990 seems conservative. Please note that the projection's starting rent levels are already very low reflecting the current soft housing market. A 3% growth rate in NOI (see Exhibit 6) of course results in a plan with much better cash flows. Column U reflects Gross Bond Costs less both the Portfolio Income (Column M) and the Total NOI from Projects (Column S) . Net Cash Flow and Fund Balances There still remains an annual negative cash flow in Column U even after applying the cash flows from the bond investments and the real estate. The plan covers this negative cash flow plus the miscellaneous expenses (Column V) by liquidating the Housing Development Corporation's excess real estate (see Exhibit 7) over a three year period (see Column W) and investing the proceeds at an estimated 8 1/4% (see Column Z) . This resulting fund, if invested at the above rate, stays postive over the life of the bonds. It should be emphasized that real estate market conditions will dictate the ability to sell these properties. The projection calls for the liquidation of $200, 000 in real estate during the first 18 months with the balance of $677, 000 sold during the following 12 months. To the extent these sales are delayed, the projection will be negatively impacted. *Department of Employment Security--Labor Market Information. -7- CONCLUSION The plan has an excellent chance of working given the assump- tions regarding the operations of the real estate and the liquida- tion of the excess real estate. The Housing Development Corpora- tion Board would like to emphasize the margin is very thin. In the event any one assumption does not hold, there is a very real possibility Salt Lake City Corporation's financial help may still be required in the future. However, given the other alternatives the Housing Development Corporation has determined that this plan provides the best chance of success with the least amount of risk. EXHIBIT 1 HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF SALT LAKE CITY STATUS REPORT --AUGUST 11, 1988 The decision was made by the Housing Development Corporation of Salt Lake City and supported by resolutions adopted by the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City on April 11, 1988 and the Salt Lake City Council on April 12 , 1988 to proceed with the "Flexible Option" . This option outlined five steps as follows : 1. Amend bond documents to allow additional alternatives . 2 . Lease up Riverside. 3 . Attempt to sell excess land and Parkview Apartments. 4 . Track real estate and bond markets. 5 . Upon determining the outcome of the bond amendment, test available options and choose optimal plan of action. The Housing Development Corporation has proceeded with the implementation of this option. The following is a report on the progress made in each of the above areas: 1 . A Bondholder Consent Memorandum dated April 20, 1988 was distributed to all bondholders by Moore Trust, the Trustee, on May 3-4, 1988 . This Memorandum included a narrative description of the proposed amendments, the Supplemental Trust Indenture #2, and other relevant disclosures . As several organizational layers separated Moore Trust from the actual decision making bondholders, the delivery time of the Memorandum took longer than expected. Of the 14 , 900, 000 in outstanding bonds, the response to date has been 325, 000 consents and 1, 390, 000 withholding consent, leaving us far short of the 7, 451, 000 required for consent. Housing Development Corporation representatives have had several discussions -2- with the counsel for the two largest bondholders of 4, 000 , 000 and 4, 500, 000 respectively who are in the process of making their final decisions . The larger of the two has given us their verbal consent although we have not yet received written confirmation. With the other, we are negotiating over several points they are requiring before giving their consent. Although a consent is close, the Housing Development Corporation has determined that a reasonable time frame must be estab- lished to conclude the bond amendment process . If consent by a majority of bondholders is not achieved by the tentative date of August 15, 1988 , the Housing Development Corporation will assume the Bondholder Consent Memorandum will not be aticrovec . 2 . The 41 unit Riverside Apartment was opened for leasing activities on May 13 , 1983 . To date 13 units have been leased with 9 move-ins and the balance to move in by August 1, 1988 . Absorption has been 9 units per month-- over four times better than projected. A full-time leasing agent continues on site to handle the steady flow of traffic. 3 . All excess real estate, except the Riverside Apartments, is currently available for sale. Signs have been installed and information distributed to brokerage. Selling multi-family land in an overbuilt multi-family market is difficult. There have been several inquiries but no offers to date. It is understood the Housing -3- Authority of Salt Lake City will be obtaining a Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation allocation. The Housing Development Corporation is soliciting offers for the Parkview Apartments which is an excellent candidate for this Moderate Rehabilitation Program. If the Parkview receives an allocation, its marketability and value will be greatly enhanced. 4 . Properties, both elderly and non-elderly, have been identified in the event the Housing Development Corpora- tion finds acquisition a desirable option. While the best values are currently for non-elderly properties, this type of acquisition would require approval of the bond amendment. Other options, such as a tender offer, open market purchases, etc. that are sensitive to interest rate fluctuations are being monitored. Once again, implementation of these options depends upon approval of the bond amendment. 5. The Housing Development Corporation will defer putting forth a final strategy until the consent/withhold consent of the bondholder amendment is determined on the tenta- tive August 15, 1983 cut off date. Once this is established, the Housing Development Corporation will review and test all options available and recommend a plan of action and a time frame for its implementation to the Housing Authority, Mayor and City Council as soon as possible. -4- OTHER DEVELOPMENTS 1. City officials explored with HUD in Washington, D. C. the application of CDBG funds to the Housing Development Corporation problem. It was determined that funds could be applied for by the City either in a lump sum amount (Section 108 Program) or on an annual basis for the pur- chase of existing units. If the City approves of this approach, it would purchase and complete payment in full for these units and ultimately contribute them to the Housing Development Corporation to help service the Housing Development Corporation bond debt. 2 . The HUD Secretary's Discretionary Fund may have available $500 , 000 that could be used alone or combined with Housing Development Corporation funds for the purchase of units . Application has been made for these funds for the purchase of one of three properties the Housing Develop- ment Corporation has identified. Whether the application is accepted should be known by approximately September 15, 1988 . 3 . The Housing Development Corporation is currently investi- gating a method of acquisition/financing that would enable the Housing Development Corporation to realize a substantial one-time cash benefit. It is called a Letter of Credit Backed Revenue Bond Financing and would require a purchase of over 200 units to be worthwhile. An RFP -5- is currently being put out to establish whether this type of financing would work and who would coordinate it for the Housing Development Corporation. 4 . The Housing Development Corporation has applied for approximately $300, 000 in CDBG slippage funds to be used for the accruisition of existing units . This request will be brought before the City Council in August for approval. 5 . Circumstances that allow the Housing Development Corpo- ration to use Section 8 Programs including the new pro- ject based vouchers continue to be explored. CONCLUSION The difference between the interest on the bond debt plus Housing Development Corporation overhead and the Housing Develop- ment Corporation producing assets generates a negative cash flow of approximately $40 , 000 per month. As the Riverside Apartments lease up and the excess property is sold, the negative cash flow will be reduced. However, until the fundamental problem of the underlying deficit is resolved by either making investments that produce yields greater than the bond servicing costs or by finding sources of funds to apply to the deficit, this negative cash flow will continue. While the first step of amending the bonds under the "Flexible Option" has been a slow and frustrating process, the flexibility provided under the requested amendment would allow the Housing Development Corporation to take advantage of many oppor- -6- tunities . If the amendment fails, the Housing Development Corpo- ration must revert to the more limited choices under the existing bond documents . The Housing Development Corporation has set the tentative date of August 15, 1988 to conclude the amendment process . At this point, the Housing Development Corporation will present as soon as possible its recommendations for the Housing Development Corporation to the Housing Authority, Mayor and City Council . EXHIBIT 2 HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF SALT LAKE CITY STATUS REPORT--NOVEMBER 1, 1988 In the Housing Development Corporation presentation to the City Council on August 11, 1988 the discussion focused on a two part program. The first part dealt with actions the City Council could take to assist the Housing Development Corporation in reducing its shortfall . These actions related specifically to the acquisition of the 68 unit Ben Albert Apartments and the 78 unit Canterbury Apartments. The second part of the program dealt with the other options available after the Bond Amendment issue was resolved. This report will bring you current on new developments. Status of Canterbury Acquisition The financing for the Canterbury Apartments located at 1357 Morton Drive would come from a HUD Section 108 Loan which would be repaid out of the apartment's operating cash flow and a five to six year $300, 000 annual commitment of CDBG Funds which must be approved by the City Council. A neighborhood community council meeting was held on October 17 , 1988 where the Housing Development Corporation and City officials met with both Canterbury tenants and surrounding neigh- bors. Approval of the Canterbury acquisition was obtained by a vote of 39 to 2 . This approval was subject to the allocation of certain funds for improvements to a neighborhood park site. Review of financial statements and satisfactory inspections have been made of the property. An MAI appraisal has been ordered and should be completed by November 3, 1988 . Assuming a satisfactory appraisal value is found, the remaining hurdle is approval of the commitment of CDBG Funds by the City Council on -2- November 8 , 1988 . This approval will allow the formal application for the Section 108 Loan to be made and hopefully a closing by year end on the property. Status of the Ben Albert Apartments The financing for the Ben Albert Apartments located at 130 South 500 East would come from three sources: 1 . $864 , 000 from the Housing Development Corporation's Construction Account. This has been approved by the Housing Development Corporation's Board of Directors subject to obtaining the balance of the acquisition funds. 2 . $300, 000 in CDBG slippage funds which was approved by the Salt Lake City Council on September 13 , 1988 subject to first, an appraisal to be approved by the Chair and Vice Chair of the City Council and the Director of Capital Planning and second, obtaining a $500, 000 allocation from the HUD Secretary's Discretionary Fund. 3 . $500, 000 from the HUD Discretionary Fund. The invitation to submit a formal application to HUD has been received. An MAI appraisal has been ordered and the steps to process the applica- tion are being taken. This acquisition can be completed once the funding conditions are met and the formal application for the HUD Discretionary Fund is completed, submitted and approved. The earnest money sales agreement calls for a non-refundable deposit by the Housing Development Corporation on December 1, 1988 and a closing date on or before December 31, 1988 . -3- Status of Bond Amendment Another revision of the Supplemental Indenture No. 2 was submitted to the bondholder's bond counsel by the Housing Develop- ment Corporation's bond counsel, Dick Fox, on October 25 , 1988 . This revision is a culmination of all comments and suggested changes by the parties involved. After several telephone conversations that took place on October 31 and November 1, it is anticipated that this draft will be approved shortly. It should be emphasized that the acquisition of the Ben Albert or the Canterbury Apartments does not require approval of the bond amendment. However, passage of the bond amendment does give the Housing Development Corporation additional options to address the remaining Housing Development Corporation shortfall . Once this issue is resolved, the Housing Development Corporation will be in a position to present its final recommendations to the Housing Authority, Mayor and City Council . Other Leaseup at the Riverside Apartments has slowed the last two months with an occupancy level currently at 50% . Marketing and leasing activities will continue through the fall. The Parkview Apartments along with the four parcels of undeveloped land continue to be marketed for sale. The Parkview is currently under an option to be sold subject to the property obtaining a Section 8 Mod Rehab allocation. EXHIBIT 3 REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS PROPERTY LOCATION UNIT COMPOSITION Riverside Apartments 620 South 900 West 37 1 bedroom/1 bath 4 2 bedroom/1 bath 41 Units Ben Albert Apartments 130 South 500 East 20 Studios 46 1 bedroom/1 bath 2 2 bedroom/1 bath 68 Units Canterbury Apartments 1357 Morton Drive 42 2 bedroom/1 bath 36 3 bedroom/2 bath 78 Units TOTAL 187 Units COLUMN A B C D E F G EXHIBIT 4 GROSS COSTS OF 1985 BONDS GROSS BOND 1985 BOND 1985 BOND DEBT TRUSTEE COSTS DATE PRINCIPAL RATE INTEREST SERVICE FEES FY BASIS SOURCE: HDC HDC B'C+Dn+1 B+D HDC E+F 01-Jul-89 ($536,781) ($536,781) ($9,000) ($545,781) 01-Jul-90 ($1,073,563) ($1,073,563) ($9,000) ($1,082,563) 01-Jul-91 ($25,000) 5.00% ($1,073,563) ($1,098,563) ($9,000) ($1,107,563), 01-Jul-92 ($30,000) 5.25% ($1,072,313) ($1,102,313) ($9,000) ($1,111,313) 01-Jul-93 ($30,000) 5.50% ($1,070,738) ($1,100,738) ($9,000) ($1,109,738) 01-Jul-94 ($35,000) 5.75% ($1,069,088) ($1,104,088) ($9,000) ($1,113,088) 01-Jul-95 ($40,000) 6.00% ($1,067,075) ($1,107,075) ($9,000) ($1,116,075) 01-Jul-96 ($45,000) 6.20% ($1,064,675) ($1,109,675) ($9,000) ($1118,675) 01-Jul-97 ($45,000) 6.35% ($1,061,885) ($1,106,885) ($9,000) ($1,115,885) 01-Jul-98 ($55,000) 6.50% ($1,059,028) ($1,114,028) ($9,000) ($1,123,028) 01-Jul-99 ($60,000) 6.60% ($1,055,453) ($1,115,453) ($9,000) ($1,124,453) 01-Jul-2000 ($65,000) 6.70% ($1,051,493) ($1,116,493) ($9,000) ($1,125,493) 01-Jul-2001 ($75,000) 6.80% ($1,047,137) ($1,122,138) ($9,000) ($1,131,138) 01-Jul-2002 ($80,000) 7.00%/0 ($1,042,037) ($1,122,038) ($9,000) ($1,131,038) 01-Jul-2003 ($90,000) 7.00% ($1,036,437) ($1,126,438) ($9,000) ($1,135,438) 01-Jul-2004 ($100,000) 7.00% ($1,030,137) ($1,130,138) ($9,000) .($1,139,138) 01-Jul-2005 ($110,000) 7.00% ($1,023,137) ($1,133,138) ($9,000) ($1,142,138) 01-Jul-2006 ($125,000) 7.000/0 ($1,015,437) ($1,140,438) ($9,000) ($1,149,438) 01-Jul-2007 ($135,000) 7.00% ($1,006,687) ($1,141,688) ($9,000) ($1,150,688) 01-Jul-2008 ($150,000) 7.25% ($997,237) ($1,147,238) ($9,000) ($1,156,238) 01-Jul-2009 ($170,000) 7.25% ($986,362) ($1,156,363) ($9,000) ($1,165,363) 01-Jul-2010 ($185,000) 7.25% ($974,037) ($1,159,038) ($9,000) ($1,168,038) 01-Jul-2011 ($205,000) 7.25% ($960,625) ($1,165,625) ($9,000) ($1,174,625) 01-Jul-2012 ($230,000) 7.25% ($945,762) ($1,175,763) ($9,000) ($1 184 763) 01-Jul-2013 ($255,000) 7.25% ($929,087) ($1,184,088) ($9,000) ($1,193,088) 01-JuI-2014 ($280,000) 7.25% ($910,600) ($1,190,600) ($9,000) ($1,199,600) 01-Jul-2015 ($315,000) 7.25% ($890,300) ($1,205,300) ($9,000) ($1,214,300) • 01-JuI-2016 ($350,000) 7.25% ($867,462) ($1,217,463) ($9,000) ($1,226,463) 01-Jul-2017 ($385,000) 7.25°/6 ($842,087) ($1,227,088) ($9,000) ($1,236,088) 01-JuI-2018 ($430,000) 7.25% ($814,175) ($1,244,175) ($9,000) ? ($1,253,175). 01-Jul-2019 ($475,000) 7.25% ($783,000) ($1,258,000) ($9,000) ($1,267,000) 01-Jul-2020 ($530,000) 7.25% ($748,562) ($1,278,563) ($9,000) ($1,287,5631 01-JuI-2021 ($585,000) 7.25% ($710,137) ($1,295,138) ($9,000) ($1,304,138) 01-JuI-2022 ($650,000) 7.25% ($667,725) ($1,317,725) ($9,000) ($1,326,725) 01-Jul-2023 ($720,000) 7.250/0 ($620,600) ($1,340,600) ($9,000) ($1,349,600) 01-Jul-2024 ($800,000) 7.25% ($568,400) ($1,368,400) ($9,000) ($1,377,400) 01-Jul-2025 ($890,000) 7.25% ($510,400) ($1,400,400) ($9,000) ($1,409,400) 01-Jul-2026 ($990,000) 7.25% ($445,875) ($1,435,875) ($9,000) ($1,444,875) 01-Jul-2027 ($1,095,000) 7.25% ($374,100) ($1,469,100) ($9,000) ($1,478,100) 01-JuI-2028 ($1,215,000) 7.25% ($294,712) ($1,509,713) ($9,000) ($1,518,713) 01-Jul-2029 ($1,350,000) 7.25% ($206,625) ($1,556,625) ($9,000) ($1,565,625) 01-JuI-2030 ($1,500,000) 7.25% ($108,750) ($1,608,750) ($9,000) ($1,617,750) ($14,900,000) ($35,613,289) ($50,513,289) ($378,000) ($50,891,289) 33.02 YEARS AVG. LIFE 7.24%AVERAGE RATE SOURCES: HDC=Salt Lake City Housing Development Corporation EB = Ehrlich Bober&Co.,Inc. Other letters reference the respective columns. COLUMN A G H I J K L M N INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO INCOME 'GROSS BOND TAXABLE TAXABLE TAX EXEMPT TAX EXEMPT PORTFOLIO BOND COSTS COSTS BOND INTEREST @ AMT BOND AMT BOND INVESTMENT LESS PORT- DATE FY BASIS PRINCIPAL 9.50% PRINCIPAL RATE INTEREST INCOME FOLIO INCOME SOURCE: E+F' EB EB '', EB . ;.EB` :•,EB H+I+,J}L G+M 01-Jul-89 : •($545,781) $53,913 $296,913 $350,825 ($194,956) 01-Jul-90 ($1,082,563) $107,825 $165,000 6.50% $593,825 $866,650 < ($215,913) 01-Jul-91 ($1107,563), $107,825 $200,000 6.50% $593,825 $901,650 ($205,913) 01-Jul-92 ($1 ,111,313) $107,825 $215,000 6.50% $580,825 $903,650 ($207,663) 01-Jul-93 ($1,109,738). $107,825 $225,000 7.00% $566,850 $899,675 ($210,063) 01-Jul-94 ($1 113,088) $107,825 $245,000 7.00% $551,100 $903,925 is ($209,163) 01-Jul-95 ($1;116;075) $107,825 $35,000 7.00% $533,950 $676,775 ($439,300) 01-Jul-96 ($1,118,675) $107,825 $40,000 7.00% $531,500 $679,325 ($439,350) 01-Jul-97 ($1,115,885): $107,825 $35,000 7.00% $528,700 $671,525 ($444,360) 01-Jul-98 ($1,123,028) $107,825 $40,000 7.50% $526,250 $674,075 • ($448953) 01-Jul-99 ($1,124,453) $107,825 S40,000 7.50% $523,250 $671,075 ($453,378) O1-Jul-2000 .($1,.125,493) $107,825 $40,000 7.50% $520,250 $668,075 ($457,418) 01-Jul-2001 ($1,1-31,138) $107,825 $45,000 7.50% $517,250 $670,075 ($461,063). 01-Jul-2002 ($1,131,038) $107,825 $40,000 7.50% $513,875 $661,700 ($469,338) 01-Jul-2003 ($1,135,438) $107,825 $45,000 8.00% $510,875 $663,700 ($471,738) 01-Jul-2004 ($1,139,138) $107,825 $45,000 8.00% $507,275 $660,100 ($479,038) 01-Jul-2005 ($1,142,138) $107,825 $50,000 8.00% $503,675 $661,500 ($480,638) 01-Jul-2C06 ($1;149,438) $107,825 $55,000 8.00% $499,675 $662,500 : ($486,938) 01-Jul-2007 ($1,150,688). $107,825 $55,000 8.00% $495,275 $658,100 ($492,588) 01-Jul-2008 . ($1,156,238) $107,825 $60,000 8.25% $490,875 $658,700 ($497;538) 01-Jul-2009 . ($1,165,363)I $107,825 $70,000 8.25% $485,925 $663,750 ($501,613) 01-Jul-2010 ($1,1:68,038) $107,825 $75,000 8.25% $480,150 $662,975 ($505,063) 01-JuI-2011 ($1,174,625) $107,825 $80,000 8.25% $473,963 $661,788 ($512,838) 01-Jul-2012 ($1,184,763): $107,825 $95,000 8.25% $467,363 $670,188 ($514,575) 01-Jul-2013 ($1,193 088)` $107,825 $105,000 8.25% $459,525 $672,350 ($520;738) 01-Jul-2014 ($1,199,600) $107,825 $115,000 8.25% $450,863 $673,688 ($525,913) 01-JuI-2015 ($1;214,300) $107,825 $135,000 8.25% $441,375 $684,200 ($530,100) 01-Jul-2016 ($7226 463) $107,825 $150,000 8.25% $430,238 $688,063 ($538,400) 01-JuI-2017 ($1',.236,088) $107,825 $165,000 8.25% $417,863 $690,688 ($545,400) ($1,01-Jul-2018 253,175) $107,825 $195,000 8.25% $404,250 $707,075 ($546,100) 01-JuI-2019 : .:($1,267,000) $107,825 $215,000 8.25% $388,163 $710,988 :. ($556,013) 01-JuI-2020 ($1,287,563)' $107,825 $250,000 8.25% $370,425 $728,250 ($559,313) 01-Jul-2021 ($1,304,138) $107,825 $280,000 8.25% $349,800 $737,625 ($566,513) 01-Jul-2022 ($1,326,725) $107,825 $320,000 8.25% $326,700 $754,525 ($572,200) 01-JuI-2023 ($1349,600). $107,825 $365,000 8.25% $300,300 $773,125 ($576,475) 01-JuI-2024 ($1;377400). $107,825 $420,000 8.25% $270,188 $798,013 ($579,388) 01-JuI-2025 . ($1,409 400)' $107,825 $480,000 8.25% $235,538 $823,363 ($586,038) 01-Jul-2026 ($1,444,875) $0 $107,825 $550,000 8.25% $195,938 $853,763 ($591,113) 01-Jul-2027 ($1,478,100) $0 $107,825 $620,000 8.25% $150,563 $878,388 ($599,713) 01-JuI-2028 ($1,518,713) $85,000 $107,825 $615,000 8.25% $99,413 $907,238 ($611,475) 01-JuI-2029 ($1,565,625) $490,000 $99,750 $275,000 8.25% $48,675 $913,425 ($652,200) 01-Jul-2030 ($1',617,750) $560,000 $53,200 $315,000 8.25% $25,988 $954,188 ($663,563) ($50,891,289)' $1,135,000 $7,565,000 $17,659,213 $30,771,250 ($20,120,039) PROCEEDS AVAILABLE FOR INVESTMENT: $8,850,000 AMT BONDS PURCHASED: $7,565,000 TAXABLE INVESTMENTS: $1,135,000 'BALANCE AVAILABLE: $150,000 '(rRANSFERED TO BEGINNING FUND BALANCE IN COLUMN Z) COLUMN A N 0 P 0 R S U • PROJECT NET OPERATING INCOME (N01) BOND COSTS NOI TOTAL BOND COSTS LESS LESS PORT- GROWTH NOI FROM PORTFOLIO INCOME DATE FOLIO INCOME RATE RIVERSIDE BEN ALBERT CANTERBURY PROECTS &PROJECT NOI SOURCE: G+M %.HDC:: r HOC::` HOC :::HDG P+0+R N+S 01-Jul-89 ($194 956) $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 1:': >($119,956) 01-Jul-90 ;($215,913) 0.00% $71,702 $104,136 $175,838 ":($40,075) 01-Jul-91 ($205,913) 1.00% $72,419 $105,178 $177,597 ::($28,315) 01-Jul-92 ($20-7,663) 1.00% $73,143 $106,230 $179,373 "•($28,290) 01-Jul-93 ($210,063) 1.00% $73,875 $107,292 $181,167 -($28,896) 01-Jul-94 ($209,163) 1.00% $74,613 $108,365 $182,978 ($26,184) 01-Jul-95 ($439,300) 1.00% $75,360 $119,448 $185,815 $380,623 ($58;677) 01-Jul-96 ($439,350) 1.00% $76,113 $120,642 $187,673 $384,429 -($54;921) 01-Jul-97 ($144,360) 1.00% $76,874 $121,849 $189,550 $388,273 <;($56;087) 01-Jul-98 :($448,953): 1.00% $77,643 $123,067 $191,445 $392,156 '($56,797). 01-Jul-99 >($453,378) 1• .00% $78,419 $124,298 $193,360 $396,077 ;;:($57'300) 01-Jul-2000 ($457,418) 1.00% $79,204 $125,541 $195,293 $400,038 ($57,379) 01-Jul-2001 ' ($461,063) 1.00% $79,996 $126,796 $197,246 $404,038 ($57,024) 01-Jul-2002 ($469,338) 1.00% $80,796 $128,064 $199,219 $408,079 .($6.1,259) 01-Jul-2003 . ($471,738) 1.00% $81,604 $129,345 $201,211 $412,160 ;`($59,578) 01-Jul-2004 ($479,038) 1.00% $82,420 $130,639 $203,223 $416,281 ;:($62,756) 01-Jul-2005 `($480,638) 1.00% $83,244 $131,945 $205,255 $420,444 `($60,193) 01-Jul-2006 " :($486,938) 1.00% $84,076 $133,264 $207,308 $424,649 ;:($62,289) 01-Jul-2007 >($492,588) 1.00% $84,917 $134,597 $209,381 $428,895 ' ($63,693) 01-Jul-2008 ($497,538) 1.00% $85,766 $135,943 $211,475 $433,184 ($64,354) • 01-Jul-2009 <($501,613) 1.00% $86,624 $137,302 $213,590 $437,516 ($64,097) 01-Jul-2010 .($505,063) 1.00% $87,490 $138,675 $215,725 $441,891 `($63,172) 01-Jul-2011 ` ,($512,838) 1.00% $88,365 $140,062 $217,883 $446,310 ($66,528) 01-Jul-2012 ! ($514,575) 1.00% $89,249 $141,463 $220,062 $450,773 ($63,802) 01-JuI-2013 ($520,738) 1.00% $90,141 $142,877 $222,262 $455,281 ($65,457) 01-Jul-2014 ($525,913) 1.00% $91,043 $144,306 $224,485 $459,833 ,($66,0 01-Jul-2015 79) ($530,100) 1.00% $91,953 $145,749 $226,730 $464,432 ',($65,668) 01-JuI-2016 ($538 400) 1.00% $92,872 $147,207 $228,997 $469,076 ($69,324) 01-Jul-2017 '(5545,400) 1.00% $93,801 $148,679 $231,287 $473,767 ($71,633) 01-JuI-2018 .($546,100) 1.00% $94,739 $150,166 $233,600 $478,505 >($67,595) 01-Jul-2019 :> ,,:($556,01.3) 1.000/0 $95,687 $151,667 $235,936 $483,290 ($72,723) 01-Jul-2020 ($559 31.3) 1.00% $96,643 $153,184 $238,295 $488,123 ($71 190) 01-Jul-2021 ($566,513) 1.00% $97,610 $154,716 $240,678 $493,004 ($73,509) 01-Jul-2022 .' ($572,200) 1.00% $98,586 $156,263 $243,085 $497,934 ($74,266) 01-JuI-2023 < ($576,475) 1.00% $99,572 $157,826 $245,516 $502,913 ;($73,562) 01-JuI-2024 ($579 388), 1.00% $100,568 $159,404 $247,971 $507,942 ($71 445) 01-JuI-2025 : ($586,038) 1.000/0 $101,573 $160,998 $250,451 $513,022 ($73,016) 01-JuI-2026 :($591.013) 1.00% $102,589 $162,608 $252,955 $518,152 ($72,961) 01-Jul-2027 ;($599,71:3) 1.00% $103,615 $164,234 $255,485 $523,333 ($76,379) 01-Jul-2028 ($611,475) 1.00% $104,651 $165,876 $258,039 $528,567 ($82,908) 01-JuI-2029 ($652,200) 1.00% $105,698 $167,535 $260,620 $533,852 ($118,348) 01-JuI-2030 '? ($663,563) 1.00% $106,755 $169,210 $263,226 $539,191 ($124,372) ($20,120,039)I $3,637,005 $5,726,648 $8,004,330 $17,367,983 ($2,752,056) COLUMN A U V W X Y Z • NET CASH FLOWS & FUND BALANCES BOND COSTS LESS INTEREST 'FUND PORTFOLIO INCOME MISC. REAL ESTATE NET INCOME ON BALANCE @ DATE &PROJECT NOI EXPENSES SOLD CASH FLOW FUND BALANCE 8.25% SOURCE 'N+S' HDC: .HDC: EJ+V+W Zn-1`825% X+Y+Zn-1 01-Jul-89 ($119,956) ($13,650) $0 ($133 606); $0 $16,394 01-Jul-90 ($40,075). ($13,787) $200,000 $146,139:: $1,352 $163,885 01-Jul-91 ($28,315) ($13,924) $677,000 $634,760:; $13,521 $812,166 01-Jul-92 :> - ($28,290) ($14,064) • ($42,353) $67,004 $836,816 01-Jul-93 ($28,896) ($14,204) ($43;100) $69,037 $862,754 01-Jul-94 :....... ($26,184) ($14,346) `($40,530)' $71,177 $893,401 01-Jul-95 ($58,677) ($14,490) :::($73,.1.67) $73,706 $893,939 01-Jul-96 ($54,921): ($14,635) • ($69 556) $73,750 $898,133 01-Jul-97 ! ($56,087) ($14,781) ($70868) $74,096 $901,361 01-Jul-98 ($56,797) ($14,929) ($71726) $74,362 $903,998 01-Jul 99 ! . ($57,300) ($15,078) ($72,378) $74,580 $906,199 01-Jul-2000 ($57,379) ($15,229) : ($72 608) $74,761 $908,352 01-Jul-2001 ($57,024) ($15,381) <($72405) $74,939 $910,886 01-Jul-2002 ($61,259) ($15,535) ($76,794) $75,148 $909,241 01-Jul-2003 ($59,578). ($15,690) ;($75',268) $75,012 $908,985 01-Jul-2004 ($62,756). ($15,847) ($78,603): $74,991 $905,373 01-Jul-2005 ($60,193) ($16,006) ::($76199) $74,693 $903,867 01-Jul-2006 ($62,289) ($16,166) ($78,455). $74,569 $899,981 01-Jul-2007 ($63,693) ($16,327) ($80,020)- $74,248 $894,210 01-Jul-2008 ($64,354) ($16,491) ($8(L844)• $73,772 $887,138 01-Jul-2009 ($64,097} ($16,656) ($80,752) $73,189 $879,574 01-JuI-2010 ,($63,172) ($16,822) .:($79,994) $72,565 $872,146 01-Jul-2011 ($66;528) ($16,990) ($83,518) $71,952 $860,580 01-JuI-2012 s ($63,802): ($17,160) ($80,962) $70,998 $850,615 01-Jul-2013 is ($65 457) ($17,332) ($82,789) $70,176 $838,002 01-JuI-2014 ($66,0791 ($17,505) ($83,584). $69,135 $823,553 01-Jul-2015 ($65 668), ($17,680) ($83,348).. $67,943 $808,148 01-Jul-2016 ($69 324) ($17,857) :($87181) $66,672 $787,639 01-Jul-2017 > ($71,633) ($18,036) ($89669) $64,980 $762,950 01-Jul-2018 ($67,595) ($18,216) ($85,810}. $62,943 $740,082 ($72,723) ($18,398) ($91,121) 01-JuI-2019 $61,057 $710,018 01-Jul-2020 > ($71,190) ($18,582) ($89772): $58,577 $678,823 01-Jul-2021 ... ($73,509) ($18,768) ($92;277)• $56,003 $642,549 01-Jul-2022 ' :($74,266) ($18,956) ($93,222): $53,010 $602,337 01-Jul-2023 ($73,562) ($19,145) :($92,707): $49,693 $559,323 4 01-JuI-2024 ($7145) ($19,337) ($90,782) $46,144 $514,685 01-Jul-2025 ($73,016) ($19,530) ;($92,546). $42,462 $464,601 01-JuI-2026 .($72,961) ($19,725) ($92,686) $38,330 $410,245 01-JuI-2027 ::($76,379) ($19,923) ($96 302) $33,8,45 $347,788 01-Jul-2028 .($82908)- ($20,122) ($103,030): $28,693 $273,451 01-Jul-2029 ($11.8,348) ($20,323) - ($138 671) $22,560 $157,340 01-JuI-2030 ($124,372) ($20,526) ($144;898) $12.981 $25,422 ($2,752,056)1 ($708,148) $877,000 ($2,583,204)1 $2,458,626 PRO FORMA NET OPERATING INCOME RIVERSIDE APAR1107ITS BEN ALBERI APARTMENTS CANTERBURY APARTMENTS ACTUTAL *ACTUAL ACTUTAL UNITS RENI/01411 TOTAL UNITS RENT/UNIT TOTAL UNITS RENT/UNIT TOTAL 37 101/11111 295 130900 7 SMALL STUDIOS 210 17640 42 210/18TH 325 163800 4 260/18111 350 16600 II LARGE STUDIOS 235 36660 36 384J2661 305 166320 • ------— 24 CORNER I A0. 205 02000 - 41 UNITS 13 INFERIOR I AO. 265 41340 78 UNITS 7 SHALL I BD. 265 22260 • I BASEMENT CORNEA 213 2556 1 BASEHENT INTERIOR 213 2556 2 PENTHOUSES 590 14160 ' GROSS SCHEDULED INCOME 147700 68 UNITS 219252 330120 VACANC0 SI -7309 51 -10963 • 51 -16506 ' SUBTOTAL 140391 IRENE'S ARE INCREASED 2011289 - 313611 OINER INCOME 21 2956 110/UNIT If 6/30/89 21 4305 11 3301 EFFECTIVE GROSS INCOME 143347 212674 316915 EXPENSES X7 HNLEHENT SALARY/APT. 7920 18000 a- • • • MAINTENANCE SALARY 6000 5080 8400 r''. PAYROLL TAXES 652 1000 3550 U7 CLEANING/PAINTING 1900 I700 8500 r~r PODL/aU8110uSE/CABLE 7000 REPAIRS/MAINTENANCE • 4500 3400 9000Lri LANDSCAPING 1000 450 5600 PLOWING/SWEEPING 400 450 1400 • • ADVERT/PROMO 3600 680 5000 LEGAL/ACCTING/OFFICE 2400 2680 1500 (MANAGEMENT FEE 8931 10238 15000 UTILITIES 30000 40600 22500 INSURANCE 2901 3000 8830 ELEVATOR SERVICE 900 900 CONIRACT REPAIR 2552 8500 MISC. 909 340 I000 RESERVE 5000 **RESERVE DECREASED TO 11 20000 15000 • • --- $10000/YEAR AFIER 1994 -- -------- TOTAL EXPENSES 71645 108538 131100 NET OPERATING INCOME 71702 104136 185815 NOTES: TOTAL SO.FT. 34924 • 53508 73938 ' CURRENT VACANCY 441 91 31 EXPENSES/UNIT 1747 1596 1681 EXPENSES/SO.FT./YR 12.05 12.0I 11.77 RENT/SO.FT_/M0 $0.35 $0.31 10.37 COLUMN A B C D E F G EXHIBIT 6 GROSS COSTS OF 1985 BONDS GROSS BOND 1985 BOND 1985 BOND DEBT TRUSTEE COSTS DATE PRINCIPAL RATE INTEREST SERVICE FEES FY BASIS SOURCE: HDC HDC B*C+Dn+1: B+D HDC E+F 01-Jul-89 ($536,781) ($536,781) ($9,000) ($545,781) 01-Jul-90 ($1,073,563) ($1,073,563) ($9,000) ($1,082,563) 01-Jul-91 ($25,000) 5.00% ($1,073,563) ($1,098,563) ($9,000) ($1,107,563) 01-Jul-92 ($30,000) 5.25% ($1,072,313) ($1,102,313) ($9,000) ($1,111,313) 01-Jul-93 ($30,000) 5.50% ($1,070,738) ($1,100,738) ($9,000) ($1,109,738) 01-Jul-94 ($35,000) 5.75% ($1,069,088) ($1,104,088) ($9,000) ', ($1,113,088) 01-Jul-95 ($40,000) 6.00% ($1,067,075) ($1,107,075) ($9,000) ($1,116,075) 01-Jul-96 ($45,000) 6.20% ($1,064,675) ($1,109,675) ($9,000) ($1,118,675) 01-Jul-97 ($45,000) 6.35% ($1,061,885) ($1,106,885) ($9,000) ($1,115,885) 01-Jul-98 ($55,000) 6.50% ($1,059,028) ($1,114,028) ($9,000) ($1,123,028) 01-Jul-99 ($60,000) 6.60% ($1,055,453) ($1,115,453) ($9,000) ($1,124,453) 01-Jul-2000 ($65,000) 6.70% ($1,051,493) ($1,116,493) ($9,000) ($1,125,493) 01-Jul-2001 ($75,000) 6.80% ($1,047,137) ($1,122,138) ($9,000) ($1,131,138) 01-Jul-2002 ($80,000) 7.00% ($1,042,037) ($1,122,038) ($9,000) ($1,131,038) 01-Jul-2003 ($90,000) 7.00% ($1,036,437) ($1,126,438) ($9,000) ($1,135,438) 01-Jul-2004 ($100,000) 7.00% ($1,030,137) ($1,130,138) ($9,000) ($1,139,138) 01-Jul-2005 ($110,000) 7.00% ($1,023,137) ($1,133,138) ($9,000) ($1,142,138) 01-Jul-2006 ($125,000) 7.00% ($1,015,437) ($1,140,438) ($9,000) ($1,149,438) 01-Jul-2007 ($135,000) 7.00% ($1,006,687) ($1,141,688) ($9,000) ($1,150,688) 01-Jul-2008 ($150,000) 7.25% ($997,237) ($1,147,238) ($9,000) ($1,156,238) 01-Jul-2009 ($170,000) 7.25% ($986,362) ($1,156,363) ($9,000) ($1,165,363) 01-Jul-2010 ($185,000) 7.25% ($974,037) ($1,159,038) ($9,000) ($1,168,038) 01-Jul-2011 ($205,000) 7.25% ($960,625) ($1,165,625) ($9,000) ($1,174,625) 01-Jul-2012 ($230,000) 7.25% ($945,762) ($1,175,763) ($9,000) ($1,184,763) 01-Jul-2013 ($255,000) 7.25% ($929,087) ($1,184,088) ($9,000) ($1,193,088) 01-Jul-2014 ($280,000) 7.25% ($910,600) ($1,190,600) ($9,000) ($1,199,600) 01-Jul-2015 ($315,000) 7.25% ($890,300) ($1,205,300) ($9,000) ($1,214,300) 01-Jul-2016 ($350,000) 7.25°r6 ($867,462) ($1,217,463) ($9,000) ($1,226,463) 01-Jul-2017 ($385,000) 7.25% ($842,087) ($1,227,088) ($9,000) ($1,236,088) 01-Jul-2018 ($430,000) 7.25% ($814,175) ($1,244,175) ($9,000) ($1,253,175) 01-Jul-2019 ($475,000) 7.25% ($783,000) ($1,258,000) ($9,000) ($1,267,000) 01-Jul-2020 ($530,000) 7.25% ($748,562) ($1,278,563) ($9,000) ($1,287,563) 01-Jul-2021 ($585,000) 7.25% ($710,137) ($1,295,138) ($9,000) ($1,304,138) 01-JuI-2022 ($650,000) 7.25% ($667,725) ($1,317,725) ($9,000) ($1,326,725) 01-Jul-2023 ($720,000) 7.25% ($620,600) ($1,340,600) ($9,000) :;: ($1,349,600) 01-Jul-2024 ($800,000) 7.25% ($568,400) ($1,368,400) ($9,000) ' ($1,377,400) 01-Ju1-2025 ($890,000) 7.25% ($510,400) ($1,400,400) ($9,000) ($1,409,400) 01-Jul-2026 ($990,000) 7.25% ($445,875) ($1,435,875) ($9,000) ($1,444,875). 01-Jul-2027 ($1,095,000) 7.25% ($374,100) ($1,469,100) ($9,000) ($1,478,100) 01-Jul-2028 ($1,215,000) 7.25% ($294,712) ($1,509,713) ($9,000) ($1,518,713) .............:... ....... 01-JuI-2029 ($1,350,000) 7.25% ($206,625) ($1,556,625) ($9,000) ($1,565,625) 01-JuI-2030 ($1,500,000) 7.25% ($108,750) ($1,608,750) ($9,000) 'i ($1,617,750) ($14,900,000) ($35,613,289) ($50,513,289) ($378,000) ($50,891,289) 33.02 YEARS AVG. LIFE 7.24%AVERAGE RATE SOURCES: HOC= Salt Lake City Housing Development Corporation EB= Ehrlich Bober&Co., Inc. Other letters reference the respective columns. COLUMN A G H I J K L M N INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO INCOME GROSS BOND TAXABLE TAXABLE TAX EXEMPT TAX EXEMPT PORTFOLIO BOND COSTS COSTS BOND INTEREST @ AMT BOND AMT BOND INVESTMENT LESS PORT- DATE FY BASIS PRINCIPAL 9.50% PRINCIPAL RATE INTEREST INCOME FOLIO INCOME SOURCE ;::E+F EB EB EB <.EB -EB H+I+J+L G+M; 01-Jul-89 ($545,781) $53,913 $296,913 $350,825 ($194,956) 01-Jul-90 ($11,082,563) $107,825 $165,000 6.50% $593,825 $866,650 - ($215,913). 01-Jul-91 ($1,107563); $107,825 $200,000 6.50% $593,825 $901,650 : ($205,913) 01-Jul-92 ($1111,31.3) $107,825 $215,000 6.50% $580,825 $903,650 ($207;663) 01-Jul-93 ($1,109;738) $107,825 $225,000 7.00°/o $566,850 $899,675 ($210,063) 01-Jul-94 ($1,113088) $107,825 $245,000 7.00% $551,100 $903,925 :($209,.163) 01-Jul-95 ($1`,116,075) $107,825 $35,000 7.00% $533,950 $676,775 ($439,300) 01-Jul-96 ($1 11:8;.675) $107,825 $40,000 7.00% $531,500 $679,325 ($439 350) 01-Jul-97 ($1,115,885) $107,825 $35,000 7.00% $528,700 $671,525 ;; ($444;360)' 01-Jul-98 ($1,123,028)! $107,825 $40,000 7.50% $526,250 $674,075 ($448,953) 01-Jul-99 ($1,124;453) $107,825 $40,000 7.50% $523,250 $671,075 :'($453,378) 01-Jul-2000 ($1,125,493) $107,825 $40,000 7.50% $520,250 $668,075 :($457,418). 01-Jul-2001 ($1,131,138): $107,825 $45,000 7.50% $517,250 $670,075 ::($461,063) 01-Jul-2002 ($1;131,038). $107,825 $40,000 7.50% $513,875 $661,700 ($469,338) 01-Jul-2003 ($1135,438) $107,825 $45,000 8.00% $510,875 $663,700 ($471,738) 01-Jul-2004 ($1139,138): $107,825 $45,000 8.00% $507,275 $660,100 ($479,038) 01-Jul-2005 ($1,:142,138) $107,825 $50,000 8.00% $503,675 $661,500 - ($480;638) 01-Jul-2006 ($1149,438) $107,825 $55,000 8.00% $499,675 $662,500 ($486,938) 01-Jul-2007 ($1150,688) $107,825 $55,000 8.00% $495,275 $658,100 ($492,588) 01-Jul-2008 ($1,156,238) $107,825 $60,000 8.25% $490,875 $658,700 ($497,538) 01-Jul-2009 ($1.165,363) $107,825 $70,000 8.25% $485,925 $663,750 ($501,613) 01-Jul-2010 ($1;168 038) $107,825 $75,000 8.25% $480,150 $662,975 .. "($505,063) 01-Jul-2011 ($1;174,625) $107,825 $80,000 8.25% $473,963 $661,788 ($512,838) 01-Jul-2012 ($1;1184,763) $107,825 $95,000 8.25% $467,363 $670,188 ($514,575) 01-Jul-2013 ($1,:193,088)' $107,825 $105,000 8.25% $459,525 $672,350 ($520,738). 01-Jul-2014 ($1,199 600) $107,825 $115,000 8.25% $450,863 $673,688 :. ($525,913) 01-Jul-2015 ,($1)214 300)' $107,825 $135,000 8.25% $441,375 $684,200 ($530,.100) 01-Jul-2016 ($1:,226,463) $107,825 $150,000 8.25% $430,238 $688,063 ($538,400) 01-Jul-2017 ($1„236 088) $107,825 $165,000 8.25% $417,863 $690,688 : ($545,400) 01-Jul-2018 ($1;253,175) $107,825 $195,000 8.25% $404,250 $707,075 ($546,100) 01-Jul-2019 ($1:,267;000) $107,825 $215,000 8.25% $388,163 $710,988 : ($556,013) 01-Jul-2020 ($1;287,563). $107,825 $250,000 8.25% $370,425 $728,250 ($559,313) 01-Jul-2021 ($1,304,138) $107,825 $280,000 8.25% $349,800 $737,625 ($566,513) 01-Jul-2022 ($1;326,725) $107,825 $320,000 8.25% $326,700 $754,525 ($572,200): 01-Jul-2023 ($1,349,600)' $107,825 $365,000 8.25% $300,300 $773,125 ($576475). 01-Jul-2024 ($1,377400) $107,825 $420,000 8.25% $270,188 $798,013 ($579,388) 01-Jul-2025 ($1,409 400) $107,825 $480,000 8.25% $235,538 $823,363 ($586,038) 01-Jul-2026 ($1,444,875) $0 $107,825 $550,000 8.25% $195,938 $853,763 - ($591,113) 01-JuI-2027 ($1,478100) $0 $107,825 $620,000 8.25% $150,563 $878,388 ($599,713): 01-Jul-2028 ($1518;713) $85,000 $107,825 $615,000 8.25% $99,413 $907,238 ($611,475) 01-Jul-2029 ($1,565,625) $490,000 $99,750 $275,000 8.25% $48,675 $913,425 ($652,200) 01-Jul-2030 ($1.-617750). $560,000 $53,200 $315,000 8.25% $25,988 $954,188 :($663;563) ($50,891,289) $1,135,000 $7,565,000 $17,659,213 $30,771,250 ($20,120,039) PROCEEDS AVAILABLE FOR INVESTMENT: $8,850,000 AMT BONDS PURCHASED: $7,565,000 TAXABLE INVESTMENTS: $1,135,000 •BALANCE AVAILABLE: $150,000 •(TRANSFERED TO BEGINNING FUND BALANCE IN COLUMN Z) S' ` ° r �41 CHMTION1 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Economic Development 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 201 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 535-6230 TO: Salt Lake City Council December 2, 1988 RE: Petition No. 400-660 submitted by Mrs. Fred Bell, et al. Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing on January 17, 1989 at 6:20 p.m. to discuss Petition No. 400-660 submitted by Mrs. Fred Bell et al. The petitioner are requesting that Salt Lake City vacate a portion of an alley located between 1489 - 1515 South 300 East Street. Availability of Funds: Not applicable Discussion and Background: The petitioners have requested this alley vacation due to the i.ncr.ease of crime in their area. The alley is used to park vehicles while burglaries take place in the neighborhood. rl'he property owners along 300 East have had problems with people from the apartment complex to the east cutting through the alley and into their private yards. The residents have discussed this problem with the apartment manager and the residents of the apartments but have been unable to resolve the problem. The appropriate City Departments have reviewed this request and recommend approval subject to the property owners providing access to those properties that require off-street parking access. The petitioners intend to install a fence and gates with locks and have indicated a willingness to enter into an agreement to provide a private right of way to the two property owners requiring access. L islative Documents: The City Attorney's Office has prepared and approved the necessary ordinance and is ready for your action. Submitted by: 1 CRATG E! PEfl RSON Director SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1988 (Vacating a portion of an alley running north from Kensington Avenue ( 1500 South) behind 1489-1515 South 300 East pursuant to Petition No. 400-660-88 ) AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF AN ALLEY RUNNING NORTH FROM KENSINGTON AVENUE ( 1500 SOUTH) BEHIND 1489-1515 SOUTH 300 EAST, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-660-88 . WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, finds after public hearing that the City' s interest in the public alley described below is not necessary for use by the public as an alley and that vacation of said alley will not be adverse to the general public' s interest nor divest the City of title to the property without subsequent documents of transfer. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That a portion of an alley running north from Kensington Avenue ( 1500 South) behind 1489-1515 South 300 East, which is the subject of Petition No. 0U-660-88 and which is more particularly described below, he, and the same hereby is, VACATED and declared no longer to be needed or available for use as a public alley, subject to the condition set out in Section 3 below. Said alley is more particularly .de7r1_r;ed as follows: Beginning at a point located on the Southeast corner � �1 �� of Lot 24, Block 1, Waterloo Addition, thence North � 265. 34 feet, thence East 15 feet, thence South 154. 64 feet, thence West 2 feet to the Northwest corner of Lot 23, Block 1 , Waterloo Addition, thence South 110. 7 feet to the Southwest corner of Lot 23, thence West 13 feet to the point of beginning. SECTION 2 . RESERVATIONS AND DISCLAIMERS. The above enclosure is expressly made SUBJECT TO all existing rights-of-way and easements of all public utilities of any and every description now located on and under or over the confines of the property and also SUBJECT TO the rights of entry thereon for the purposes of maintaining, altering, repairing, removing or rerouting said utilities, including the City' s water and sewer facilities, and all of them. Said closure is also SUBJECT TO any existing rights-of-way or easements of private third parties. SECTION 3 . CONDITIONS. The petitioners have agreed to provide private right-of-way access agreements as required to allow mutual access. Entry into these right-of-way agreements is a condition precedent to the effectiveness of this Ordinance. SECTION 4 . EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. The Recorder is instructed not to publish this Ordinance until the Mayor shall certify that the conditions in Section 3 have been met. If the conditions have not been met within one year, the time may be extended by the Mayor for one additional year. If the conditions are not met within the time allowed, this Ordinance shall be null . Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 19 CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER -2- Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor ' s action: Approved Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: r. CITY RECORDER ( SEAL) BILL NO. OF 19 Published: BRB:pp -3- ALLEN C. JOHNSON MEMBERS: PLANNING DIRECTOR RA MARLER SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION CIN DY CROMER SAND TH OMAS A. ELLISON LAVONE LIDDLE-GAMONAL SECRETARY RICHARD HOWA EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS: DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES RALPH P. NEILSON MAYOR OF SALT LAKE CITY Planning and Zoning Commission GEORGE NICOLATUS CITY ENGINEER 32 4 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 200 JOHN M. SCHUMANN CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 F. KEITH STEPAN CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL 535-7757 PETER VANALSTYNE KATHY WACKER November 10, 1988 Craig Peterson, Director Development Services 324 S. State, Suite 201 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Re: Petition 400-660 - Bell Alley Vacation Dear Craig: Attached please find the above referenced petition from Mrs. Fred Bell, et. al. requesting Salt Lake City to vacate a portion of an alley located behind their homes between 1489-1515 South 300 East Street. It is our recommendation that this alley be vacated as requested and divided between the abutting property owners with the stipulation that the property owners provide a private right of way to those properties that require off- street parking access. All appropriate departments have reviewed this petition and have provided a favorable recommendation. This alley runs north from Kensington Avenue (1500 South) behind the homes fronting on 300 Fast Street and intersects with an alley which runs east/west from 300 East to 400 East Streets. This request excludes approximately 120 feet of the northern section of the alley open for access for the abutting property owners, they did not wish to join this request. This is under the 150 foot maximum set by the Fire Department for cul-de-sacs and deadends. The petitioners state that the increase in crime in the area is the main reason for their request. There have been burglaries in which the alley was used to park vehicles while the burglary took place. The property owners who live along 300 East have had problems with people from the apartments to the east. The residents in the apartments cut through the alley and the private yards to access 300 East. They have discussed this issue with the apartment manager and the residents of the apartments but have been unable to resolve the problem. The property owners have indicated that vacation of the alley Page 2 Craig Peterson November 10, 1988 would enable the police to enforce for trespassing on private property. The petitioners intend to install a fence and gates with locks. Two of the petitioners require access to garages from the alley but have indicated a private right of way would be acceptable. The petitioners have indicated that they are willing to enter into an agreement to provide a private right of way to those property owners. If you have any questions concerning this alley vacation request, please call me. Sincerely, Allen C. Johnson, AICP Planning Director ACJ:JJ attachment ONE STOP REVIEW DAI'l,: November, 1988 SUBJECT: Petition 400-660 - Bell Alley Vacation Request COMMENTS: ENGINEERING: Recommend approval FIRE: Recommend approval PLANNING: Recommend approval PUBLIC UTILITIES: Recommend approval REAL PROPERTY: Recommend approval TRANSPORTATION: Recommend approval cc: Harry Ewing, Engineering Rae Hunsaker, Fire LeRoy Hooton, Public Utilities Eric Thorpe, Peal Property Barry Walsh, Transportation . . , ; . -.--' - -,- ' s- -- 'f- '',•-3 - -1,7 --,-"' -- r ,,)-- ,-.. ),, ',I:,_ ' ,t- ,,. -,'-`-:..-!' ,.,-..." _'Y .i' , ---• ,.., ,,,,,„.„....,, "“A• 1 'C'JT•0,- ((V 9- I•••••• '55,- Ca 0 I. IN_-'b!-,73`'''41'` c)f ROOSEVL 4 — '''r /i>.• RuJSEVEL7:, Igo , q-1, ? . \9 • AVE i J.:„.., . , w 7.7 kcl ' '.... ttlio0 ,,.:,..5.- -,., ---- •.,' Tr----.-.'t,0 • ..-..-7.5 A.c,'; 4-i.t--4._.. 40 ' "i '.''viol: _:.0 2 7 ---, r•-- - ,.... .i . • :I-4.i .2....•,...... A , . i.. 7.,77 i, :4, /I /I /I f,„ N,, ,7 ,_, ,,•••••,• cv,4&01 4.1 AO • • 2- ,---,,4.' 4,1"-- - C I?` ..--3.1t.....,, •--.-• „ 4,11.-1-.:,-,' 4-1-7.L77-:-.,-,...--,-% . 4 • 4 C) ' ' •i=••-t •,. ,, ,:•i-"--i- •,-./ A . i k. ; -(1)- 4 .... ,„. 8, ,-) . ,L.,, N 1 ! ar.....-2F•111311 t .'."..., 1 c) 1:1 : -# : ,--I ,.., i •4Ari : ;. 1 !., 11.+;071%. • 'ni-- -, • . - ,11 : 1 -4 • ( 14: '..; LI: , , . S 1‘, -Ill "<,. II (3 I' it.., b• - - 711- ' I l 0 M101471, 111 ."'. .- ' .I ji i,L i-.::„,,..'''• :1,2`;:_&0 2:F K-7: .41- .', ; u c,:!.., . Cil , . .kt:,.) 4 c.A- t\;4 i 1-1[ . • - • 4'. ' 511 , -I — r' • . i-.1.-, ..i. ' A't "1"-- '''' fig. , :i t4 , 1..,...1 • • 04_ 1 i t / : i •!'!"/.. ./..5Cv ;-1;71i :), '•'4 4•:' .: - '',13 I.. Z•n. *el. I, '. 4.'._"::4 4 r ‘. l' . • i - ,....%1 2cs.z.. ...........cd,................ . - 1 . '' /.. ''7- - ".: -I ' 1 : ) r•grAMp i i„f 1 :... • . ,,,-1, •. 1,, ,-;;..;7. • 1 3 112 OG2 . •, A 'o/ i ..------Ii2 -6'e7 -. -• 1 .• ,, A . kc,s ..:-J-1•-t"-' 7 • ,40.5..,;,,1.1.4, • 4i T o I .. 1 1.LI q -1;4 j• ! ; t. •,-'1' •,INI!"' - •*•••051' ' n cA 7,1 -----"--..-- ::13::-.elird.Lt.',,:t 6,3/• iiI 4..,,± ' : ,,,'-7!•,. L L• ••-1-.4/ , -: tt: , !',R.*;-, , -. itl 4,04,420 s 7.7 4-if)417 , `...1 :":"4.7 c -.1...00SL ' . ;. 'i\e r7,L77:t..aat;.. .."2..,.. ...i.77‘.. :.1.: , •, ' 1 15.ii. ;,•-;1.,. ,,.. . k J.1..66, .1/4 , . :77 7-1". ,:.v..-,-,-1• '14s4-4 Mr,79' 7,4s,;ri .'i ..,„- .i.i.:' 4'..f;,.3,•.'y; ' •f 1 „iiii<6./...1U ) •-, 'Ili CI'l !--•i'' ' 1- ;,;.. .. r . 4,.?- CO/ . "7.177:-....,1%:. h: " / ' ii-7.67' 14-.---7-°'erV:.•••:''',' Yii-44 iii.14": -71 b 40 08 f.,,. . : ' , i ..1 .• -.-_4%. !., Fr .„ .,...,',.1 f,.,.//k.i - -. .-42.3 -er. - ,s , ,i -D. .. ,., ,. -- ----,:---4-:-.,- Ti' ' --; . - .. _,,......... tc:rit . , ilwiFdra ,•,.7 • i 0 /-•//024., -1, *--..- :,,, ,,,, ,,,,':. rs—c;;,.1--_ l''' 1 A jl-F- — .. !-- ;4:11;1;' --...;t7-7 -;-iin ' t 1 o Ni . ' i c- 1 1 RjsjY-- . 'LD. ---,:f-,- -- :. 1 -•%--1•CaL4 vi !met 5 7,.A F 0 -- 6 , 4 -71-1 • , i-'• :. ....,..r ._ 104 ;* ,.....4_a. h !: , ''' ''-'sf44 •al....../..,- ;-,-.: - , i'l ' ,,_3„,. .,,,D-/ h.: ‘... ,, •-• (--) -0- - ; ' - ii - /2,,.,,5 , to) , , ,. it.:1-.4 I 14,7, AVE. ,5)/041, ! l"... - .--- /3..'4-ri r" 0,2,02at I i ., $•rje-4- . ;lk 6 '' 1 ' "7-14': L.. , - " 11 "2 7 . 7 ;, ;-_.I.L.5---0-:. .11-rtw'c') '-'6' • 11..••*/ 7: qi '1 - .1 _ -., `ci• '.V1 tw '4331 tri '- • , .;f;t:'• 26.0 - 1' :--•-.; I 114 3ki. ..‘")i, 4,011fr.i 141.1 al ! --, , "-. cji. --,, , `Iir p‘ n,'al ) , Cit. . ("?\j, 1 c' '' 1 • Ili j ,1 i t: k•,[1,-7dd'A'. ,'-='''0/2 t 1. '-\' • • IC1' '0'. 1) 4 vv) 'qt 0.-.1r , 7,e -I,, ---: -,, , 3 g)IS 1 s.f -,f c',.: . , r ,', c) , i. . .-, i "•_.,--': , , - 'I-' ri ?f-H -f "..-..i 2,-P,-*1 i'';'-I 1----..-4, )-, b-',/vi.. 0:, z t' 4 • ,,1 ., <- /,z:,- .46 ...,„,- ,2.6. ,-,,,- pr h •!>i. 41 4, ,. . . .4 5 fi:i "ir:frji f.. . i cy-4 rF .44-E: . oi li • r.i.g.-.0- .;:44,, . -4...-,-. .,-3, 4- --:',• . 1 ll:, ! 1.- ; i 2/ .-. .KELTS1A7G7 — . ....,. :rri kc5k. KENS/NGTON .... • .4 ./ar'a.710 "4 Ili CI' : . - AVE. -7--, 7 77 -,7 4 0-- .1 7 a .:::' A '''=,, rAr In -74".• iv , ..kci.. .,:.. . .,. ..:-: '.i. . j.1: 1.375. - , -- ,;, -,,,-- --- _ • -1 '!' k. t.4 ..". /.1,'•. ' " ---'2./I 2 _ fet. ‘00,00%,il "I .,!..I, 'I !., ) n: " -14C . .-.; ‘• .1'1"1- k, . 7'1'. ',tS 1 l 1•1-'si, .::,' c,'7"-- /5 _ ,4 = j .4 _ ___.•.ft&• ...-- 1\1, ,.., 'st ,.T.T.) ! •••,,.. , ,i z •, ici .f:Fl c. 23 -00 " .-;:-. I . 1) -,• • 20 i • `' '(.. -a0 - 0/Q '. .. ''' ''' • . k t'-•ti !1-ci ,,,.\), ;II. . . N-- . 1- i' l- - 71:- `t• kkl 1 j 4 ' / /.70 7--cl Lq" j ''l ;" .-' I . f , '.1 !try . ,,,,„ i! •, ..- 1 4: STillrhik ". . ' ,4-4-, 1' 1 4'- 4L.,,,,,,,wea- ") '''• '''-s c'g ' ZW-,',.r , . tit .4. . . g -.. A I riuNliallrolri 01_1" ,, '',. ,'‘..",.: -ir 5. • ; 't , -.„ •,:••-.30.,..,,,31 -- • •-.-••-•-•11.,- • ;4,st i,,0 ,,,,,r:c •,14,1 t' . q • -7,q_ 2 621CP4t , 1„ 1v '..- ; • ..?-,4 ' S. • .- ..', ; i ,',`il '\ 0 1 , ,.) Oi h , •:=1 ,. ,.. ., • . • 'I I 11 \ II' t • ,-.-.e !".',--: . ' tA ,2'..3 1- .. r .% - ' 1 , ton. nr..,cc., ,,,) .6: , 1, k., ... : - fr ,. . 1.!ff • kri0 7, , ::...-, . 4 1. = '1,;--:,,744. 477;zio ,;s:.'. ' - ,Iti /2,2 . : . i....APIA .--,,, 1'4 - .1 h ., 4. l' 4 '. to____ _'"t • • r. ,-,,,,..- ir: - ..a4:4 --ii,-.., _•o- 1 vil,i,-, . --... ,,,BRyAN ..,-,—.4 274.5 ----.:-": ----"7.,-----3- 'f. - -,.: 1-1-. • BRYAN 03 , w AVE- -I '-rtt `' /-,. !-,'- -1-17 -: i 4 i ("( , 7,fOi ':.• 27fer7-4, ..•,0 Z-7,-'t '4r. 7-5 '2-Irr-7 Y •.• — • . -— - -_. ,.---- -- :-1 44,f . • c—; ;14,4-4:,_,,- .;., ) :,...., A ,-VMPUI I %-.-.--''•,--- C--- I C .r----. /. /i___,1.1..40 • ;I :. ‘!1 26;i"-.ci /,i'71 ..- 1 •01, .1 .('71 • , , ' Ir 1 ''':7 ' '•rs I .) / ••• '-i•'' ks Egjg—flia ••••• / c") •....) C) r c4 k(- ' ' •- N q• I`)' c I c' c) ' i. ' ''.0.1 r IA . () 40 I 'ci 4111........6. —..,- °a - `-i=1' '‘ i r;T•'''.-...-, 1,1<4 r.- . til I. ..,„" . 1 7" ' II • ';•II ''. 4,!;•i',- Q1 '-.: ' .3 i -,..... -... .7-.3-:. -3•.•?-I,, ''' 4 ''''',/,..° i:L.'.. '`,..:.: 7)..,.. ' )---.., 1• : , /Z,. •,4.1.11.114 - ,II ,,,1..!;. ...-::\1, F.: .0,.... . 's .11: .1. 4-4:A .c PI..•) "ii 1 i.�. t ,1 . • lr : ? '&.q i # T �rf"�. ,��- ors. , ru,,x c :: 4 C)ct,ber ]-')88 F LTTTION le, the ceners of ,-roper+v cn Third East, between 1109 and 1515 South Third East, are petitioning the Cit•r of Salt; Lake to close the alloyTT,T,y behind our homes, which is a nuis•,nce, owing tc the c; nHuct of persons who rent, apartaents in the Emerson Gardens Condom niums, which have been built, in the cenier of the block. They trespass upon cur yards to gain access to Third East , when they shco]d exit their Fro;erty on Fourth East. F are also Mai is t1'1_S re^uest C-ut of concern for the safety of our Iles, inasmuch as crime and violence, c. ri''ac1.eri_ ed h- "rangy' w m n of advanced ale having been t,ru+ally at.en and ��:rr�rglcd in. their � MPS, not, to mention ro'u cries . r 're increased sharp]y in the recent Fast . iThird ` , South. East 11;?7 South Third past v 7().4zad , _____. lF ?3 South Third East ;-zo� 1'11 Scu+b Third East 1515 South Third Fast 319 last, Kensington ^"venue et;i 325 East I'':_nsington • • SALT LAP GUY-CORPORATIONr DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CRAIG E. PETERSON 114 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING DIRECTOR SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111, 535-7777 '['0: Salt Lake City Council November 15, 1988 RE: Petition No. 400-537-88 submitted by Salt Lake City Corporation Recommendation: That the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting Petition No. 400-537-87 for the purpose of City Council Review. We further recommend that the City Council hold a public hearing on January 17, 1988 at 6:20 p.m. to discuss Petition No. 400-537 submitted by Salt • Lake City Corporation which requests that City Creek Canyon be annexed into Salt Lake City. Availability of Funds: Not applicable Discussion and Background: Salt Lake City has initiated annexation of this area to assure that Salt Lake City will have more control over the • watershed, and direct control over any land use issues that may arise in the canyon in future years. The Planning Commission has reviewed this petition and has recommended that the area be annexed and be zoned "P-1" Foothill Preservation Zone be applied to the entire area. Legislative Documents: The City Attorney's Office has prepared the • necessary resolution and is ready for your action. Submitted by: CRAIG E. 'E1 RSON - Director. lf/ Gook: • N..Y SALT LAKE CITY AMENDMENT TO MASTER ANNEXATION POLICY DECLARATION CITY CREEK AMENDMENT Area 15 - City Creek • Prepared by Salt Lake City Planning Department Introduction The following information is provided to satisfy requirements of the Utah Boundary Commission Act of 1979 as set forth in Section 10-2-401 through 10-2- 423 Utah Ccde Annotated 1953, as amended. In harmony with the intent of the act, Salt Lake City prepared a Master Annexation Policy Declaration in 1979. The City Creek amendment was not included in the 1979 policy declaration. This report updates and amends the . Master Annexation Policy Declaration to include the proposed City Creek annexation area, as Area 15 - City Creek. City Creek Canyon has been preserved in its natural state as a watershed area for Salt Lake City through the years. The only structures in the canyon are the water treatment plant, a reservoir, and the watershed caretaker's home. Salt Lake City is a major property owner in the canyon. However, . since the canyon is not within the city's corporate boundaries, Salt Lake City doesn't have zoning and land use control. Because such a large majority of the canyon is owned by Salt Lake City and the U.S. Forest Service, significant development in the canyon is not likely in the foreseeable future. However, annexation will give the city direct land use control, and greater control over any future proposals for the canyon that may be prompted by changes in ownership, Forest Service land management policies, etc. In April 1986, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the City Creek Master Plan. This plan identifies the city's planning goals and policies regarding the area of proposed annexation. A major planning goal outlined in the City Creek Plan is to preserve City Creek Canyon in its natural state as a protected watershed area and for limited recreation. It recornds that the city pursue annexation of City Creek Canyon as one of the means of implementing the plan. Annexation will enable the city to have more control in protecting the watershed and obtaining more direct control over any land use issues that may arise in the area in the future. 15.1 Area Considered for Annexation The attached map depicts the proposed annexation area. It includes unincorporated land contiguous to Salt Lake City's northeastern boundary within census tract 1101.01. The area consists of approximately 5,568 acres. • • 15.2 Land Use and Socio-Econanic Characteristics The proposed annexation area is primarily alpine forest and woodlands in . public ownership. The two major land owners are the United States Forest Service and Salt Lake City Corporation. All of the property considered for annexation lies within the watershed of City Creek and is within Salt Lake County. The one privately owned parcel is the Woodruff mining claim. This claim lies within Sections 1 and 12 of T1N, R1E of the Salt Lake Base Meridian. 15.3 Assessed Property Value The County Assessor's records show no assessed property value for the annexation area. The publicly owned land is exempt from local taxing jurisdictions. The mining claim has a special Utah State property tax assessment of fifty dollars per acre. 15.4 Comparison of the Cost of Government Services The mining claim would not be affected by any change in local • jurisdiction. The tax rate of fifty dollars per acre would remain the same. It is also the intent of the city to eventually obtain ownership of all properties within this annexation. The City Public Utilities Department is presently negotiating with Mr. Woodruff to purchase his mining claim. Due to the amount of publicly owned land, and the existing policies prohibiting development in this area, annexation will have minimal or no impact on the cost of government services. There are no government services being provided to the mining claim. • 15.5 Urban Services Urban services such as streets, water and sewer systems, and refuse collection are not available to this area. Upon annexation into Salt Lake City such services will not be made available. The City Creek drainage area must be protected from any development to protect the areas primary benefit to the citizens of Salt Lake as a watershed for culinary water resources. SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT REGARDING PETITION NO. 400-537 BY SALT LAKE CITY • CORPORATION REQUESTING THAT SALT LAKE CITY ANNEX A PORTION OF CITY CREEK CANYON This petition requests that the majority of City Creek Canyon be annexed into Salt Lake City. This portion of the canyon is presently in unincorporated Salt Lake County. Properties encompassed by this petition are owned by Salt Lake City Corporation, the U.S. Forest Service, and a patented mining claim owned by Mr. Russel Woodruff. The Forest Service and Mr. Woodruff have both provided letters concurring with this annexation proposal. • The Salt Lake City Planning Commission and City Council adopted the City Creek Master Plan in 1986. A major planning goal outlined in the City Creek Plan is to preserve City Creek Canyon in its natural state as a protected watershed area and for limited recreation. It recommends annexation of City Creek Canyon as one of the means of implementing the plan. Annexation will enable the city to have more control in protecting the watershed, and more direct regulation over any land use issues that may,arise in the area in the future. Cicy Creek Canyon has been preserved in its natural state as a watershed area for Salt Lake City through the years. The only structures in the canyon are • the water treatment plant, a reservoir, and the watershed caretaker's home. Salt Lake City is a major property owner in the canyon. However, since the canyon is not within the city's corporate boundaries, Salt Lake City doesn' t have zoning and land use control. Because such a large majority of the canyon is owned by Salt Lake City and the U.S. Forest Service, significant -feveloprent in the canyon is not likely in' the foreseeable future. However, annexation will give the city direct land use control, and greater control ot.er any future proposals for the canyon that may be prompted by changes in ownership, Forest Service land management policies, etc. This petition does not encompass all of the canyon*. Private property owners at the top of the canyon would not aaree to support annexation so their properties were not included. The Public Utilities Department indicates that we are accomplishing their watershed objectives by annexing the large majority .-2.f the canyon as proposed. They envision eventually purchasing private orcperties in the upper canyon. These properties are also not accessible or developable, and therefore pose no threat to the "watershed. Other City departments reviewing this annexation proposal support the petition as presented. Therefore, the planning staff recommends that this petition be approved as proposed. 7-15-87 ace *;NOTE: A map identifying City Creek Canyon and the areas to be annexed will be presented at the Planning Commission briefing. Because of their size, it was not practical to reproduce maps for this packet. • VERNON F. JORGENSEN • MEMBERS: PLANNING DIRECTOR THOMAS A. ELLISON EAR y TfeY ' ' n� Lr i ALICE KASAI MILDRED G. SNIDER NE �'„� 1 .dJ � jj�,j p ^�Jj�o c SECRETARY """" aora ""� `"� `d"v""d�`�`�`Y�`04. LAVON,. LIDDLE-GAMONAL DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES RALPH P. NEILSON .-X-OFFICIO MEMBERS: GEORGE NICOLATUS 'AY�R OF SALT LAKE CITY Planning and Zoning Commission WILLIAM PRICE 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 535-7757 PETER VANALSTYNE KATHY WACKER I. J. WAGNER July 28, 1987 Mayor Palmer DePaulis B U I L D I N G Dear Mayor DePaulis : Returned herewith is Petition No. 400-537 by Salt Lake City Corporation regjlesting that Salt Lake City annex the majority of City Creek Canyon. The City is initiating annexation of this area to assure that the City will have more control over the watershed, and direct control over any land use issues that may arise in the canyon in future years, The City is initiating this petition as a major property owner in the canyon. The Planning Commission considered this petition at the July 23, 1987 Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission recommends annexing this area as proposed, with "P-1" Foothill Preservation Zoning being applied to the entire L area. • Respectfully, - 7 Vernon Jorgenserr'---- . Director VJ/BW:vs • . F1;ER F. CUTLER SALT' � I ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS C.TY ATTORNEY A �'��✓1��1,� �� +�v � RAY L. MONTGOMERY CHERYL D. LUKE LAW DEPARTMENT GREG R. HAWKINS CITY PROSECUTOR 324 SOUTH STATE. FIFTH FLOOR L N. SPE NDLOVE ALLREDE STEVEN W. SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111 BRUCE R. BAIRD (8O1) 535-7788 FRANK M. NAKAMURA ASSISTANT PROSECUTORS JOHN N. SFIKES May 11, 1987 DONALD L. GEORGE ARTHUR L. KEESLER, JR. CECELIA M. ESPENOZA Brent B. Wilde Planner III Planning & Zoning Department 324 South State, Room 200 Salt Lake City , Utah 84111 Re : City Creek Annexation Dear Brent: I have reviewed the supporting documentation which you provided concerning the City Creek Annexation . While not a standard annexation, I believe the ,requirements of Section 10-2-1, et seq. , Utah Code Ann . , have been sufficiently candied wi th to allow the annexation to take place upon ccmpletion of the proper procedure , including approval of the amendment, public notice and hearings , etc . My only suggestion would be that the policy declaration amendment be strengthened slightly in stating the reasons why the property should be annexed . With that minor addition I would agree that the matter should be submitted to the Mayor to institute the petition for annexation. If you have any questions, please call . Sincerely, CE P. RD Assist nt City Attorney BRB :rc47 SALT' r��q,'oig; rG RPO iltoNi LEROY W. HOOTON. JR. '�•• DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES JOSEPH S. FENTON WATER SUPPLY & WATERWORKS PALMER DEPAULIS I.: RINTENDENT, WATER RECLAMATION WATER RECLAMATION MAYOR WENDELL E. EVENSEN, P.E. 1530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE SUPLRINTENDENT SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84115 WATER SUPPLY A WATERWORKS June 22 , 1987 Doug Wheelwright Planning & Zoning 324 South State Street Salt Lake City , Utah 84111 RE: PETITION NO . 400-537 , CITY CREEK ANNEXATION Dear Brent : This department has been favorable to the annexation of City Creek Canyon for a long time . • We concur with you that this annexation is necessary to protect the watershed and preserve the canyon in its natural state . We warmly endorse the annexation of City Creek Canyon at this time . If we can be of any further assistance , please call Mr . Vince Houtz at 483-6725 . Sincerely , • LER Y W . 001#, J Director V.1. VH/co FROMS :6 • SALT'LAI E{CITY-CORPORATION; FIRE DEPARTMENT -E ER 0, PEDERSON 159 EAST 7sr SOUTH _F OF F,RE DEPARTMENT SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 530-5101 June 18, 1987 Brent Wilde Planning and Zoning Salt Lake City, Ut 84111 Dear Brent: I have reviewed Petition No.400-537 requesting annexation of City Creek Canyon. The Salt Lake City Fire Department would not object- to this canyon being annexed into the city. As you are well aware it is difficult for us to provide fire and medical service into this area. If the canyon were to be developed this would have to be addressed. • If I can be of further assistance, please call me. Sincerely, Larry D. Coates • Deputy Fire Marshal' LDC/jm r. 70 • tin SAL„ ; aJ I ir% RP0 R I QN1 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING ?A_!AER DEPAULIS _ 333 SOUTH 200 EAST. SUITE 201 JOSEFH R. ANDERSON MAYOR SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111 PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR (801) 538-2142 June 17 , 1987 Brent Wilde Planning and Zoning 324 South State , 2nd Floor Salt Lake City , Utah 84111 Re : Petition No . 400-537 Annexation of City Creek Canyon Dear Brent : The present signage and markings for the City Creek Canyon Road is . sufficient for, the restricted usage that is now employed . If , at anytime , the traffic usage does not continue to be restricted by the locked gate at the Canyon entrance , we would recommend a study be conducted by our office to determine the necessary regulatory and warning signs needed due to the anticipated increase in traffic volume . The ' P- 1 ' Foothill Preservation Zoning will help alleviate the possibility of any future increase in traffic volume and the likelihood of needing additional signage . • Please call me if you have any questions or concerns . Sincerely , / ( 1 ,;11,/ 67, Va,tiVri John• G. Van Hoff , L. S . Traffic Engineer I JGVH/sc cc : Steve Meyer , Y`- Rick Johnston Eric Thorpe LeRoy Hooton Larry Coates Allen Johnson FINANCE DEPARTMENT LANCE R. BATEMAN. CPA Purchasing and Property Management Division PALMER DEPAULIS D:RECTQR OF FINANCE 324 SOUTH STATE STREET MAYOR 5TH FLOOR SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 PURCHASING (801) 535-7661 PROPERTY 535-7133 June 26, 1987 TO: Brent Wilde Planning & Zoning • FROM: Eric H. Thorpe Property Manager RE: PETITION NO. 400-537, ANNEXATION OF CITY CREEK CANYON Property Management is in favor of both the annexation and proposed "P-1" zonim. Please contact me if you have any questions. • Ei-IT/jg cc: G. L. Failner 7 1 .\ 1 ETY� 0,_ ;., �I.011 LEROY W. HOOTON. JR. ` �'n'� o ��`�w��d� DIREC-oR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES JOSEPH S. FENTON WATER SUPPLY & WATERWORKS PALMER DEPAULIS SUPERINTENDENT, WATER RECLAMATION WATER RECLAMATION - MAYOR WENDELL E. EVENSEN, P.E. 1530 SOUTH WEST TEMFLE SUPERINTENDENT SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84115 • WATER SUPPLY & •.VAT.=RWORKS November 3 , 1986 Mr. Brent Wilde 414 City and County Building Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Dear Mr . Wilde : Will you please process the enclosed map for the proposed City Creek annexation to Salt Lake City. We are .also transmitting several other maps having information regarding this annexation that you may be retained or disposed of . If we can be of any further assistance please contact Michelle Forsyth at 483-6770 . We appreciate your cooperation with our department on this project. Sincerely 41 , 1-60eT.-.:..A..—, I LE OY"Wi HOOTON, RJR \ • Di rectov .\..� LWH:ETD:mf - 75: 45 • • 1 ' SALT'r amyl-yl-G0,I�Pn ION1 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ?,;LMER DEPAULIS City Engineering Division MAX G. PETERSON, P.E. MAYOR 444 SOUTH STATE STREET CITY ENGINEER SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 535-7871 TO : BRENT WILDE , PLANNING & ZONING 1 1, FROM : RICHARD A. JOHNSTON , DEPUTY CITY ENGINEER(L.> DATE : JUNE 24 , 1987 SUBJECT : PETITION NO . 400-537 - ANNEXATION OF CITY CREEK CANYON • We have reviewed the above mentioned annexation and boundry • • .description , and agree with said description , as well as comments from your office . We also agree with the proposed P- I Foothill Preservation Zoning - for this area . RAJ : LRR : po cc : Vault E 7`• ~ •,�'. For Wasatch-Cache Salt ' e Ranger District , wUnited States Service National 6944 South 3000 East Department of Agriculture Forest Salt Lake City, Ut. 84121 Reply to. 5430 °ate January 27, 1987 Salt Lake City Corporation Planning and Zoning Commission 414 City and County Building Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Attention: Vernon Jorgensen Dear Mr. Jorgensen: Reference is made to your January 7, 1987 letter in regard to the City Creek annexation effort. I have since received the map which was not attached to your original letter. We have also reviewed the proposal with our lands staff at the Forest Supervisor's Office. After reviewing Salt Lake City's proposal we can see. no reason to object to this annexation. However, we prefer to not sign the petition or provide a letter of support since there appears to be no effect on administration of National Forest lands, with or without annexation. Management objectives of both the City and the Forest Service have long been to preserve the canyon as a watershed with limited recreation. We do not envision any change in those objectives. This is true even if we pursue a land exchange to con- solidate land jurisdictions. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments. We appreciate the opportunity to participate in this proposal. Sincerely, • , CA)Gt-zk-, g"-- • l' ---i'L';‘-1 RICHARD P. KLINE District Forest Ranger egt UNITED STATES NATIONAL BANK OF OREGON A Subsidiary of U.S.Bancorp TRUST GROUP 321 S.W. SIXTH AVENUE P.O. BOX 3168, PORTLAND. OREGON 97208 April 20, 1987 Mr . Brent B. Wilde Salt Lake City Planning Commission 324 S. State St . , Rm. 200 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Dear Mr. Wilde: 1333600 Woodruff Susan W. Emery and Russell K. Woodruff, Jr. , act as co-trustees under the Last Will and Testament of Russell K. Woodruff, deceased. Assets of the trust include four patented mining claims located in the Hot Springs Mining District/City Creek Canyon of Salt Lake County. The claims are described as follows: Henry Lode, Lot 38, Lawrence Lode, Lot 39, Eureka Lode, Lot 40, General Scott Lode, Lot 37 By letter dated May 16, 1986 and through subsequent telephone conversations you have advised the Salt Lake City corporation is in the process of annexing a portion of City Creek Canyon, including the lands covered by the mining claims mentioned above. This letter is written at the direction of Susan W. Emery and Russell K. Woodruff, Jr. , co-trustees, to indicate their approval and acceptance of those annexation efforts . VeryJ truly yours, /v , - • H . E. Fedler Vice President HEF :nll :883 • c : Ms . Susan W. Emery P. 0. Box 818 Portland, OR 97207-0818 c: Mr. Russel K. Woodruff, Jr. 1824 N.E. 137th Avenue Portland, OR 97230 w � • S F VERNON F. JORGENSEN MEMBERS: PLANNING CIRECTCR T,��,.�,7f THOMAS A. ELLISON MILDRED G. SNIDER METE/WE.+.. __ V� l1 �S1�W 1r1!`�1lle]�11CN; LAVONE ALICE DOLE GAIMONAL SECRETARY EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS: DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES RALPH P. NEILSON GEORGE NICOLATUS 'AYOR OF.SALT LAKE CITY Planning and Zoning Commission WILLIAM PRICE 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 535-7757 PETER VANALSTYNE KATHY WACKER I. J. WAGNER May 18, 1987 The Honorable Palmer DePaulis Mayor of Salt Lake City 324 South State Street, Suite 500 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear Mayor DePaulis: I hereby respectfully request that the City initiate the- process of annexing the majority of City Creek Canyon into Salt Lake City. Areas to be annexed are identified on the attached plat. The City Creek Canyon Master Plan recommends annexing City Creek Canyon so that the City will have more control over the watershed, and direct control over any land use issues that may arise in the canyon in future years. During the process of adopting the City Creek Master Plan, there was considerable interest expressed in annexing this area. At that time, Craig Peterson directed the planning staff to prepare an Annexation Policy Declaration and to take other steps necessary to facilitate annexation. Salt Lake City and the U. S. Forest Service are the only property owners in the area to be annexed. There is also one private patented mining claim owned by Mr. Russel Woodruff and others. Enclosed are a copy of the annexation Policy declaration, the annexation plat, and letters from the Forest Service and Mr. Woodruff indicating that they have no objections to this annexation proposal . We' have also included a letter from Bruce Baird, Assistant City Attorney. Bruce has reviewed the enclosed information and indicates that everything is in order. We have also strengthened the Policy Declaration as Bruce suggested. Therefore, I recommend that we put this proposal in petition form and route it through the regular petition process for review and approval . • SAM A\ Maar �i R I©NI PALMER DEPAULIS vuu.n r+.+o+ VrrY.�.r v'a.�maL—� MAYOR OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 324 SOUTH STATE STREET FIFTH FLOOR, SUITE 500 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 535-7704 May 18, 1987 Allen C. Johnson Deputy Planning Director Salt Lake City Planning & Zoning 324 South State Street, Room 200 • Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear Mr. Johnson: Thank you for the information on annexation of City Creek Canyon. I • concur with the proposal to proceed with annexation of City Creek Canyon as outlined in your letter of May 18, 1987. I am very supportive of policies and recommendations outlined in the City Creek Canyon Master Plan and I look forward to having this area annexed into the City. Sincerely, 4;t64yAi X ,K0 dd.; • Mayor PD/dll S' M R r GIDar0 RPQ '>. JON OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL SUITE 300; CITY HALL • • 324 SOUTH STATE STREET- SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 8411:1 535-7600 MEMORANDUM To: Council Members From: Linda Hamilton -7.-• Date: January 13, 1989 Re: Proposed Golf Fees/Passes Attached are spreadsheets showing two possible scenarios for the golf fee/passes. The first scenario is labeled "Council Proposal . " It assumes a $400 uncapped senior/junior pass which would not be good at the two new courses, a $500 regular pass, and a $5.00 green fee for juniors and seniors who are not pass players. The second scenario was prepared at Willie's request. It assumes a $350 uncapped senior/junior pass which would be good at any course, a $450 regular pass, a $4.75 green fee for senior/junior players who are not pass players, and increasing the student team play fee from $3.00 to $4.75. All of these projections are based on assumptions about the number of rounds which will be played by certain categories of players (e.g. , full green fee players, senior pass play, etc. ) These assumptions are nothing more than educated guesses. Some of the assumptions and the resultant projections will undoubtedly be wrong. It is hoped that over estimations will be offset by under estimations. Council Members need to understand that these are best case scenarios. They assume a maximum number of rounds played. A bad winter, construction delays on the new courses, and/or erroneous projections of the number of rounds played by players paying regular green fees would all have an adverse affect on the revenue stream. You will note that both of the new scenarios begin showing deficits quite quickly. If we do have a bad winter or construction delays, the deficits will arise even earlier. We did not project out all ten years because the deficits became so large we assumed that the Council would have to take action. Options which would be available to the Council would be to increase green fees and the cost of passes again or to appropriate money directly from the general fund to subsidize the golf courses. Monday is a holiday so there will be no staff in the Council Office. We will be available to answer questions on Tuesday. PROPOSLU FEE SCHEDULE '88/'89 COUNCIL --IPOSAL TICKETS ROUNDS FEES AMOUNT GREEN FEE/JULY-DEC '88 201551 201632 $5.00 $1,008,160 -REEK FEE/JAN-JUNE '89 157267 159267 $6.00 $955,602 • EG PASS 140 12000 $500.00 $70,000 SR. PASS/JULY-DEC '88 0 45107 $0.00 $0 SR. PASS/JAN-JUNE '89 450 37000 $400.00 $180,000 SR. COUPON/JULY '88-JUNE '89 15000 $2.50 $37,500 SR. DISCOUNT (65+)/JAN-JUNE '89 10000 10000 $5.00 $50,000 JR. COUPON/JULY '88-JUNE '89 1700 1700 $3.00 $5,100 JR. DISCOUNT (17-)/JAN-JUNE '89 1500 1500 $5.00 $7,500 - REG PASS/JULY-DEC 88 15390 $0 STUDENT TEAM 1654 1654 $3.00 $4,962 LIFETIME PASS 4000 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 652162 504250 $3,092,031 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. COUPON 0 0 $0.00 $0 1R. COUPON 0 0 $0.00 $0 SR DISCOUNT 40000 40000 $5.00 $200,000 JR. DISCOUNT (17-) 6400 6400 $5.00 $32,000 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 $3,434,696 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 $5.00 $270,000 JR. DISCOUNT (17-) 6400 6400 $5.00 $32,000 REG PASS 160 28800 $500.00 $80,000 STUDENT TEAM 1654 1654 $4.75 $7,857 LIFETIME PASS 4000 $0.00 $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 $4,898,122 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION GOLF COURSE FUND SCHEDULE OF ESTIMATED OPERATING REVENUES AND EXPENSES COUNCILS SCENARIO Fee increase necessary 1988/89 1989/90 1990/91 1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 Revenues and other sources of cash: Operating revenue 3,092,000 3,435,000 4,898,000 4,850,000 4,850,000 4,850,000 Food concessions 60,000 60,000 84,000 84,000 84,000 84,000 Interest income 90,000 90,000 0 -21 ,000 -47,000 -89,000 Bond proceeds 7,725,000 - - - - - Airport contribution 850,000 - - - - - Interest on bond proceeds 200,000 93,000 - - - - Total revenue and other sources 12,017,000 3,678,000 4,982,000 4,913,000 4,887,000 4,845,000 Expenses and other uses of cash: Operating expenses 2,292,000 2',821 ,000 3,356,000 3,490,000 3,630,000 3,775,000 Equipment 266,000 350,000 300,000 306,000 318,000 330,000 Golf carts 40,000 81 ,000 84,000 102,000 106,000 119,000 Improvements 35,000 350,000 322,000 253,000 202,000 440,000 Construction costs 5,000,000 4,368,000 - - - - Construction contingency - 500,000 - - - - Bond debt payment - 321 ,000 1 ,307,000 1 ,314,000 1 ,316,000 1 ,274,000 Total expenses and other uses of cash 7,633,000 8,791 ,000 5,369,000 5,465,000 5,572,000 5,938,000 Revenues minus expenses and other uses 4,384,000 -5, 113,000 -387,000 -552,000 -685,000 -1 ,093,000 Beginning cash balance 1 ,212,000 5,596,000 483,000 96,000 -456,000 -1 , 141 ,000 Ending cash balance 5,596,000 483,000 96,000 -456,000 -1 , 141 ,000 -2,234,000 PROPOSED FEE SCHEDULE .88/"89 WILLIE'S -OPOSAL TICKETS ROUNDS FEES AMOUNT GREEN FEE/JULY-DEC '88 201551 201632 $5.00 $1,008,160 BEEN FEE/JAN-JUNE '89 157267 159267 $6.00 $955,602 REG PASS 140 12000 $450.00 $63,000 SR. PASS/JULY-DEC '88 0 45107 $0.00 $0 SR. PASS/JAN-JUNE '89 450 37000 $350.00 $157,500 SR. COUPON/JULY '88-JUNE '89 15000 $2.50 $37,500 SR. DISCOUNT (65+)/JAN-JUNE '89 10000 10000 $4.75 $47,500 JR. COUPON/JULY '88-JUNE '89 1700 1700 $3.00 $5,100 JR. DISCOUNT (17-)/JAN-JUNE '89 1500 1500 $4.75 $7,125 REG PASS/JULY-DEC 88 15390 $0 STUDENT TEAM 1654 1654 $4.75 $7,857 LIFETIME PASS 4000 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 652162 504250 $3,062,551 PROPOSED FEE SCHEDULE 89/90 TICKETS ROUNDS FEES AMOUNT GREEN FEE 371000 346800 $6.00 $2,080,800 SR. PASS 450 79000 $350.00 $157,500 SR. COUPON 0 0 $0.00 $0 JR. COUPON 0 0 - $0.00 $0 SR DISCOUNT 40000 40000 $4.75 $190,000 JR. DISCOUNT (17-) 6400 6400 $4.75 $30,400 REG PASS 125 25200 $450.00 $56,250 STUDENT TEAM 1654 1654 $4.75 $7,857 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 $3,397,240 PROPOSED FEE SCHEDULE 90/91 TICKETS ROUNDS FEES AMOUNT GREEN FEE 499500 499500 $6.00 $2,997,000 SR. PASS 500 90000 $350.00 $175,000 SR DISCOUNT 54000 54000 $4.75 $256,500 JR. DISCOUNT (17-) 6400 6400 $4.75 $30,400 REG PASS 160 28800 $450.00 $72,000 STUDENT TEAM 1654 1654 $4.75 $7,857 LIFETIME PASS 4000 $0.00 $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 $4,850,022 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION GOLF COURSE FUND SCHEDULE OF ESTIMATED OPERATING REVENUES AND EXPENSES WILLIE"S SCENARIO Fee increase necessary 1988/89 1989/90 1990/91 1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 Revenues and other sources of cash: Operating revenue 3,062,000 3,397,000 4,850,000 4,850,000 4,850,000 4,850,000 Food concessions 60,000 60,000 84,000 84,000 84,000 84,000 Interest income 90,000 90,000 -4,000 -26,000 -52,000 -94,000 Bond proceeds 7,725,000 - - - - - Airport contribution 850,000 - - - - - Interest on bond proceeds 200,000 93,000 - - - - Total revenue and other sources 11 ,987,000 3,640,000 4,930,000 4,908,000 4,882,000 4,840,000 Expenses and other uses of cash: Operating expenses 2,292,000 2,821 ,000 3,356,000 3,490,000 3,630,000 3,775,000 Equipment 266,000 350,000 300,000 306,000 318,000 330,000 Golf carts 40,000 81 ,000 84,000 102,000 106,000 119,000 Improvements 35,000 350,000 322,000 253,000 202,000 440,000 Construction costs 5,000,000 4,368,000 - - - - Construction contingency - 500,000 - - - - Bond debt payment - 321 ,000 1 ,307,000 1 ,314,000 1 ,316,000 1 ,274,000 Total expenses and other uses of cash 7,633,000 8,791 ,000 5,369,000 5,465,000 5,572,000 5,938,000 Revenues minus expenses and other uses 4,354,000 -5, 151 ,000 -439,000 -557,000 -690,000 -1 ,098,000 Beginning cash balance 1 ,212,000 5,566,000 415,000 -24,000 -581 ,000 -1 ,271 ,000 Ending cash balance 5,566,000 415,000 -24,000 -581 ,000 -1 ,271 ,000 -2,369,000 • • • •• Imo_ SALT laKE EVIIYMORPC1"A PALMER DEPAU LIS = _ •: _.Lf ;., , MAYOR / OFFICE'. OF. THE, MAYOC, '324'SOUTH STATE STREET,"" . " FIFTH H FLOOR. SUITE 500,, ' SACT'LAKE_CfT-Y.''-UTAH 84TT7 5 3 5-7704 January 4, 1989 Willie Stoler, Chairperson and Members of the City Council 324 South State Street Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Dear Chairman Stoler and Members of the City Council : Attached is my proposed fee schedule for the golf courses. An ordinance reflecting these fees is currently being drafted and will be forwarded to you when completed. I am requesting that the Committee of the Whole discuss this issue on January 12, 1989 and that a public hearing be held January 17th. • Thank you. Sincerely, PgimA ,,24. 4_, Pc,„„e„.- Mayor PD/SG • REQUEST TO CITY COUNCIL FOR A NEW GOLF COURSE FEE SCHEDULE SUBJECT Adoption of a new fee schedule to pay bonding ( $9 . 5 million) for the construction of Salt Lake City ' s two new golf courses . Request a public hearing be held before adoption of new fee schedule . RECOMMENDATION See attached fee schedule . FUNDING No funds requested. This is a fee increase request from the Golf Enterprise Fund . BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION • In June 1988 , the Salt Lake City Council approved construction of two new 18-hole golf courses . The bonding cbsts will be S9 , 510 ,000 dollars amortized over a 10 year period. To pay for the bonding and to continue paying for operations and maintenance on the existing golf courses , it was recommended by Finance that golf increase its revenue by 25% . The 25% increase in the revenue will be largely made up by an additional $1 . 00 to existing green fee . It will go from $5 . 00 to $6 . 00 for 9-holes . A new green fee for seniors and juniors will be implemented at $4 . 50 per 9-holes . The remainder of the 25% increase will be made up by increases in driving range and golf cart fees . Last year the average cost per round of golf , to operate and maintain the existing golf courses was $4 . 69 . Because of the cost factors involved we feel we can offer a reduced fee of S4 . 50 for seniors and juniors , but we are proposing the elimination of all season passes and coupons . The reason for eliminating the season pass and coupon is because the gap between revenue earned from pass and coupon sales and the cost of a round of golf is just too great a disparity . The new fee structure narrows this disparity , however , seniors and juniors will still be allowed to play below operating costs . If the Council approves continuing the season pass , we propose that the number of rounds played on that pass be limited so the average cost per round to a pass player will be approximately $4 .50 . LEGISLATIVE DOCUMENT Pleae reference attached fee schedule , an ordinance is currently being drafted and will be forwarded as soon completed. PERSON TO CONTACT Scott Gardner , Recreation Director (972-7800) SUBMITTED BY John Gust , Parks Superintendent ( 972-7800) PROPOSED NEW GOLF COURSE FEE SCHEDULE GREEN FEES _ 9-HOLE 18-HOLE Regular ( except Mountain Dell Canyon) 6 . 00 12 . 00 Regular - Mountain Dell Canyon NA 12 .00 Regular - Twilight Rate -Mtn . Dell Canyon NA 9 . 00 Regular - Evening Rate - Mtn . Dell Canyon 6 . 00 NA Junior/Senior ( except Mtn . Dell Canyon-Airport ) 4 . 50 9 . 00 Junior/Senior - Mountain Dell Canyon NA 9 .00 Junior/Senior - Airport 6 . 00 12 .00 Junior/Senior-Twilight-Mtn . Dell Canyon NA 6 . 75 Junior/Senior -Evening Rates - Mtn . Dell Canyon 4 . 50 NA School Team 3 . 00 6 . 00. ( Junior is 17 and under - Senior is 65 or older. ) Discount is not available on weekends and holidays . Must be State of Utah resident to receive discount . CARTS 2 Bag 7 . 00 14 .00 3 Bag 8 . 00 16 . 00 Private Cart - Trail Fee 2 . 00 4 . 00 (No private carts at Mtn . Dell when new courses open . ) RANGE Small Basket 1 . 50 Large Basket 3 . 00 r:4,70 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 [et---any of the] on city golf courses the following fees: 2. Eighteen hole, ten dollars; 3. Season Pass. . b. Senior crtizen rate, enc hundred senty five dollar3; 4. Season Coupon Pass. a. Senior rate, (thirty � hole rounds) , sty five dollars. b. ,g i r rate, (twenty five-9 hol e retr i3 ) , seventy 5. Team Special Play. a. Nine hole, two dollars; b. Eighteen hole, four dollars; 6. Small range ball, one dollar; 7. Large range ball, two dollars; 8. Carta. a. Nine hole cart, six dollars. b. Eighteen hole cart, twelve dollars; D . Private Carts. a. Nine hole, one dollar. b. Eighteen hole, one dollar. within-the state-e-f-U-tah-and who, at the time of pass , C—Golf pos rovid-ed-der-herein mar-not -used-€or weekend or holiday play. for a senior citizen rate en sermon pa33e3. ] 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 $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. Team Special Play 3.00 6.00 4. Carts. a. 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 ) 5. Range Balls. a. Small basket 1 . 50 b. Large basket 3.00 B. Discounts are not available to anyone on weekends and holidays . To receive any discount, the applicant must be a resident of the State of Utah. C. Times 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. -3- 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-