06/13/2002 - Minutes (2) PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
THURSDAY, DUNE 13 , 2002
The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Thursday, June 13,
2002 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South
State Street.
In Attendance: Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Eric Jergensen, Nancy
Saxton, Jill Remington Love, Dave Buhler and Dale Lambert.
Also in Attendance: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer; Gary Mumford, Council
Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor; Michael Sears, Council Budget & Policy
Analyst; Margaret Hunt, Director of Community and Economic Development; LuAnn Clark,
Director of Housing and Neighborhood Development (HAND) ; Mary Johnston, City Courts
Director and Chris Meeker, Chief Deputy Recorder.
Council Chair Buhler presided at and conducted the meeting.
The meeting was called to order at 5:34 p.m.
#1. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS
AND ANNOUNCEMENTS.
Ms. Gust-Jenson said Item D-1, a public hearing regarding garbage fees, should be
closed and referred to the next meeting when the budget was scheduled. She said
Councilmember Buhler would make a motion requesting the administration provide a
quarterly report regarding Item F-3, small business revolving loan fund criteria. She
said Item D-4, sidewalk vending carts, Councilmember Lambert would make a motion to
send the ordinance to the Attorney's Office for a draft. She said Items D-5 through
Item D-9 would be deferred until property tax budget numbers came from the County.
Councilmember Buhler proposed moving the Truth in Taxation public hearing to Wednesday,
August 7, 2002. All Council Members were in favor of the change in the schedule.
#2. INTERVIEW TONY CAPUTO PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HIS APPOINTMENT TO THE BUSINESS
ADVISORY BOARD.
Mr. Caputo said the biggest hurdle for the Business Advisory Board had been Olympic
issues. He said they had discussed the small business revolving loan fund.
Councilmember Love asked Mr. Caputo for feedback regarding vending carts. Mr. Caputo
said he felt vending carts had a place. He said the market would decide if a vendor
made it.
#3. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE JUSTICE COURT.
Gary Mumford and Mary Johnston briefed the Council. Mr. Mumford said the ordinance
included Councilmember Lambert' s suggestions. Councilmember Lambert said language on
Page 21, Paragraph C (legislative copy) or 8.04.520 C, nothing herein shall affect the
City's burden to prove each element of the underlying charge by a preponderance of
evidence, should be added to Page 18, 5.71.090C after the language: The burden to
prove any defense shall be upon the person rising such defenses. He said he would make
the amendment to the motion.
#4. RE: RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING PRISONER TRANSPORT SERVICES FROM SALT LAKE
COUNTY JAIL TO THE SALT LAKE CITY JUSTICE COURT.
Gary Mumford and Mary Johnston briefed the Council. A discussion was held regarding
other transport services. Ms. Johnston said constables could also transport prisoners
and cost effectiveness would be looked at.
02 - 1
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
THURSDAY, DUNE 13 , 2002
#5. RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING THE CRITERIA FOR THE SMALL BUSINESS
REVOLVING LOAN FUND.
Margaret Hunt, Gary Mumford and LuAnn Clark briefed the Council. Councilmember Buhler
asked if anyone was opposed to a motion requesting the administration provide a
quarterly report to the Council. Councilmember Jergensen suggested raising the $50, 000
number in the criteria to $100,000. A discussion was held regarding working capital
for small business loans.
Councilmember Buhler asked the Council if there were any objections to moving the issue
forward. No objections were raised.
#6. RECEIVE AN UPDATE AND DISCUSS ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE 2002-2003 BUDGET,
INCLUDING LEGISLATIVE INTENT STATEMENTS. View Attachment
Item #6 was not discussed.
#7. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A GRANT AGREEMENT WITH VALLEY MENTAL HEALTH TO
ASSIST WITH SITE IMPROVEMENTS AT THE SAFE HAVEN II FACILITY LOCATED A 522 WEST 700
SOUTH. View Attachment
Michael Sears and LuAnn Clark briefed the Council. Councilmember Saxton asked if there
was a change of zoning needed. Ms. Clark said they met the zoning requirements.
Councilmember Saxton asked if the issue had gone to the Community Councils. Ms. Clark
said she would check.
Councilmember Christensen asked that the Council consider the grant. He said it would
be a good use of resources.
Councilmember Buhler asked the Council if there were any objections to moving the issue
forward. No objections were raised.
The meeting adjourned at 7:54 p.m.
cm
02 - 2
Legislative Intent Statements
Statements Carried Over (with minor updates) from Biennial Budget Adoption on June
14, 2001:
1. Funding of Governmental Immunity Reserves - It is the intent of the City
Council to support the Administration's proposal to accumulate a reserve in the
Governmental Immunity Fund equal to three times the rolling average claim
payout. (Attorney)
2. Encourage Safety and Accountability - It is the intent of the City Council that
the Administration considers adding more departmental accountability to the
City's loss control program that encourages and promotes safety. It is also the
intent of the City Council that the Council be provided with periodic reports on
losses by departments. (Attorney)
3. Home-Buyer Incentive Program - It is the intent of the City Council that a
proposal be prepared and submitted to the Council for consideration regarding
the development and implementation of a home-buyer incentive program for City
employees based on programs offered by other cities and organizations, in
collaboration with and in addition to Federal programs or opportunities.
(Management Services)
4. Constituent Tracking System - It is the intent of the City Council that the
Administration investigates the feasibility of a customer service/work order
tracking system. (Management Services)
5. National League of Cities Conference - It is the intent of the City Council that
the Administration develops a budget and staffing plan to address the impact of
the National League of Cities conference to be held in Salt Lake City. The plan
should be presented to the Council no later than October 2, 2001 and include the
City's host duties, anticipated staffing, benefits associated with hosting the
conference, estimated expenses to be incurred by Salt Lake City, a proposal to
fund the expenses, and a comparison of anticipated expenses in respect to
anticipated revenues.
6. Channel 71 - It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration uses
Channel 71 to promote City programs and functions including those events
sponsored by other organizations that receive City financial support. More
emphasis should be placed on making the promotional segments more dynamic
and interesting. Further, it is the intent of the City Council that the
Administration explore opportunities for partnering with schools in this endeavor.
(Management Services) .—
7. Water Fund - It is the intent of the City Council that the Department of Public
Utilities continues developing secondary water systems for parks and golf courses
and considers including a secondary parallel water system in new developments
within the Northwest Quadrant. (Public Utilities)
8. Street Reconstruction - It is the intent of the City Council that local street
reconstruction be funded within the Capital Improvement Program on an annual
basis in accordance with the Council's adopted Five-Year CIP Plan. (Management
Services)
9. Set Aside Money for Severance Pay - It is the intent of the City Council that
the Administration sets aside a portion of severance pay that is estimated to
eventually be paid on historical experience or other factors. These moneys
should be expensed in the years accrued and recorded as fund liabilities.
(Management Services)
10. Biennial Budget Submission - It is the intent of the City Council that the
Administration presents a biennial budget that is balanced in both fiscal years
using one-time funds for one-time expenses, with no less than nine percent of
ongoing General Fund revenues invested annually in the Capital Improvement
Program fund. It is further the intent of the City Council to maintain a healthy
fund balance of at least 10% of General Fund revenue. Finally, it is the intent of
the City Council that the Administration presents comprehensive budget
information to the City Council by the first Tuesday in May of the current fiscal
year regarding the second fiscal year of a biennial budget. (Management
Services)
11. Fiscal Note on Proposed CIP Projects - It is the intent of the City Council
that the Administration provides the Council with a fiscal note on proposed capital
improvement projects that require additional ongoing operations and
maintenance (new parks, additional buildings, etc.). (Management Services)
12. Submission Format for Proposed CIP Projects - It is the intent of the City
Council that information relating to proposed Capital Improvement Program
projects be submitted in a format similar to that of the comprehensive CDBG
reports, including all applications, CIP Citizen Board recommendations, and the
Mayor's final CIP recommendations. (Management Services)
13. CIP Budget - It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration submits
the Capital Improvement Program budget at least thirty days in advance of the
General Fund budget to allow ample time for review, and to ensure that the
Council's policy of 9% of ongoing revenue is followed. (Management Services)
2
14. Street Lighting District - It is the intent of the City Council that the
Administration briefs the Council regarding the possibility of using accumulated
reserves in the street lighting districts for converting assessment districts to the
privately-owned streetlight program (at the option of the neighborhood), for
upgrading streetlights to more decorative residential oriented lighting, or for
reducing assessments to property owners. (Community & Economic
Development)
15. Radio-Reading Water Meter Pilot Program - It is the intent of the City
Council that the Administration briefs the Council on the effectiveness of the
radio-reading water meter pilot program after approximately 4,000 hard-to-read
meters are replaced with radio reading devices and the Administration calculates
the cost versus the benefits of the program including long-term benefits. (Public
Utilities)
16. Grant Writing Team - It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration
evaluates creating a centralized grant writing function that includes all General
Fund employees who perform grant writing duties. (Management Services)
17. Community Education in the Fire Department - It is the intent of the City
Council that the Administration explores the feasibility of training non-sworn
civilian staff or volunteers to perform community education services to Salt Lake
City schools. (Fire Department)
18. Economic Development Corporation of Utah - It is the intent of the City
Council that the Administration coordinates with the Economic Development
Corporation of Utah to provide semiannual written information to the Council
regarding the accomplishments of EDCU that benefits to Salt Lake City.
(Community & Economic Development)
19. Impacts of Special Events - It is the intent of the City Council that the
Administration explores the feasibility of charging reimbursement fees for the use
of police officers or other City services at special events where a fee is being
charged to participants, and in other circumstances as appropriate. (Management
Services)
20. Golf Program - It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration briefs
the Council during a Work Session meeting in September on the marketing plans
for the golf program, including the new incentives created during the fiscal year
2001-02 budget process. (Public Services)
21. Emergency Response Employees - It is the intent of the City Council that the
Administration present options to the Council regarding a requirement that, as a
condition of employment, any emergency-response personnel hired after August _
31, 2001 be required to live within a 10 mile radius of the City &County Building.
(Management Services)
3
22. Semiannual Reports on the Status of Legislative Intent Statements and
Action Items - It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration
provides semiannual reports regarding the status of all active legislative intent
statements (including unresolved statements from previous years and statements
adopted outside of the official budget process) and all active legislative action
items.
Proposed Statements (June 13, 2002):
23. Funding of Compensation Liability - It is the intent of the City Council that
the Administration work with the Council to begin to accumulate a reserve in a
separate fund or account to fund the City's accrued compensation liability for
vacation and other payments that employees may receive upon retirement.
Further, it is the Council's intent that the Administration provide estimates on the
potential annual financial impact for the next ten or more years.
24. Retirement Payouts - It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration
consistently budget for payments of vacation leave and other retirement payouts.
The Administration should consider budgeting for these payments in a separate
fund or account rather than requiring departments to leave positions vacant or
otherwise make cuts in operations to finance these payments.
25. Overtime within the Police Department - It is the intent of the City Council
that the Police Department make every effort to keep within its overtime budget
($716,000 for fiscal year 2002-2003) and submit a written report to the Council
quarterly on actual overtime incurred and steps taken to reduce reliance on
overtime. Specifically, the Council requests that the Administration complete a
detailed analysis on approaches to reduce overtime. This analysis should include
but not be limited to:
a. All options to reduce the number of vacant positions (i.e.
hiring officers more frequently;
b. All options of workforce scheduling;
c. Opportunities to anticipate and accommodate the natural and
consistent level of turnover that occurs in the initial months
after hiring (including the potential to train more officers than
the actual number of positions available);
d. Ways in which the Legislative Branch could help address the
issue, including the potential of adding positions to allow the
Police Department to take approaches as outlined in item "c"
above.
e. The extent to which the Police Department believes it is
beneficial to use overtime in place of regular full time
employees in order to manage costs (expenses for cars, —
equipment, benefits vs. overtime pay)
4
f. The extent to which holding positions open and using
overtime could have a service level impact or policy impact.
26. Overtime within the Fire Department - It is the intent of the City Council
that Fire Department continue to take measures to reduce the reliance on
overtime and submit quarterly reports to the Council outlining total amount spent
for constant staffing at a straight-time rate and amount spent at an overtime
rate.
27. Parking Meter Collection - It is the intent of the City Council that the
Administration consider collecting parking meter revenue using bonded agencies
or employees rather than paying overtime rates.
28. Volunteers - It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration
investigates ways to expand the use of volunteers and/or retired personnel for
providing City services.
29. Process Service - It is the intent of the City Council that the Department of
Management Services investigates or tests the service of documents using mail
similar to the success reported by the City Prosecutor.
30. Grant Writing Team — It is the intent of the City Council that the
Administration complete the centralization of the grant writing function by
transferring any remaining grant writer positions to the central team in the
Department of Management Services. Further, it is the Council's intent that the
Administration provide a quarterly report on the grants submitted and grants
received.
31. Grant Monitoring— It is the intent of the Council that the Administration confirm
that the grant application and the grant monitoring / management function are
appropriately separated in different divisions, to ensure that the grant monitoring
and management is conducted by individuals other than those submitting the
grants. Further, it is the Council's intent that all grants and requests for funding
be tracked in a central location to ensure that the requests are consistent with
the City's policies, and to ensure that the applications are submitted in a manner
that leaves the City maximum flexibility in determining how the grants will be
used. Further, it is the Council's intent that the Administration provide a quarterly
accounting of grant monies received and the specific manner in which they were
spent.
5
32. Economic Development Promotion - It is the intent of the City Council that
the Administration coordinate economic promotion with other entities that provide
these services. The Council requests a written report on the overall economic
development activities including the Economic Development Corporation of Utah
(EDCU), the State Department of Community and Economic Development, the
Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce, the Downtown Alliance and the City's
Department of Community and Economic Development. The Council urges the
Administration to review the funding formula and staffing needs of the EDCU and
report the findings to the Council.
33. Impacts of Special Events - It is the intent of the City Council that the
Administration continue to explore the feasibility of charging reimbursement fees
for the use of police officers or other City services at special events where a fee is
being charged to participants and in other circumstances as appropriate. The
Council requests a quarterly report listing special events approved by the City,
including police and other City services that are provided. The listing should
include:
a. Services provided for which a fee was charged, and the
amount of the fee;
b. The actual cost of the service to the City;
c. Services provided for which no fee was charged;
d. Other relevant information.
Further, the Council requests a listing of special City services provided for events
that do not require a permit, including large gatherings at established venues. In
approving this Legislative Intent the Council is not expressing opposition to
special events, but is seeking more information with which to consider policy
options.
34. Speed Boards — It is the intent of the City Council that all seven speed boards
be placed on City street at least five days per week from 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.
(except when boards are out of service waiting for parts or otherwise not
available). It is the intent of the Council that the Administration consider
contracting for this service.
35. Privatization of the City's Impound Lot Operations — It is the intent of the
City Council that the request for proposals to privatize the impound lot operations
be broad enough to allow the existing employees to bid as a group, if they so
desire.
36. Engineering Costs — It is the intent of the City Council the cost of engineers
and architects within the Department of Public Services be more fully allocated to
capital improvement projects. The Council requests that the Administration
provide a quarterly report to the Council regarding the costs that were allocated
compared to total costs.
6
SALT,"LA .,CIaMCO.UN'CIL STAFF REPORT
POLICY AL SIS- JUDGMENT BEVIES
" ` NG4TERM IMPACTS
DATE: June 11, 2002
ANALYSIS FOR: JUDGMENT LEVIES
STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears, Budget & Policy Analyst
cc: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Gary Mumford, Rocky Fluhart, Steve
Fawcett, and Susan Roberts
By way of reminder, the City Council received a briefmg regarding judgment levies on
September 18, 2001. The paperwork provided a definition of a judgment levy, a
history of judgment levies, and background information consisting of tax bulletins,
state code as well as local municipal ordinances. Additionally, the Council received a
follow-up in the announcements of October 2, 2001. (Please see attached.)
Note: The following information was provided to the Council for the 9/18/01 briefing. It is
provided again for your reference.
During the Biennial Budget discussions for fiscal year 2001-2002 and fiscal year
2002-2003, the City Council decided not to impose a judgment levies for fiscal year
2001-2002 but wanted to hold a policy discussion concerning judgment levies and the
long-term impacts on the budget of the City. This staff report is presented as
information for the discussion. Although no action of the Council is required, the
Council may wish to draft intent language concerning judgment levies, pass a
resolution about judgment levies, or revisit the topic when additional judgment levy
information is presented during the certified tax rate adoption process.
D finition of a Judgment Levy: A Judgment Levy is an additional property tax
rate imposed to offset a shortfall stemming from a Tax Commission or court decision
that significantly reduces a tax entities tax base (Total Assessed Value).
1
History of Judgment Levi s in Salt Lake City and Judgment Levy
informati n
Judgment Judgment
Tax Year Estimate Rate Status
2001 249,346 0.00002 Not levied
2000 468,986 0.00004 Levied
1999 648,944 0.000058 Levied
1998 1,896,150 0.000188 Levied
1997 Insignificant 0 Offset against Current Collections
1996 Insignificant 0 Offset against Current Collections
1995 Insignificant 0 Offset against Current Collections
1994 Insignificant 0 Offset against Current Collections
1993 Insignificant 0 Offset against Current Collections
1992 Insignificant 0 Offset against Current Collections
1991 Insignificant 0 Offset against Current Collections
The State Legislature established the judgment levy concept in 1990. The legislation
allowed taxing entities to impose a judgment levy to cover claims arising from
payments under protest. The levy was exempt from the general fund certified rate
calculation. It was not automatically included in the rate setting process. Salt Lake
City did not adopt any judgment levies at that time, since the adjustments prior to
1998 were quite insignificant.
In the 1997 legislative session, the judgment levy was exempted from Truth-in
Taxation requirements. In 1997 Salt Lake County imposed its first judgment levy. In
1998, the County began including information about judgments, and the judgment
levy calculation became part of the yearly rate setting process. Salt Lake City first
adopted a judgment levy in 1998 when significant judgments were awarded to large
taxpayers. In 1999 the judgment levy became subject to Truth-in-Taxation
requirements.
While it can be said that a judgment levy requires all taxpayers to pay for taxes
charged in error to another taxpayer, it is also true that if the taxes had not been
charged in error, the City's total assessed value would have been lower in that time
period, thereby increasing the certified tax rate. Therefore, all taxpayers would have
paid more property taxes in the first place. In other words, one could argue that the
judgment levy does not shift the tax burden to all taxpayers; it shifts the time of the
tax increase from when it would have occurred to later date.
The certified tax rate guarantees a taxing entity a certain amount of revenue each
year. If judgment levies are not adopted, the guaranteed revenue is reduced, not only
in that year, but also for each year in the future (unless the entity adopts a property
tax increase under Truth-in-Taxation requirements).
Additional Judgment Levy Information _
The following excerpts are provided as background information. The information
presented consists of tax bulletins, state code, or local municipal ordinances. The
2
information is presented without summary and analysis. Some of the text that deals
with report timing requirements has been deleted to save space.
State of Utah Tax Bulletin concerning Judgment Levies
Tax Bulletin 11-99
Effective Date: May 3, 1999
Re: 1999 Judgment Levy Legislation
The 1999 Utah Legislature passed House Bill 268, Truth in Taxation -
Judgment Levy. This legislation establishes the conditions a taxing entity must
satisfy in order to impose a judgment levy. These conditions are outlined below.
Judgment Must Be Unpaid
House Bill 268 provides that a judgment levy may be imposed only to satisfy
unpaid judgments. A judgment is paid when the taxpayer awarded the
judgment has received payment of the judgment amount. Accordingly, a
judgment remains unpaid so long as the taxpayer awarded the judgment has
not received payment of the judgment amount, even though the taxing entity
may have had money set aside to satisfy that judgment.
In order to satisfy the requirements of House Bill 268, the judgment must be
unpaid when the taxing entity holds its final meeting for setting property tax
rates.
$1,000/1 Percent Ad Valorem Property Taxes Collected Test
A second requirement of House Bill 268 is that a judgment levy may not be
imposed if the amount of the judgment is less than the smaller of:
(1) $1,000; or
(2) 1 percent of the total ad valorem property taxes collected by the taxing
entity in the previous fiscal year.
In ascertaining whether a judgment satisfies this condition, a taxing entity
shall measure its pro rata share of the judgment, including interest, against
the $1,000/1 percent standard.
The test shall be applied to each judgment for which a taxing entity seeks to
impose a judgment levy. Judgments may not be aggregated before applying the
$1,000/1 percent test.
Finally, in calculating "1 percent of the total ad valorem property taxes
collected by the taxing entity in the previous fiscal year," the taxing entity shall
include any revenues collected from a judgment levy imposed in the prior year.
Advertisement/Hearing Requirements
A taxing entity may impose a judgment levy on an unpaid judgment that meets
the $1,000/1 percent test if the taxing entity advertises its intention to do so,
and holds a public hearing as follows:
3
(1) For taxing entities operating under a July 1 through June 30 fiscal year, the
hearing shall be held at least 10 days after the Notice of Property Valuation and
Tax Changes is mailed. If the taxing entity is required to go through truth-in-
taxation for an increase in its tax rate above the certified tax rate, the judgment
levy hearing will be held at the same time as the truth-in-taxation meeting.
(2) ...
The advertisement shall be at least 1/8 of a page in size and shall meet the
type, placement, and frequency requirements established under Section 59-2-
919 of the Utah Code.
In addition, the advertisement must specify the date, time, and location of the
public hearing at which the judgment levy will be considered.
For taxing entities operating under a July 1 through June 30 fiscal year, and in
the case of taxing entities operating under a January 1 through December 31
fiscal year, for judgments issued from the prior December 16 through May 31,
the date, time, and place of the public hearing shall be included on the Notice
of Property Valuation and Tax Changes mailed by July 22nd of each year.
The advertisement shall also set forth the total judgment amount and the tax
impact on an average residential and business property located within the
taxing entity.
A taxing entity that seeks to impose a judgment levy but is not seeking to
increase its tax rate above the certified tax rate is not required to publish a
truth-in-taxation advertisement in addition to the judgment levy advertisement.
However, a taxing entity seeking to increase its tax rate above the certified tax
rate and impose a judgment levy may combine the required truth-in-taxation
advertisement with the judgment levy advertisement. The combined
advertisement should: (1) contain substantially the same language of the truth-
in-taxation advertisement; and (2) aggregate the general tax increase and
judgment levy information.
In the case ...
If a final decision regarding the judgment levy is not made at the public
hearing, the taxing entity shall announce at the public hearing the scheduled
time and place for consideration and adoption of the judgment levy.
Other Provisions Relating To Judgment Levies
Before final tax rates are approved, all taxing entities imposing a judgment levy
shall file with the Tax Commission a signed statement certifying that all
judgments for which the judgment levy is imposed have met the requirements
imposed by House Bill 268. The signed statement shall contain the following
information for each judgment included in the judgment levy:
(1) the name of the taxpayer awarded the judgment;
(2) the appeal number of the judgment; and
(3) the taxing entity's pro rata share of the judgment.
4
Along with the signed statement, the taxing entity must provide the Tax
Commission with the following information:
(1) a copy of all judgment levy newspaper advertisements required;
(2) the dates all required judgment levy advertisements were published in the
newspaper;
(3) a copy of the final resolution imposing the judgment levy;
(4) a copy of the Notice of Property Valuation and Tax Changes, if required; and
(5) any other information required by the Tax Commission.
In addition, the ad valorem property tax revenue generated by the judgment
levy shall not be considered in establishing the taxing entity's aggregate
certified tax rate.
Judgments ...
http://www.tax.ex.state.ut.us/infobase/tb 11-99.htm
State of Utah Code concerning Judgment Levies
63-30-27. Tax levy by political subdivisions for payment of claims,
judgments, or insurance premiums. (1) Notwithstanding any provision of law
to the contrary, all political subdivisions may levy an annual property tax
sufficient to pay the following:
(a) any claim;
(b) any settlement;
(c) any judgment, ...
(d) the costs to defend against any claim, settlement, or judgment; or
(e) the establishment and maintenance of a reserve fund for the payment of
claims, settlements, or judgments as may be reasonably anticipated.
(2) ...
http://www.le.state.ut.us/-code/TITLE63/htm/63 10029.htm
State of Utah tax Commission information concerning Judgment Levi s
R884. Tax Commission, Property Tax.
R884-24P. Property Tax.
R884-24P-57. Judgment Levies Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. Sections 59-2-
918.5, 59-2-924, 59-2-1328, and 59-2-1330.
A. Definitions.
1. "Issued" means the date on which the judgment is signed.
2. "One percent of the total ad valorem property taxes collected by the taxing
entity in the previous fiscal year" includes any revenues collected by a
judgment levy imposed in the prior year.
5
B. A taxing entity's share of a judgment or order shall include the taxing
entity's share of any interest that must be paid with the judgment or order.
C. The judgment levy public hearing required by Section 59- 2-918.5 shall be —
held as follows:
1. For taxing entities operating under a July 1 through June 30 fiscal year, the
public hearing shall be held at least 10 days after the Notice of Property
Valuation and Tax Changes is mailed.
2. ...
3. If the taxing entity is required to hold a hearing under Section 59-2-919, the
judgment levy hearing required by C.1. and C.2.b) shall be held at the same
time as the hearing required under Section 59-2-919.
D. If the Section 59-2-918.5 advertisement is combined with the Section 59-2-
918 or 59-2-919 advertisement, the combined advertisement shall aggregate
the general tax increase and judgment levy information.
E. ...
F. All taxing entities imposing a judgment levy shall file with the Tax
Commission a signed statement certifying that all judgments for which the
judgment levy is imposed have met the statutory requirements for imposition of
a judgment levy.
1. The signed statement shall contain the following information for each
judgment included in the judgment levy:
a) the name of the taxpayer awarded the judgment;
b) the appeal number of the judgment; and
c) the taxing entity's pro rata share of the judgment.
2. Along with the signed statement, the taxing entity must provide the Tax
Commission the following:
a) a copy of all judgment levy newspaper advertisements required;
b) the dates all required judgment levy advertisements were published in the
newspaper;
c) a copy of the final resolution imposing the judgment levy;
d) a copy of the Notice of Property Valuation and Tax Changes, if required; and
e) any other information required by the Tax Commission.
G. The provisions of House Bill 268, Truth in Taxation - Judgment Levy (1999
General Session), do not apply to judgments issued prior to January 1, 1999.
http://www.tax.ex.state.ut.us/rules/EFFECT/R884-24P-57.htm
6
Woods Cross City Ordinanc
5-9-020. Tax Levy for Payment of Claim or Judgment.
Any claim or judgment against the City shall be made in accordance with the
Utah Governmental Immunity Act, set forth at Utah Code Annotated 63-30-1,
et seq., as amended. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the
City may levy an annual property tax sufficient to pay the following: any claim;
any settlement; any judgment, including any judgment against an elected
official or employee of the City, including peace officers, based upon a claim for
punitive damages, limited in any individual case to $10,000; the costs to
defend against any claim, settlement, or judgment; or the establishment and
maintenance of a reserve fund for the payment of claims, settlements, or
judgments as may be reasonably anticipated.
Tax Notice Terminology from Salt Lake County Treasurer's Office
JUDGMENT LEVY: An optional additional levy to recover current revenue
shortages due to refunds for prior periods ordered as a result of favorable
decisions on valuation appeals.
7
Announcement
Requested Judgment Levy Example
For Discussion and Response
On September 18th the Council held a briefing on Judgment Levies. Some Council
Members requested additional information and a chart showing the impact of Judgment
Levies on businesses and residential units in the City. The attached information has been
prepared by the Administration in response to the Council's request for additional
information.
Does the Council wish to discuss the attached information at a follow-up briefing, request
additional information, formulate specific Council policy regarding Judgment Levies,
etc?
Attachment: Follow-up Judgment Levy information as provided by the Administration
Judgment Levy Overview and Example
• A judgment levy is an additional property tax rate imposed to offset a shortfall
stemming from a Tax Commission or court decision that significantly reduces a tax
entities tax base.
• Every property taxpayer has the opportunity to appeal the taxable value of his or
her property to the assessing agency.
• The county assessors establish taxable values for most properties—real and
personal—within their counties including residences and business that are entirely
located within county borders.
• The State Tax Commission's Property Tax Division assesses the real and personal
property of airlines, railroads, utilities, natural resource properties,geothermal
fluids and resources and other businesses whose operations cross county or state
lines.
• Appeals on current year taxes made to the county Board of Equalization or the
State Tax Commission,which are decided within the current tax year, do not fall
under the judgment levy process. Adjustments to property tax revenue from these
appeals are accounted for in the certified rate setting process.
Example for Tax Year 2000 With and Without Corrections
Tax Year 2000
Actual
Taxable Tax Taxes
Value Rate Collected
General Fund 12,130,281,641 0.003500 40,787,807.53
GO Bond 12,130,281,641 0.000591 6,887,312.64
Library 12,130,281,641 0.000785 9,148,122.57
With Correction
Taxable Tax Taxes
Value Rate Collected
General Fund 12,059,039,927 0.003521 40,787,807.53
GO Bond 12,059,039,927 0.000594 6,887,312.64
Library 12,059,039,927 0.000790 9,148,122.57
If the disputed assessed value had been corrected:
• Total assessed value decreases,
• Since revenue must remain at last year's amount, the tax rate increases.
Affect on Taxpayers
2000 Tax Year Market Taxable Actual Corrected Percent
Value Exemption Value Tax Paid Amount Difference Change
Primary Residence $150,000 45% $82,50
General Fund $288.75 $290.48 $1.73 0.60
GO Bond $48.76 $49.01 $0.25 0.51
Library $64.76 $65.18 $0.41 0.64
Small Business $2,000,000 0%$2,000,00
General Fund $7,000.00 $7,042.00 $42.00 0.60
GO Bond $1,182.00 $1,188.00 $6.00 0.51
Library $1,570.00 $1,580.00 $10.00 0.64
If the corrections had been made:
• The tax rates in tax year 2000 would have been higher,
• The taxes charged on a$150,000 primary residence would have been$2.39 higher
than what was actually charged,
• The taxes charges on a$2,000,000 small business would have been$58 higher
than what was actually charged.
Affect on Taxpayers of the Judgment Levy Proposed for Tax Year 2001
Since the corrections were not made in previous tax years,the City could have applied a
judgment levy.The levy would have had the following impacts:
2001 Tax Year Judgment Judgment 2001 Tax Rate Taxes 2001 Tax Rate With
Levy Rate Amount w/o Judgment Charged w/Judgment Judgment
Primary Residence
General Fund 0.000018 $1.49 0.003745 $308.96 0.003763 $310.45
GO Bond 0.000003 $0.25 0.000551 $45.46 0.000554 $45.71
Library 0.000002 $0.17 0.000773 $63.77 0.000775 $63.94
Small Business
General Fund 0.000018 $36 0.003745 $7,490 0.003763 $7,526
GO Bond 0.000003 $6 0.000551 $1,102 0.000554 $1,108
Library 0.000002 $4 0.000773 $1,546 0.000775 $1,550
• The taxes charged on a$150,000 primary residence for the Judgment Levy would
have been$1.91.
• The taxes charged on a$2,000,000 small business for the Judgment Levy would
have been$46.
• The amounts charged are less than the original impact would have been because of
new growth.There are more taxpayers in tax year 2001.
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 11, 2002
SUBJECT: Salt Lake City CDBG Housing Match Fund grant to Valley
Mental Health for the Safe Haven II facility
STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears, Budget& Policy Analyst
CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rocky Fluhart, David Nimkin,
Margaret Hunt, David Dobbins, and LuAnn Clark
Document
Type Budget-Related Facts Policy-Related Facts Miscellaneous Facts
Resolution $75,000 grant from the This proposed grant Proposed resolution
CDBG Housing Match supports the Council authorizes a$75,000
Fund of Salt Lake City to housing policy included in grant from the City's
Valley Mental Health to the adopted Community CDBG Housing Match
complete site Housing Plan. Fund.The remaining
improvements at the balance of the Housing
Safe Haven II facility. Match Fund will be
$207,995. Other
funding for this project
totals$1,999,017.
The Administration is proposing that the City Council approve a resolution
authorizing the Mayor to execute a grant agreement and related grant documents with
Valley Mental Health for a $75,000 grant from the City's Community Development
Block Grant Housing Match Fund. This action would facilitate the site improvements
at the Safe Haven II facility at 522 West 700 South. The Valley Mental Health Safe
Haven II project is 24 new studio apartments where homeless, mentally ill individuals
will live and receive supportive services. The project services those individuals who
are at 30% and below of median income.
OPTIONS AND MOTIONS:
1. ["I move that the Council"] Adopt the resolution as proposed.
2. rI move that the Council"] Not adopt the resolution.
MATTERS AT ISSUE
• The City can support the site improvements for this project with Community
Development Block Grants. The total site improvement proposed budget by
Valley Mental Health was $125,080 of which $75,000 was requested.
• Total construction and improvement cost for this project is projected to be
$2,074,017. This project is leveraged with funds provided by HUD Supportive
Housing program, Federal Home Loan Bank Grant and Federal Low-Income
Page 1
Housing Tax Credits. The applicant has also received funding from the Olene
Walker Housing Trust Fund in the amount of$200,000.
• The Community Development Advisory Committee reviewed this proposal and
recommended approval on May 7, 2002.
ANALYSIS:
Valley Mental Health provides housing and support to individuals with mental
illnesses. Safe Haven II is a new project that consists of constructing 24 studio
apartments to provide permanent supportive housing to homeless, mentally ill
individuals. The population mix at the Safe Haven II project makes it difficult for
Valley Mental Health to obtain traditional financing or to qualify for Tax Credit units.
The proposed funding sources for this project is grants or low-interest deferred loans.
Participation by the City through the CDBG Housing Match Fund is consistent with
prior Council funding decisions and policy.
The transmittal contains additional information from Valley Mental Health and
minutes from the Community Development Advisory Committee.
Page 2
A N 0 3 ,-,r.)2
SAI,' : ' ' g� G.ZTY�G: RPORA IOI }
MARGARET HUNT - - ..� , -�. - --�_- -_ ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON
DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR
COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative OfficerCl°b DATE: May 22, 2002
FROM: Margaret Hunt, CED Director /ill ram=4lf
RE: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute a grant agreement between Salt Lake City
and Valley Mental Health to assist with site improvements at the Safe Haven II facility located at 522
West 700 South.
STAFF CONTACT: LuAnn Clark 535-6136
DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution
BUDGET IMPACT: $75,000 from CDBG Housing Match Fund
DISCUSSION: Valley Mental Health has requested a $75,000 grant to assist with site improvements
for its new project Safe Haven II located at 522 West 700 South. Valley Mental Health is constructing
24 new studio apartments where homeless, mentally ill individuals will live and receive supportive
services. The tenants of the building will have very low incomes and no credit history, which makes it
very difficult for them to rent a typical apartment. The project will target individuals at 30% and
below of median income which, for a single person, is an income below $12,000 a year. A typical
tenant would receive Social Security Income in the amount of$530 a month.
Valley Mental Health received a HUD Supportive Housing Program grant and the City's grant will be
considered match. The following is the proposed funding sources for the project:
• Federal and State Low Income Tax credits $764,667
• HUD Supportive Housing Program $400,000
• Federal Home Loan Bank Grant $165,000
• Salt Lake County HOME - 0%, 30 year loan $255,000
• Olene Walker - 2% 30 year loan $200,000
• Salt Lake City CDBG Grant(proposed) $ 75,000
• Valley Mental Health Contribution $ 63,750
• Valley Foundation $150,000
Total $2,074,017
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1
TELEPHONE: 801-535-6230 FAX: 801-535-800S
If
aECYCLEo pwp[a
The proposed $75,000 grant would come from the CDBG Housing Match Fund, which is intended to
assist housing projects of this kind. CDBG funds will be used for site improvements and Valley Mental
Health has identified a list of improvements that would be funded from this grant. If the City Council
approves the $75,000 grant, the balance left in the Housing March Fund would be $207,995.
The Community Development Advisory Committee reviewed this matter on Tuesday, May 7, 2002,
and recommended approval of the grant. A copy of the minutes is attached.
RESOLUTION NO. OF 2002
AUTHORIZING A GRANT FROM
SALT LAKE CITY'S HOUSING MATCH FUND OF THE CDBG PROGRAM
TO VALLEY MENTAL HEALTH
FOR THE SAFE HAVEN II PROJECT
WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Corporation (the City) has a Housing Match Fund of
the CDBG program to assist in the development of affordable and special needs
housing within the City; and
WHEREAS, Valley Mental Health has applied to the City for a $75,000 grant to
assist in the development of the Safe Haven II facility located at 522 West 700 South,
Salt Lake City, Utah, for a proposed residential supportive services project consisting of
24 studio apartments for individuals who are homeless and mentally ill and below 30%
median income;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
1. It does hereby approve Salt Lake City to enter into a grant agreement with
Valley Mental Health for $75,000, from Salt Lake City's Housing Match Fund of the
CDBG program.
2. Valley Mental Health will use the grant to assist with site improvements at the
Safe Haven II facility located at 522 West 700 South, Salt Lake City, Utah.
3. Ross C. Anderson, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, following approval of the
City Attorney, is hereby authorized to execute the requisite agreement documents on
behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation and to act in accordance with their terms.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of
, 2002.
RESOLUTION NO. OF 2002
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
CHAIR
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM
SALT LAKE CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE
DATE: 5 2 y/_2��.�
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER BY: '7 t .1.46,-
Summary Minutes
Community Development Advisory Committee
May 7, 2002
The meeting began at 11:45 am in room 126, City and County Building.
The following members were in attendance:
Barbara Bruno
Michael Clara
Maria Farrington
Kendalyn Harris
Bill Nighswonger
Wendy Rendon
Those not attending were:
Ty McCartney
Vicki Tate
Helane Leta
John Storrs
Sam Straight
Margaret Vidra
City Staff attending were:
LuAnn Clark
Sandi Marler
Greg Johnson
1. The Committee reviewed the Valley Mental Heath request for$75,000 to assist
with a new permanent supportive housing project called Safe Haven II, located at
552 West 700 South. The City can support the project through CDBG funds from
the Housing Match Fund, but due to CDBG restrictions can only assist on site
improvements. VMH provided a request letter and a proposed budget for site
improvements totaling $125,080. Committee members agreed that VMH provided
a great service and that these funds would assist with the project.
Barbara Bruno made a motion to fund the $75,000 request from the
housing match fund. Maria Farrington seconded the motion. The vote
was unanimous in favor 6-0.
LuAnn Clark indicated the request would be forwarded to the Mayor and Council
for their review.
2. The Committee discussed a process to review such applications in the future.
City staff asked whether it was more convenient to mail the information out and
then call for a vote from the members or whether a meeting was more useful.
_ Most members indicated they would prefer a meeting in order to have dialogue
with each other, because members may have individual knowledge about the
applicant and this could help the discussion. The consensus was to try to hold a
meeting and to allow those that can't make a meeting to make a conference call
and participate that way.
3. The Committee discussed the format of the CDBG application and agreed to
continue to use the application. There was agreement to request the applicants
not to submit supplemental material, but to use the application form for all
relevant information. Several changes were requested to be made:
• Put the amount requested on the front page
• Ask for funds awarded last year
• Clarify the proposed budget only applies to the items requested from CDBG
4. The Committee then discussed and evaluated the ESG grant application process
which this year used a request for proposal method. The Committee agreed that
an application would be easier to review as the information would be in the same
location on each application.
5. The Committee discussed the recommendation process where CDAC makes
recommendations to the Mayor and Council, and the Mayor may not agree with
many of CDAC's recommendations. Committee members agreed that they are a
recommending body and the Mayor may not support their decisions, but they still
needed to provide an independent recommendation. It was suggested that the
Chair meet with the Mayor and Council if there are differences between the
recommendations. The members indicated they liked the personal input and
knowledge of other CDAC members and that was valuable to making
recommendations.
6. The Committee discussed the need to add more members to CDAC. Members
asked that City district maps be sent to them to aid in suggesting names to the
Mayor for consideration.
The meeting adjourned at 12:25 pm.
S= 1
VALLEY April 23, 2002
MENTAL
HEALTH LuAnn Clark
Director
ADMINISTRATION Housing and Grants Management Division
5965 South 900 East, Suite 420 Salt lake City
Salt Lake City, Utah 84121 451 South State Street #404
(801) 263-7100 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
FAX: (801) 263-7123
Dear LuAnn:
David E.Dangerfield,D.S.W.
Executive Director
Board of Directors Valley Mental Health is building 24 studio apartments to provide Permanent
President Supportive Housing to individuals who are homeless and mentally ill at 552 West
Bruce Baird,Sr.Vice President 700 South. This complex will be located next door to Safe Haven, which is a
First Security Bank of Utah,N.A. shelter for mentally ill homeless individuals, and will be called Safe Haven II.
President-Elect
William J.Murray,Consultant
Real Estate Advisory Service Most of the individuals who will live in these units will have the very lowest
Treasurer income(approximately $530 per month will be the probable high income) and
G.Gail Weggland
Retired Attorney little if any credit history. Clean background checks will also probably be
Secretary unavailable; therefore, we will need as much flexibility as possible on the rents
Julia Reagan and we would not be able to qualify this population for Tax Credit units. Our
Salt Lake County Representative
Member-at-Large funding sources are all grants or low-interest deferred loans.
Bruce Cummings
Tooele County Representative We are in need of a$75,000 grant from Salt Lake City to be able to finish these
Past President
Reed Searle,General Manager units and serve this very hard to serve population.
Intermountain Power Agency
Board Members A copy of the basic bid is attached with prices for work that will not affect
Judy Ann Buff mire,Ph.D. or be part of new construction.
Legislator
Thomas E.Callanan,Sr.Vice President
Workers'Compensation Fund Please call me at 544-0503 with any questions or if I can supply further
Paul G.Child,Partner information that will help with the positive outcome of this request.
Deloitte and Touche
Jill Hollingshaus
Client Advocate Once again, thank you so much for your support of this much needed housing
Lou Ann B.Jorgenson.Ph.D. project for the very hardest to service and the most in need of our population.
Mental Health Professional
M.Steven Marsden,Attorney
Salt Lake County Representative Sincerely,
Salvador Mendez
Human Services .
Antoine T.Powell,Ed.D.
Summit County Representative
Robin Riggs,Attorney Barbara W. Johnson
Salt Lake County Representative Consultant
Cherry Silver,Ph.D.
Educator
David J.Spafford
Children's Advocate
•
T.
CV
BID FOR: SAFE HAVEN II�..` . CD
BIDS DUE NJ
19,Apr-Apr N
`om
LOCATION: SALT ^'
. • , LAKE CITY UTAH 16:00
11:37:24 AM
OVERHEAD/FEE SUB-TOTAL FIXED BOND GRAND TOTALS cn
$10,006,40 $125,080 $1,250.80 , $136,337 8.00%!
SITE COST FOR S!G_OQO. s S LIB CONTRACT MATERIAL LABOR ESTIMATEci
`� PROJECT� m
SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL SUB-TOTAL SUB TOTA#. m
SUB-TOTAL
4'cu S12 ,oso
o - $0 SO 30 $125,080cn
m
1 2 3 4 5
L CSI DESCRIPTION SUBCONTRACT MATERIALS LABOR ESTIMATE FIRM
Q
`£ 01000 DNIS[UN 1 GENERAL REQU)REMENTS $12,500 ! :EVERGREENE COhf$TRUGTION
02080 SEWER UN $14,350 EVERGREENS CONSTRUCTION
02080 WATER LINE $1,700 1EVERGREENE CONSTRUCTION
02080 FIRE WIRE LINE. $4,60U f EVERGREENE CONSTRUCTION
• '02080 POWER LINE $1,800 EVERGREENE CONSTRUCTION
co 02553 NATURAL GAS DISTRIBUTION $1,800 , 4 EVERGREENE CONSTRUCTION 3
m Q2160 LAWN AND SPRNKLERS $7,50D c-'
I1=VEItGREENE CONSTRUCTION �v
E) 02160 PLANTINGS $S,5Dt1 1 EVERGREENS CDNSTRUCTIQN
`o 02300 SITE GRADING $11,750
02511 ~ASPHALT4' EVERGREE ENE CONSTRUCTION
$18,000 EVERGREENE CONSTRUCTION
02751 CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT S9,680 .EVERGREENS CONSTRUCTION
02751 CURS AND CUTTER 55,100 EVERGREENE CONSTRUCTION
02821 COURTYARD FENCES 59,3C30 EVERGREENE CONSTRUCTION
02821 PROPERTY UN FENCE $11,200 I EVERGREENS CONSTRUCTION
ll282i TRASH ENCLOSURE $7,500 I EVERGREEI+IE CONSTRIJGTIOI.1
v
12
G)
m
CO m
_ N.)
m
m !J
N
SAFE HAVEN II BUDGET
FUNDING SOURCES
Federal LIHTC $626,463
State LIHTC $138,204
HUD Grant $400,000
FHLB Grant $165,600
Salt Lake County HOME $255,000 0%, 30 year C.F. Loan
Olene Walker Loan $200,000 2%, 30 year loan
Salt Lake City CDBG Grant $75,000
Valley Mental Health Contribution $63,750
Valley Foundation $150,000
ct
TOTAL $2,074,017
USE OF FUNDS AMOUNT
Purchase of Land $390,000
Site Development/Construction $1,284,717
co VMH Adm $183,500
Architect/Engineer $100,800
Construction Loan & Fees $115,000
TOTAL $2,074,017
.-I
N
m
N
N
lf)
m 5/7IO2 AimeeBNafley Horizons(Safe Haven II Sources and Uses
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 11, 2002
TO: Council Members
FROM: Gary Mumford
RE: INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR JOINT FUNDING OF
STORMWATER EDUCATION MEDIA CAMPAIGN
Salt Lake City has contributed$13,000 during each of the past six years toward a joint
stormwater pollution awareness campaign. Beside Salt Lake City, participants in this year's
campaign are Salt Lake County($50,000),West Valley City($8,000), Salt Lake Valley Health
Department($5,000), and the Utah Department of Transportation($5,000).
Education of the public regarding the prevention of pollution in the stormwater system may help
reduce the cost of treatment required of stormwater discharged. Residents may unknowingly
hamper the stormwater treatment efforts that the Department of Public Utilities undertakes. For
example, a resident may use excessive amounts of fertilizer or weed spray, or may spread used
oil along a fence line or bury oil not realizing that some of these pollutants may eventually make
it into the stormwater system.
The County will be responsible for administering the$81,000 education campaign. Salt Lake
City's contribution is proposed to be used this year as follows:
• $5,778 for television advertising
• $4,975 for newspaper advertising
• $ 449 for movie theater advertising
• $1,605 for activity book reprint
• $ 193 for leave behinds(handouts/flyers)
Participation by Salt Lake City in the County's 2002 media campaign will also help the City
maintain a permit for discharging stormwater. Part of the permit process is to indicate steps that
the City has taken to minimize water pollution. A budget for Salt Lake City's portion of the
campaign is included in appropriations within the City's Stormwater enterprise fund.
cc: Rocky Fluhart,David Nimkin,LeRoy Hooton,Jeff Niermeyer,DJ Baxter
JUJN 0 4 2CO2
C�V i i�aJ OBIT�7J�i i�o
LEROY W. HOOTON, JR. ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON
DIRECTOR 1�7 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES MAYOR
- "- WATER SUPPLY AND WATERWORKS
WATER RECLAMATION AND STORMWATER
COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
Ci ir))
To: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Office March 14, 2002
RE: Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt
Lake County for the Cost Share—2002 UPDES Media Campaign.
Recommendation: That the Council approve the attached agreement and forward to the
Mayor for execution on behalf of the City.
Availability of Funds: 2001/2002 Budget.
Discussion: This agreement is for joint funding of the County's 2002 storm water
education media campaign. The purpose of the campaign is to educate the public and
increase their awareness about storm water pollution. The City will pay $13,000.00 for
their share of the campaign. This agreement will remain in force for one year from the
date of execution.
Contact Person: Jeff Niermeyer at 483-6785.
Submitted By:
LeRoy W. oton, Jr.
Director
slp
Attachments
cc: File
1 530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84115
TELEPHONE: B01-4133.6900 FAX: B01-4S3-681B
LEROY W. HOOTON, JR. � t\ 'exam �Y/CO
1P0 Ar II�®�'+� ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDE
ill
DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES MAYOR
WATER SUPPLY AND WATERWORKS
WATER RECLAMATION AND STORMWATER
March 14, 2002
Mayor Ross C. "Rocky"Anderson
451 South State, Room 306
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Dear Mayor Anderson:
Please find attached an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City and Salt
Lake County.
The purpose of this agreement is for cost sharing in the 2002 UPDES media campaign for
the purpose of increasing public awareness about storm water pollution and prevention of
storm water pollution. The City's share of the campaign will be $13,000.00.
I recommend the agreement be approved by you and the City Recorder on behalf of Salt
Lake City Corporation and that all four(4) copies of the agreement be returned to this
office for further processing.
Very truly yours,
a � Li.
LeRoy W. ooton, Jr.
Director
slp
Attachments
cc: File
1 530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE,SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 5
TELEPHONE: 801-483-6900 FAX:S01-483-6818
•
RESOLUTION OF 2002
AUTHORIZING THE APPROVAL OF AN
INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT
BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
AND
SALT LAKE COUNTY
WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13, U.C.A., 1953, as amended, allows
public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint under-
takings and services; and
WHEREAS, the attached agreement has been prepared to accomplish
said purposes;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake
City, Utah:
1. It does hereby approved the form and substance of the attached
agreement as follows:
Cost sharing in the 2002 UPDES media campaign for the purpose of
increasing awareness about storm water pollution and prevention.
2. Ross C. Anderson, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby
authorized to approve said agreement on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation,
subject to any minor changes which do not materially affect the rights and
obligations of the City thereunder.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this
day of , 2002.
SALT LAKE CITY COUNTIL
BY
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO F-07:`.1
Se:t La's Ciiy At,omey's O:iic3
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER 3 (2-1162 -
RLM:rc/lka CL:t- Cw • tag
County Contract No.PV1007C
D.A. No. 2002-270
AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO
INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
SALT LAKE CITY AND SALT LAKE COUNTY
FOR
COST SHARING
2002 UPDES MEDIA CAMPAIGN
THIS AMENDMENT is made this day of , 2002,by and
between SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a municipal corporation of the State of Utah,
hereinafter"City," and SALT LAKE COUNTY, a body corporate and politic of the State of
Utah,hereinafter"County," to that Agreement,named above,made the 8th day of May, 2001.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS,the parties are public agencies and are therefore authorized by the Utah
Interlocal Cooperation Act, section 11-13-1, et seq.,U.C.A.,to enter into agreements with each
other which will enable them to make the most efficient use of their powers; and,
WHEREAS,in connection with the UPDES permitting process,the parties desire to
extend the term of the above-named Agreement and cooperate with each other in funding a 2002
multi-media campaign,hereinafter"campaign," for the purpose of increasing public awareness
about storm water pollution and educating the public about the prevention of storm water
pollution in the City and the County; and,
WHEREAS, the parties desire to enter into this Amendment whereby their respective
responsibilities concerning the 2002 campaign are specifically set forth;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein,the parties
agree as follows:
1. The County has obtained the services of a consultant and has developed a plan for
the 2002 campaign.
2. The proposed budget for the 2002 campaign is$81,000.00, and includes the
components and funding shown on Exhibit A which is incorporated as part of this agreement.
3. The County shall be responsible for all matters pertaining to administering the
campaign and the consultant's contract, and shall further be responsible for providing all funds
necessary to complete the campaign over and above the sum to be provided by the City as set
forth in paragraph 4 below.
4. The City shall pay to the County the sum of$13,000.00 as the City's share of the
costs of funding the 2002 phase of the campaign. Such payment shall be made within thirty(30)
days after execution of this Amendment by the parties.
5. The duration of the original Agreement shall be extended for one additional year.
This agreement may be terminated by either party upon thirty(30)days written notice to the other
party, in which event an accounting will be made of all funds not spent or encumbered as of the
date of termination.
6. Except as specifically modified herein, all other provisions of the original
Agreement shall remain in effect and be equally applicable to this Amendment.
7. REPRESENTATION REGARDING ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR CITY
OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES AND FORMER CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES. The.
bidder, offeror,or contractor represents that it has not: (1)provided an illegal gift or payoff to a
2
City officer or employee or former City officer or employee, or his or her relative or business
entity; (2)retained any person to solicit or secure this contract upon an agreement or
understanding for a commission,percentage,brokerage or contingent fee, other than bona fide
employees or bona fide commercial selling agencies for the purpose of securing business; (3)
knowingly breached any of the ethical standards set forth in the City's conflict of interest
ordinance, Chapter 2.44, Salt Lake City Code; or(4)knowingly influenced, and hereby promises
that it will not knowingly influence, a City officer or employee or former City officer or
employee to breach any of the ethical standards set forth in the City's conflict of interest
ordinance, Chapter 2.44, Salt Lake City Code.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties execute this agreement on the day and year first set
forth above.
SALT LAKE COUNTY
ATTEST:
By
Mayor or Designee
Salt Lake County Clerk
Approved as to form and legality
istri t ttorney
ate: 2 /1/ay 2O62
3
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
ATTEST:
By
Mayor
City Recorder
Approved as to form and legality
City Attorney
Date:
rt.wps.wpeks.s!cupaes2002 jht
4
Year 2002
Exhibit A
•
SALT LAKE COUNTY STORMWATER COALITION
PUBLIC INFORMATION/EDUCATION
2002 PROGRAM
• SL Co. UDOT SLVHD SLC WVC TOTAL
• TV Advertising $22,222 $2,222 $2,222 $5,778 $3,556 $36,000
Tabloid • _ $8,025 $802 $802 $2,086 $1,284 $13,000
Insert/Advertisement • $11,111 $1,111 $1,111 $2,889 $1,778 $18,000
Movie Theater Advert. $1,728 $173 $173 $449 $277 $2,800
Activity Book Reprint : $6,173 $617 $617 $1,605 $988 $10,000
Leave Behinds $741 $74 $74 $193 $119 $1,200
TOTAL* • $50,000 $5,000 $5,000 $13,000 $8,000 $81,000
*Note: Values may not equal 100% due to rounding
pie2002.123-rev012302
• r
• t