The URL can be used to link to this page

06/06/1989 - Minutes (2) PROCEL•'DINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITT, UTAH TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 1989 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met as the Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, June 6, 1989, at 5:00 p.m. in Suite 325, City County Building, 451 South State Street. The following Councilmembers were present: Florence Bittner Alan Hardman Roselyn Kirk Wayne Horrocks Tom Godfrey Willie Stoler Sydney Fonnesbeck Council Chair Stoler presided at the meeting. The Council interviewed James Councilmember Bittner said she Stewart prior to consideration of wanted the Council to have the his appointment to the Central information early enough to be a Business Improvement District. part of the decision process. Mr. Stewart said he began his Mayor DePaulis said the bid would banking career in Kansas City, be a joint effort between the Kansas, later moved to Idaho, and cities and the state, but with then to Utah. He said he was Salt Lake as the contract signer concerned about parking and trans- they would take the lead. portation downtown and in keeping the downtown area viable. He said Councilmember Hardman asked for an he had attended some CBID meetings explanation of the interlocal and looked forward to serving on agreement concerning water from the Board. the Spiro Tunnel. LeRoy Hooton, Director of Public Utilities, said Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive they had renegotiated with Park Director, reviewed a memo from City because Park City didn' t ever James Hall, Staff Assistant, use the Spiro Tunnel water under regarding invitations received by the old agreement, holding that the Council for various events and the price was too high. He said asked that RSVP' s be given direct- that under the new agreement Park ly to Mr. Hall. City would be allowed to take 1000 acre feet per year at a lower Mayor DePaulis asked if the Coun- price. cil wanted a full briefing on the Olympic Bid meetings in Des The Council asked for more infor- Moines, Iowa, and said he and Tom mation on the California Avenue Welch, Olympic Bid Committee Special Improvement District Chair, would be willing to meet (SID) . Mr. Hooton said the SID with them and review the meetings would expand the system to accom- and the next steps in the process. modate water from the Central Utah Councilmember Bittner asked what Project, and the new pipeline in the next step in the bid process the Northwest Quadrant needed to was, and Mayor DePaulis said the be in place before the SID work Committee would be compiling a could begin. He said the work schedule outlining the steps would be paid for when Sandy City involved in getting the referendum joined the Metropolitan Water ready, and the steps toward the District, but if Sandy did not international bid if the referen- join, the city had until 1993 to dum was approved by the voters. pay off the project. He said the 89-152 PROC-INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI , UTAH TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 1989 project would not be funded by the Councilmember Bittner asked why water rate increase. the E911 fund didn' t show a defi- cit, and Steve Fawcett, Budget Ms. Gust-Jenson said the original Analyst, said that the money for staff recommendation regarding the E911 system start-up costs Item E2, lost, abandoned or came from cities who contracted unclaimed bicycles, was to refer with Salt Lake for dispatch ser- it to the consent agenda, but vices. He said the money from the concerns had been raised whereby E911 phone surcharge was now the Council might want to schedule available for operating costs. it for a Committee of the Whole discussion. Councilmember Stoler Council Chair Stoler indicated said he was afraid that if all the that because of the time problem, bicycles were given to charity the any further questions should be lower income kids wouldn't be able asked during the public hearing. to buy the bikes through the police auction, and for some chil- dren that was the only way they could buy their own bike. Coun- cilmember Godfrey agreed and felt it should be scheduled for a Committee discussion. Ms. Gust-Jenson said the changes to Item Fl, the DeSantis petition, were more complicated than first believed. She suggested that it be referred back to Planning for further study. Mayor DePaulis and Linda Hamilton, Director of Finance, reviewed a letter to the Council outlining possible budget cuts to fund the gap between budgeted personnel costs and the current offer being considered in negotiations with the employee unions. Ms. Hamilton said the deficit was being met by tax revenues which were higher than anticipated, and by one time money in various departments due to projects coming in under bud- get. Councilmember Bittner asked how close the tax revenue projections were, and Ms. Hamilton said they had not received the figures from the County yet. She said the margin of error this year was only $200,000 on an $80 million budget. 89-153 PROCARINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIO', UTAH TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 1989 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in regular session on Tuesday, June 6, 1989, at 6:00 p.m. in Room 315, Council Chambers, City County Building, 451 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, Lynda Domino, Chief Deputy City Recorder, and LaNita Brown, Deputy Recorder, were present. Council Chair Stoler presided at the meeting and Councilmember Godfrey conducted the meeting. OPENING CEREMONIES America in the bid for the 1998 Olympics. He said the Olympics #1. The invocation was given Committee was impressed that Utah by Police Chaplain Roger Bastian. had held many national and olympic events and the Special Olympics #2. The Council led the was a fine example of one of them Pledge of Allegiance. and was a credit to the state. #3. Councilmember Kirk B. L. Smith, representing the moved and Councilmember Bittner Police Department, said the Law seconded to approve the minutes of Enforcement Torch Run for Special the Salt Lake City Council for the Olympics would be held Saturday, regular meetings held Tuesday, May June 10th to raise money for the 16, 1989, Tuesday, May 23, 1989, special olympians, as there were Thursday, May 25, 1989, and over 650 in Salt Lake City. He Wednesday, May 31, 1989, which said the torch run was now held in motion carried, all members voted 80 countries. Sherrill Scowe, aye. representing the Special Olympics (M 89-1) Committee, said the Special Olym- pics were now 20 years old. She #4a. RE: Councilmember said they started with five ath- Stoler read a resolution honoring letes and now had over 3,000 who police officers and other partici- trained weekly for competition in pants in the Special Olympics. eight different sports. She said the summer games were just one of ACTION: Councilmember Stoler their competitions during the moved and Councilmember Kirk year and they were run exclusively seconded to adopt Resolution 71 of by volunteers. She said they 1989, honoring the Special Olym- were expecting 5, 000 volunteers pics, which motion carried, all for the summer games and this was members voted aye. another factor that made Utah such a great state. She invited every- DISCUSSION: Mayor DePaulis one to join them on Saturday for said he had just returned from Des the kick off of the torch run. Moines, Iowa, where Salt Lake City (R 89-1) had been chosen to represent 89-154 PROCEOINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI , UTAH TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 1989 #4b. RE: Councilmember liaison officer. He said that Hardman read a joint resolution communication was a big factor in proclaiming the week of June 5, processes like this and Kerri 1989, as UTAH OLYMPICS WEEK in could inform the people who would Salt Lake City. be involved. ACTION: Councilmember Hard- man moved and Councilmember Fon- CONSENT AGENDA nesbeck seconded to adopt Resolu- tion 72 of 1989, which motion Councilmember Kirk moved and carried, all members voted aye. Councilmember Hardman seconded to (R 89-1) approve the consent agenda, which motion carried, all members voted aye. COMMENTS #1. RE: Adopting Resolution Councilmember Fonnesbeck said 73 of 1989, authorizing the execu- a film company had been in the tion of an interlocal agreement Avenues filming a movie and she with Salt Lake County and the had received many calls from United States Department of Agri- people who were being kept awake culture adding additional monitor- at night by the noise and associ- ing stations to facilitate analy- ated problems of the filming. She sis of water quality in Wasatch invited Leigh von der Esch, Direc- Front Canyons. tor of the Utah Film Commission, (C 88-375) to address the Council regarding the problem. #2. RE: Adopting Resolution 74 of 1989, authorizing the execu- Ms. von der Esch said film tion of an interlocal agreement companies were finding Salt Lake with the Utah Department of Trans- City to be a desirable place to portation for UDOT to perform make films because of the neigh- various viscosity and other tests borhoods, the international air- for the city. port, and a cosmopolitan downtown (C 89-288) area. She said some of the prob- lems associated with filming were #3. RE: Adopting Resolution caused by an increased number of 75 of 1989, authorizing the execu- spectators and the company cur- tion of an interlocal agreement rently filming in the avenues had with Salt Lake County for instal- hired security officers so they lation of an 18-inch sanitary were aware of the problems and sewer pipeline under the Surplus were trying to so something about Canal. them. She felt one solution would (C 89-289) be for the city to appoint a film liaison officer to work with her #4. RE: Adopting Resolution office and receive information 76 of 1989, authorizing the execu- regarding the filming schedules tion of an interlocal agreement and potential problems. She said with Salt Lake County to have the this had proved helpful in other Salt Lake City Fire Department cities. provide fire and medical dispatch services to the unincorporated Mayor DePaulis said he would areas of Salt Lake County. like to appoint Kerri Christensen (C 89-291) to fill the position of film 89-155 PROCJIINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI , UTAH TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 1989 #5. RE: Adopting Resolution NEW COUNCIL BUSINESS 77 of 1989, authorizing the execu- tion of an interlocal agreement #1. RE: A motion reducing with Park City amending the agree- the 14th year Community Develop- ment of January 29, 1980 pertain- ment Block Grant (CDBG) fund ing to city water emanating from contingency by $1, 200 to $61,084, Spiro Tunnel. and increasing the 14th year CDBG (C 89-290) fund Westside Senior Citizen Handrail project from $0 to #6. RE: Adopting Resolution $1, 200. 78 of 1989, authorizing the execu- tion of an interlocal agreement ACTION: Councilmember Kirk with the Utah Department of Trans- moved and Councilmember Bittner portation for UDOT to perform seconded to suspend the rules and machine calibration and materials adopt the motion on first reading, tests for the city. which motion carried, all members (C 89-263) voted aye. (T 89-11) #7. RE: Adopting Resolution 79 of 1989, authorizing the execu- #2. RE: An ordinance amend- tion of an interlocal agreement ing Title 2, Chapter 10, Section with the U. S. Department of 020 of the Salt Lake City Code, Housing and Urban Development to 1988, relating to lost, abandoned, provide $221,000 in Rental Reha- or unclaimed property (bicycles) bilitation Program funds for the by adding a new subsection D and 1989-90 fiscal year. re-lettering and amending former (C 89-294) subsection D to subsection E. #8. RE: Adopting Resolution ACTION: Without objection 80 of 1989, authorizing the execu- this item was referred to Commit- tion of an interlocal agreement tee of the Whole. with Salt Lake County for an (0 89-26) easement for a city utility pipe- line. (C 89-293) UNFINISHED BUSINESS #9. RE: Adopting Resolution #1. RE: An ordinance amend- 81 of 1989, authorizing the execu- ing Section 21.78.130, pursuant to tion of an interlocal agreement Petition 400-708 submitted by with West Jordan for the condi- David DeSantis requesting that the tional sale to West Jordan of a city allow for-profit organi- 1967 fire truck. zations to operate private recre- (C 89-292) ation facilities in residential districts. #10. RE: Adopting Resolution 82 of 1989, authorizing the execu- ACTION: Councilmember Bitt- tion of an interlocal agreement ner moved and Councilmember with the Metropolitan Water Dis- Horrocks seconded to refer this trict of Salt Lake City for the item to the Planning Commission construction of a pipeline within for recommendation, which motion the Northwest Quadrant. carried, all members voted aye. (C 89-295) (P 89-93) 89-156 PROC INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI , UTAH TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 1989 #2. RE: A resolution creat- in the park's department so the ing California Avenue Special remaining contingency fund plus Improvement District No. 38-808, savings generated in the fleet as described in the Notice of maintenance budget of police, was Intention, with additions of being budgeted to cover $32,000 properties and improvements as for the park' s water costs; 3) requested by certain property fleet maintenance determined they owners, and authorizing city would have a surplus of $50, 710 officials to proceed to make from police charges, and of this improvements as set forth in the amount $46, 610 would cover inter- Notice of Intention to create the est expense and $4, 100 would cover district. park's water; 4) $242,000 would be generated by additional sales tax ACTION: Councilmember Kirk and transferred to non-departmen- moved and Councilmember Bittner tal, then to risk management to seconded to adopt Resolution 70 of cover a deficit in PEHP health 1989, creating the district, which insurance premiums; and 5) public motion carried, all members voted works was requesting $136, 930 to aye. purchase needed materials and (Q 89-2) manpower to complete road work necessary because of the harsh winter, of which $49, 930 would PUBLIC HEARINGS come from the state for work done by the city, and $87, 000 from #1 RE: A public hearing at Class 'C' road funds. 6:20 p.m. to obtain comment con- cerning proposed amendments to the Mr. Fawcett said the change Fiscal Year 1988-89 budgets, and to the Public Utilities Enterprise consider adopting the ordinance Fund was because they were re- related thereto. questing $725,000 from water sales to complete a water conduit ACTION: Councilmember Kirk project on California Avenue and moved and Councilmember Stoler to purchase additional water. Of seconded to close the public these funds $475, 000 would be hearing, which motion carried, all appropriated for the construction members voted aye. and $250,000 for additional water purchases. Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded Mr. Fawcett said the only to adopt Ordinance 30 of 1989, item under the Capital Improvement amending the 1988-89 budget, which Fund was the Public Works request motion carried, all members voted of $377, 500. He said $86, 500 would aye. be appropriated from Class 'C' road funds for the California DISCUSSION: Steve Fawcett, Avenue project to cover additional Budget Manager, explained the costs of railroad relocation. He changes in the General Fund as also said $145,000 would be appro- follows: 1 ) $46, 610 was addition- priated from property owner as- ally budgeted for the cost of sessments, and $121, 000 of addi- interest expense, as interest tional RDA funds would be used to rates had risen slightly more than expand the CBD Beautification the rates budgeted for; 2) the project. He said $53, 406 of contingency budget included an project funds currently for 1700 amount for additional water costs South, State to Jordan River would 89-157 PROCENGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 1989 be shifted to the 1300 South, had already been budgeted and State to 500 West project to allow spent but if cash income had been payment for additional land costs generated into their budget it brought about by legal judgment needed to go through the bud- against the city in favor of the geting process to maintain a land owner. The engineering control on appropriating funds. division felt that sufficient He said the Council needed to be funds would remain in the 1700 aware of all income received and South project to complete it. He the purposes for which it was said that $25, 000 of UDOT funds received. received for providing street lighting on Redwood Road, North Councilmember Bittner asked Temple to 1000 North, would be about the proposed street lighting shifted to the Street Lighting that was being budgeted, and Mr. Capital Replacement account. Fawcett said Tim Harpst, transpor- tation director, had indicated to Mr. Fawcett said the Grant him that the city had an agree- Funds changes were that $125, 000 ment with UDOT to provide street had been received to create an lighting on Redwood Road from Urban Homesteading Program and North Temple to 1000 North which would be appropriated for that was a state road, and that UDOT purpose. He also said $148, 720 of would provide the $25,000 to program income had been received; complete it. He said the money $147, 695 from RDA and $1, 025 from was being placed in the CIP fund Capitol Hill, and these funds since they were anticipating that would be appropriated back to the project might take place in them, late fiscal 88/89 or early 89/90 so they were trying to preserve Mr. Fawcett said that under the money received in case the Special Revenue Funds the demoli- funds needed to be extended past tion fund had received unbudgeted June 30th. revenue of $3, 900 and they were requesting to use this amount and Councilmember Bittner asked $2, 100, for a total of $6,000, to if there had been an appropriation cover the cost of demolishing two to replace the $50,000 for the buildings. He said the fire Riverside Park project. She said department was requesting $10, 000 that last year in the budget of funds received from Salt Lake negotiations $50, 000 had been County for E911 dispatch services taken from the Riverside project to begin operation of this pro- with the understanding that it gram. would be replaced this year and it had not been. Mayor DePaulis said Councilmember Stoler ques- he thought the project had been tioned why public works was re- fully funded. Ms. Gust-Jensen ceiving $49, 930 from the state. said the scope of the intended Mayor DePaulis said the city and project had been reduced. She state often exchanged man-hours or said her staff was currently machines needed during emergencies trying to find another way to fund and would pay for those services. it and were working with Capital Councilmember Hardman asked why Planning for this purpose. Coun- they needed to report those cilmember Bittner said she did not amounts as revenue if they were want to approve expending all the just being reimbursed for basic funds for the amended budget costs. Mr. Cutler said the money without being assured of replace- 89-158 PROCARINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIl, UTAH TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 1989 ment of $50, 000 to the Riverside DISCUSSION: Allen McCand- Park funds, and if there were no less, planning division, addressed other funds available, that they the Council saying the floodplain reduce the $242,000 being appro- ordinance had been reviewed and priated to cover a deficit in PEHP approved by the Planning Commis- health insurance to allow it. sion on March 9th. He said Plan- Councilmember Kirk said $50,000 of ning had been contacted by Doug funds for the Sunnyside Recreation Gore of the Federal Emergency Center had also not been replaced. Management Agency who said that Councilmember Godfrey said that the city' s existing floodplain when they discussed the issue ordinance needed to be amended for last year it was with the under- the city to continue in the flood standing that if monies were insurance program. He said Sec- available the funds would be tion 18. 68. 100(b) was amended to restored. He said he felt the read as follows: "All new con- funds were not available now as struction and substantial improve- the Mayor was trying to wrap up ments of residential structures this year' s budget in anticipation within the floodplain hazard area of next year's budget and the shall have the lowest floor ( in- labor negotiations that were in cluding basement) , elevated to or progress. above the base flood elevation. " He said people were perhaps build- Mayor DePaulis said they ing below the floodplain in some could not use funds from the areas and the Agency didn't feel $242, 000 because it would not comfortable with the current allow for coverage of the labor wording. He said they also wanted negotiations. He said he was to include the definition of the committing now to assure that the lowest floor, which would include funding for Riverside Park would any basement, storage area, com- be allocated in next year's bud- mercial space, etc. get. No one from the audience No one from the audience addressed the issue. addressed the issue. (0 89-12) (B 88-5) #2 RE: A public hearing at #3 RE: A public hearing at 6:30 p.m. to obtain comment con- 6:40 p.m. to obtain comment con- cerning a proposed ordinance cerning a proposed ordinance amending Salt Lake City's flood- amending, reorganizing, and re- plain ordinance. pealing the ordinances in Title 14, Salt Lake City Code, pertain- ACTION: Councilmember Kirk ing to work in the public way. moved and Councilmember Hardman seconded to close the public ACTION: Councilmember Kirk hearing, which motion carried, all moved and Councilmember Bittner members voted aye. seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all Councilmember Kirk moved and members voted aye. Councilmember Bittner seconded to adopt Ordinance 31 of 1989, amend- Councilmember Horrocks moved ing the floodplain ordinance, and Councilmember Kirk seconded which motion carried, all members to adopt Ordinance 32 of 1989, voted aye. amending Title 14 regarding work 89-159 PROCIINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI P, UTAH TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 1989 in the public way, which motion carried, all members voted aye. DISCUSSION: Rick Johnston, engineering division, addressed the Council saying the ordinance would make changes to permit fees No one from the audience for digging in the public way by addressed the issue. increasing permit fees between 10 (0 89-25) and 15%. The ordinance offered an incentive to those who had to dig The meeting adjourned at 7:20 in the public way and performed p.m. quality work, where they would receive a reduced rate in the future. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if all the people who would be affected by the ordinance had been notified, and Mr. Johnston said they had held discussions with the utility companies and / reviewed their concerns then made CO NCIL CHA changes based on their concerns. Councilmember Horrocks asked if the ordinance made reference to the fact that it was unlawful to place snow removed from private property in the public way and , parking strips along the sidewalks ("8-awere considered the public way. i�� Councilmember Fonnesbeck mentioned C4T �'D R that parking strips were public property but not considered a public way like a street. Mr. Johnston said the intent of the change was to alleviate the prob- lem of people pushing snow from private parking lots into the street, as was the case during the previous harsh winter. 89-160 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ",v Q ye - N\a 1fl Tb0i1/) U" +�'r1 toy CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER e\cr- &P O l V 1 G\ry , ��Gua G�l CITY & COUNTY BUILDING, 315- r !woo 451 SOUTH STATE STREET �n�� O � \ ' Tuesday, June 6, 1989a v � � 6:00 p.m. C A. BRIEFIN_G.SESSION: 5:00 - 5:55 p.m. , City Council Conference Room, 325. 1. Report of the Executive Di rector./``,,`'r ej�u' cv,�" N\V V ., rI\Q ' � J U)� �1 B. OPENING CEREMONIES: ' 1. Invocation. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Approval of the Minutes. O Q The City Council and Mayor will present a rp_soliition honoring police officers and other participants in the Special Olympics. ko,w(e..' .. Akk 1. Questions to the Mayor from the City Council.- 2. Citizen Comments to the Council. - PA i '," ' r ,, i' -'' ' ' f - . �j ��Q 14jOry.D, '1J� ' CONSENT:1-CInterlocal Cooperation Agreement - Water Quality Testing. - til201 ei°k) i° kConsider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation, Salt Lake County (A ""q,�_ G and the United States Department of Agriculture adding additional monitoring ?\v A(/� stations to facilitate analysis of water quality in Wasatch Front canyons. Dy0Piv: � �C 88-375) if, a,cop. d . iS yi 0 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt. M {C..JJJ V2. Interlocal Cooperation Agreement - Salt Lake Airport_- Materials Testing. t 01 11/D Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution of an Interlocal $,(e(t n I,t Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Utah p1v Department of Transportation Materials and Research for UDOT to perform D � various viscosity and other tests for the City. „^ ' gitto. V` 1 r,,,470° STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt. QL ,T �'1 Interlocal Cooperation Agreement - Sanitary Sewer Extension. Le 1� � 1� �N"' �vonsider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution of an Interlocal .1( 4L 01. \K�Q�(��Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake �/��,n 0 County for the installation of an 18-inch sanita sewer i line under the �'��061 J��Q`� '�Q,� Sprplus Canal. (V4 v30" p" 1 C \V V' Ni-0 p , STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt. kk(C\ �Q v1 6 \,) 0 `cm-9-,A0.(1, i\ 60- .0 \'° .k0 0\ k)%(\54/.1\ V P Operlin`\-- \de -1 sW CoC AO 4, \I\L 0- ilos 10"Maw `(\ 0 '', (;1/�1 \I) , 0 -4- D. CONSENT Cont 4. Inter local Cooperation Agreement _ Salt Lake Count Fire Dispatch._ Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the unincorporated areas of Salt Lake County for the Salt Lake City Fire Department to provide fire and medical dispatch calls. (C 89-291 ) -UpCiakC.5 C145fir15 agrefne 1t oio Fnk' STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt. 5. Interlocal Cooperation Agreement - Park Cif. Vflt,i Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Park City amending the parties' agreement of January 29, 1980, pertaining to City water emanating from Spiro Tunnel. ',A, / `+ � rnii('C�1� • (C 89-290) d a ' 1At_ tuct-Cr .t do Kw( 'Qo STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt. 6. Interlocal Cooperation Agreement - UDOT - Machine Calibration. Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Utah Department of Transportation for UDOT to perform machine calibration and materials tests for the City. “/S � (C 89-263) re\�`' STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt. � (�SV \� 7. Grant Agreement - HUD - Rental Rehabilitation Grant. -- Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution of a Grant Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development providing $221,000 in Rental Rehabilitation Program funds for the 1989-90 fiscal (C 89-294) CIS (J51 0 ^ Weti STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt. Volo 8. Interlocal Cooperation Agreement - Salt Lake County _ Pipeline. Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County for an easement for a City utility pipeline. 0,10 , 1' L/aIO X1J1L (C 89-293) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt. 9. Interlocal Cooperation Agreement - West Jordan City - Fire Truck. Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and West Jordan City for the conditional sale to West Jordan of a 1967 fire truck. (C 89-292) l ,63 -f u k - a,� STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt. 1 v' 5p i t ) paintai►%1 lJh d( D. CONSENT Cont 10. Interlocal Cooperation Agreement - Metropolitan Water District -A-AI Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City for the construction of a pipeline within the Northwest Quadrant. (C 89-295) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt. E. NEW COUNCIL BUSINESS: 1. Community Development Block Grant Fund Amendment - Westside Senior Center. Consider adopting a motion reducing the 14th year Community Development Block Grant fund contingency by $1, 200 to $61,084 and increasing the 14th year Community Development Grant fund Westside Senior Citizen Handrail project from $0 to $1, 200. (T 89-11) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Suspend Rules; Adopt on First Reading. 2. Lost,Abandoned or Unclaimed Bicycles. Consider adopting an ordinance amending Title 2, Chapter 10, Section 020 of the Salt Lake City Code, 1988, relating to lost abandoned or unclaimed property by adding a new subsection D and re-lettering and amending former W subsection D to subsection E. ZaothUhS Per {-or- STAFF RECOMMENDATION: . Refer to �fr 6- ` [Q4 bla Turf- T16sea cr6.10arre • F. UNFINISHED COUNCIL BUSINESS^ a(l WI III ft I 1. Petition No. 400-708 - David DeSantis. - (1Jf+aiU- Consider adopting an ordinance amending Section 21.78. 130, pursuant to Petition No. 400-708 submitted by David DeSantis, requesting the City allow for-profit organizations to operate private recreation facilities in residential districts. (P 89-93) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Refer to Planning for Recommendattio_n_ 2. Special Improvement District No. 38-808 - California Avenue. lL� �U6SI Consider adopting a resolution creating Salt Lake City California Avenue Special Improvement District No. 38-808, as described in the Notice of Intention, with additions of properties and improvements as requested by certain property owners and authorizing the City officials to proceed to make improvements as set forth in the Notice of Intention to create the district. (Q 89-2) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt. },`„,n1l G. PUBLIC_HEARINGS:- GI,I 1. Budget Amendment No. 5. 6: 20 p.m. Obtain public comment concerning proposed amendments to the Fiscal Year 1988-89 budgets, and consider adopting thef ordinance relating thereto. /] (B 88-5) mc�Q '" t adDpi ( \ oidnilxc OrregaiN STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Close Hearing and Adopt. 2. Floodplain Ordinance. 6:30 p.m.-- --- wI\ V1(l411c 7 Obtain public comment concerning a proposed ordinance amending Salt Lake City"s Floodplain Ordinance. (0 89-12) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Close Hearing and Adopt. 3. Work Jo , ay.- 474l Obtain public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending, reorganizing and repealing the ordinances in Title 14, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to work in the public way. (0 89-25) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Close Hearing and Adopt. H. ADJOURNMENT. ** FINAL ACTION MAY BE TAKEN AND/OR ORDINANCES ADOPTED CONCERNING ANY ITEM ON THIS AGENDA DATED: June 2, 1989 BY: COWL) CHIEF DEPUTY CITY E RDER STATE OF UTAH COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) ss. On the 2nd day of June, 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 the City & County Building, 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah: 1. At 5:00 p.m. in the City Recorder's Office, Room 415; and 2. At 5:00 p.m. in the Newsroom, Room 343. CHIEF DEPUTY CITY ER Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2nd day of June, 1989. GDIthe.41 Notary PublAc Li siding in the State of Utah My Commission Expires: JJ APPROVAL: ( f- 2L2 i -- - EXECUTWE DIRECTOR ) - .,_ _ :. �r u� 1�. 1 1, .1_ • L4 i P j 3 _' 1 i _ . L;i egos L4�trt ( ., n f A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE i - `a CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR OF - } SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH '4 ti WHEREAS, Across America law enforcement officers have devoted countless hours in supporting the Special Olympics; and = O WHEREAS, Law enforcement officers around the globe have generated nearly t: three million dollars this year to host the games in a professional '.a manner; and Ey S WHEREAS, The City of Salt Lake and all of its citizens should consider _) it a great honor to participate in the Special Olympics and should seize the opportunity to express that we care about those who are less fotunate; and WHEREAS, On June 5 through June 7, 1989, law enforcement officers will depart from Logan, Wendover, Vernal, St. George, and Moab running 2.) with the Special Olympics torch; and P WHEREAS, On June 7, runners will deliver a torch from Logan and pass through • Salt Lake City arriving at Brigham Young University's Track and 0 Field stadium on June 8, for the opening of the Special Olympics - Games; and _ WHEREAS, It is important that the residents of Salt Lake City set aside time to honor the 1,500 Utah athletes who will participate in the Special Olympics and all the police officers who are partici- pating in this great event. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council and Mayor Palmer DePaulis - t.; to commend the police officers who are giving of their time and talents to participate in this long run; to commend the Special '0 Olympics athletes; and to encourage the citizens of Salt Lake City to join the police officers in supporting the Special Olympics. _ DATED this 6th day of June, 1989. Palmer A. DePaulis, Mayor W. M. "Willie" Stoler, Chair Horence B. Bittner L. Wayne Horrocks Sydney R. Fonnesbeck Alan G. Hardman = lom Godfrey Roselyn N. Kirk = =a ._ ___. _ t_ _ .-- l7Cf - 1 ..J( _i-'+:L0:1_7i.':''P.l.; 2CL-_.L.'..;L•J l''.�. _ .. :'. LEROY W. HOOTON, JR. DIRECTOR - t^ WENDELL E. EVENSEN, RE. . WATER SUPPLYR &E WATERWORKS � , } �r �� 0 F� ` ��O� E. EIM DOXEY SUPERINTENDENT DEPARTMENT'OF'PUBLIC UTILITIES WATER RECLAMATION WATER SUPPLY'& WATERWORKS JAMES M. LEWIS, C.P.A. WATER 1R ECLAMATION°-` t PALMER DEPAU LIS _ ".�.`r, MAYOR CHIEF FINANCE& 7'T�t'�A�,'�t��,,C� ACCOUNTING OFFICER 1P.T5'QU, {;;1lV.:QS'T ,EMPLE GEORGE JORGENSEN, P.E. SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84115 CHIEF ENGINEER TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: April 28, 1989 RE: Interlocal Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation, Salt Lake City-County Health Department and the United States Forest Service for water quality monitoring in the Wasatch Front Canyons. Recommendation: That the Council approve the agreement and forward to the Mayor for execution in behalf of the City. Availability of Funds: Public Utilities Department account 51- 03200-2328 ($9, 000) . Discussion: Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities has an on-going program of monitoring water quality in the Wasatch Front Canyons in cooperation with the City-County Health Department and the Forest Service. This current amendment of our Interlocal Cooperation Agreement will fund additional storm water monitoring stations in these Wasatch Front Canyons, including Little Cotton- wood Canyon. The results of this storm water monitoring will help established baseline quality conditions in the canyons. Please return all six ( 6 ) agreements to this office to be forwarded to the City-County Health Department for further processing with the United States Forest Service. Submitted by: ,,cLEROY W. HOOTON, R. Director Department of Public ilities WEE:dt Attach: RESOLUTION NO. OF 1989 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, SALT LAKE COUNTY, AND THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13, U.C.A. , 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 of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1 . It does hereby approve the attached agreement generally described as follows: An amendment of an agreement between the City, County and the United States Department of Agriculture adding additional monitoring stations to facilitate analysis of water quality in Wasatch Front canyons. 2. Palmer A. DePaulis, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby authorized to execute said agreement on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation and to act in accordance with its terms . Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989 . SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER RLM:rc INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AMENDMENT This amendment is made and entered into by .and between Salt Lake County, for its Salt Lake City-County Health Department, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY, " and the United States Forest Service, a division of the United States Department of Agriculture, for its Wasatch National Forest, hereinafter referred to as "FOREST, " Salt Lake City Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY, " and the State of Utah, for its Utah State Division of Environmental Health, hereinafter referred to as "STATE HEALTH. " WITNESSET H: WHEREAS, the parties hereto entered into an agreement relating to the collection and analysis of water quality samples in Wasatch Front canyons , a copy of which is attached hereto for reference; and WHEREAS, it has become necessary to amend the original agreement to add monitoring stations and provide for cost sharing/reimbursement for the procurement and operation of automatic data records at various monitoring stations . NOW, THEREFORE, subject agreement is hereby amended as follows : (Additions are indicated by bold face type) . I . Paragraph 1.c. is amended to read as follows : "c . Collect stormwater samples at the following automatic monitoring stations and deliver to City-County Health for selected parameter (Appendix A) analysis: BC-A Big Cottonwood Creek from Parschall flume diversion. BC-B Big Cottonwood Creek at Mule Hollow. BC-C Big Cottonwood Creek at Argenta. BC-D Big Cottonwood Creek below Solitude. BC-E Big Cottonwood at Redman Campground. MC-A Millcreek at Forest Service Boundary. MC-B Millcreek above confluence with Elbow Fork. LC-A Little Cottonwood at Wasatch Boulevard. LC-B Little Cottonwood Below Snowbird. LC-D Little Cottonwood below Alta. LC-E Little Cottonwood at Grizzley Gulch. " II . Paragraph 1.d. is amended to read as follows : "d. Reimburse COUNTY for costs of procurement and operation of automatic data records at monitoring stations, estimated in Appendix C. " III . Paragraph 3 .b. is amended to read as follows : "b. Establish eleven automatic water quality monitoring stations (four in Big Cottonwood, two in Millcreek, four in Little Cottonwood) , consisting of stationary concrete pad, shelter, automatic streamflow gaging and sampling apparatus, in cooperation with City Water and the Forest. " IV. Appendix C is added to read as follows : "APPENDIX C. FLOW-MONITORING PROCUREMENT AND OPERATION: -2- BIG COTTONWOOD CANYON: 3 OMNI-POD DATA TRANSDUCERS @ $2,000 each for Mule Hollow, Silver Fork, and Redman Campground Flow measurement. LITTLE COTTONWOOD CANYON: 3 OMNI-POD DATA TRANSDUCERS @ $2,000 each for Grizzley Gulch, Alta area, and Snowbird area flow measurement. TOTAL COST FOR DATA PODS: $12,000 SALT LAKE CITY SHARE: $ 9,000 SALT LAKE COUNTY SHARE: $ 3,000" V. All other terms and conditions of subject agreement remain in full force and effect . DATED the day and year below the respective signatures . SALT ptAKE COUNTY : ( /N4 1(/://(1 By: i v D. MICHAEL STE RT, Chairman Board of Count ' Commissioners Date: c' / • J f7 ATTEST: HI Salt L ke County Cler (j p/41+) APPROVED AS TO Salt Lake Cosnt,Alton.., O L APPROVED: ;712trn.4 C4 � Guam Au1un^; (ded.).1 /_. • 16 DR. HARRY L. EBBONS Director Salt Lake City-County Health Department Date: z/ /3- -3- SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION By: PALMER DePAULIS, Mayor Date: ATTEST: SALT LAKE CITY RECORDER UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE Wasatch-Cache National Forest By: DALE N. BOSWORTH, Forest Supervisor Date: STATE OF UTAH Department of Health By: Title: Date: -4- STATE OF UTAH ) : ss COUNTY OF SALT LAKE) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1989 , by DALE N. BOSWORTH, who is the Forest Supervisor of the United States Forest Service, Wasatch-Cache National Forest. NOTARY PUBLIC, residing in Salt Lake County, State of Utah (SEAL) My Commission Expires : -5- LAKE >7 Cif• BOARD Elaine B.Weis, Chair PALMER A. DEPAULIS, Mayor Curtis E.Ackerlind,Jr. • J.Alan Blodgett • Don A.Mackey D I-► LOUIS E. MILLER Eddie P. Mayne • Joseph Rosenblatt Director of Airports Patrick A. Shea • Thomas K.Welch April 28, 1989 W. M. Stoler, Chairman and Salt Lake City Council Salt Lake City Council Office 324 South State, Third Floor Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear Councilman Stoler and Council Members: Recommendation: Adopt and approve agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah Department of Transportation, Materials and Research for construction materials testing services. Fiscal Impact: The not-to-exceed total cost is $9,000.00 for FY1989/90. Discussion: Salt Lake City Corporation does not have the equipment to perform certain bituminous materials tests and the attached agreement will enable us to obtain these services from the Utah Department of Transportation, Materials and Research. Therefore, it is respectfully requested that the City Council adopt the above referenced agreement. Respectfully, Louis E. Miller Salt Lake City Airport Authority•AMF Box 22084,Salt Lake City,Utah 84122•(801)575-2400•Telefax: (801)575-2679 RESOLUTION NO. OF 1989 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MATERIALS AND RESEARCH WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13, U.C.A. , 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 of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1 . It does hereby approve the attached agreement generally described as follows: An agreement for UDOT to perform various viscosity and other tests for the City. 2. Palmer A. DePaulis, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby authorized to execute said agreement on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation and to act in accordance with its terms. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER RLM:rc 7 DF 6 1 1 01 40 6/82 STATE OF UTAH PROFESSIONAL CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT This Agreement entered into this 1st day of July , 19 89 between the Department of Transportation, Materials Research Section Department Division and Salt Lake City Corporation (Airport Authority) Name *Social Security No./ AMF Box 22084 Federal ID No. Address Salt Lake City, Utah 84122 City State Zip Code is for the purpose of providing temporary(less than one fiscal year) professional services as described below: Viscosity @ 1400F. ,abs Viscosity @ 275F. ,cs Penetration @ 77°F. ,d1mm Ductility @ 39.2°F. ,cm Saybolt Viscosity, ssf Toughness t=, Tenacity in.lb RTFO Test Services are to begin July 1, 1989 and will terminate June 30, 1990 Payments shall include: Personal Service hours X hourly rate = Travel miles X rate = Other(Description) Testing on approx. 30 bituminous samples Amount = plus other misc. testing as requested. Amount = Amount = Total Amount of Contract = $ 9,000 DEPARTMENTAL APPROVAL WOONSMWSRM Mayor CONTRACTOR IXXXXIXIMMOOOKKIMEXKEDSXMOMEXHiaa DIRECTOR OF FINANCE City Recorder Contractor acknowledges by signing this agreement that no Social Security,Federal,or State taxes will be withheld from payments under this contract.However,payment under this contract may be taxable. The Contractor should refer to current Federal and State Income Tax and Social Security Self-employment Laws for his tax liability. LEROY W. HOOTON, JR. DIRECTOR W SUPPLY E. EVENSSUPERINTENDENT N, P.E. r Q� elf SUPERINTENDENT SIAI2 �' 11 U 1W` U d�C]� WATER SUPPLY 8 WATERWORKS E. TIM DOXEY SUPERINTENDENT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES WATER RECLAMATION WATER SUPPLY & WATERWORKS PALMER DEPAULIS JAMES M. LEWIS, C.PA. WATER RECLAMATION MAYOR CHIEF FINANCE 8 ACCOUNTING OFFICER 1530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE GEORGE JORGENSEN, PE. SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84115 CHIEF ENGINEER APPROVED May 8, 1989 CITY RECORDER TO: Salt Lake City Council RE: Interlocal Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County Public Works Deapartment, Flood Control & Highways for the installation of Sanitary Sewer Extension 50-1371. Recommendation; That the Council approve the agreement and forward to the Mayor for execution in behalf of the City. Availability of Funds: Budget Discussion: Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities has a need to install an 18-inch sanitary sewer pipeline under the Surplus Canal located on 500 South, east of 2300 West Street. 1. Please return one ( 1 ) agreement to this office to be forwared to the County Flood Control & Highways for final execution. Submitted by: ER Y W. HOOTON, JR. Director Department of Public Utilities /srb Attachments File C-2 RESOLUTION NO. OF 1989 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION 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 undertakings 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 approve the attached agreement generally described as follows: A permit for the installation of an 18-inch sanitary sewer pipeline under the Surplus Canal . 2. Palmer A. DePaulis, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby authorized to execute said agreement on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation and to act in accordance with its terms . Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989 . SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER _ .ut c RLM:rc �ry 't ` PERMIT# fir SALT LAKE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT u 'is s. FLOOD CONTROL& HIGHWAYS m: a 4 4* m 2001 S STATE ST#N3300 � -`'=r;; SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84190-4600 ^ " �` 801-468-3731 O �y� �" - 4 COMMISSIONER 8AVEwATSTAI Tom SiniMizu DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS YKK-If ti:WISXEY ADMINISTRATORS R. `T'. HOl%worth DIRECTOR ENGINEERING MANAGER TOSHIHARU KANO, P.E. DAVID R. LOVELL, P.E. FIELD SERVICES MANAGER NEIL D. STACK, P.E. FLOOD CONTROL PERMIT ' . �'�' L DOCUMENT USE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY FW_VERTY OF SALT LAKE RIGHT-OF-ENTRY CITY RECORDER'S OFFICE OR 451 SO. STATE, RM. 415 INSTALLATION OF STRUCTURES SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 Permission is hereby granted to: ff Salt Lake City Corporation 1530 South West Temple Street (Name of Firm or Individual) (Address) Phone: 118fl1) 4 3—F773 r m newrm, TO: (Describe in these spaces the proposal,including kind and type of construction,purpose intended,location by stationing. Indicate passageway provided by means of gates, etc. Use separate sheets if necessary, identifying each by reference herein. Provide all engineering calculations.Attach drawings and sketches as required.) Installation of an eighteen inch sanitary sewer pipeline under the r surp' us can llocated �t 500 South east of 2300 West Street. The crossing to occur parallel toand 55 feet North of the centerline of 500 South Street at approximatel?tation 112*08 to Station 1134637 more or less. Provided that: Upon termination or expiration of this permit(whether by voluntary relinquishment by the grantee,by revocation by the grantor or otherwise)the grantee shall remove all structures,improvements,or appurtenances which may have been erected or constructed under this permit,and shall repair or replace any portion of the flood control facility or right-of-way which may have been damaged by his operations(including grading and seeding,or sodding, if necessary),to the satisfaction of the grantor. The structure or operation for which this permit is issued shall be maintained by the grantee in such manner as shall not injure or damage the flood protection structure, or interfere with its operation and maintenance in accordance with Title VII of the Ordinances of Salt Lake County. The structure or operation covered by this permit may be stopped, removed, damaged or destroyed by the grantor in time of flood emergency if such action is determined by the grantor to be necessary in order to preserve life or property or prevent damage and the grantor shall not be liable to the grantee for such damage or destruction. Unless otherwise specifically provided herein, this permit may be cancelled at any time by the grantor upon 10 days written notice mailed to the address shown above. During such 10 day period (or such other period as may be provided herein) , the grantee will be permitted to remove any property or improvements installed under this permit, and to repair or replace any damage to the flood protection right-of- way or structures resulting from his use or operations. At the end of such period, the grantor shall have the right to possess and dispose of any such property or im- provements remaining upon its right-of-way, and may proceed to repair or replace any such damage, and the grantee herein shall be liable to the grantor for the full cost of such repairs or replacements. The construction, installation and maintenance of the structure or structures covered by this permit shall be subject to inspection by representatives of the grantor and the County at all reasonable times. In the event the work covered by this permit consists of or includes major con- struction, the cost of inspection thereof by the grantor and/or the County shall be paid by the applicant. Grantee agrees that it will not use the area or facilities covered by this permit, or permit such area to be used, for any purpose other than is specifically covered by this permit. (Use these spaces for special conditions applicable to this permit) . THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE VALID UNTIL APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR OF SALT LAKE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY DIVISION OR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. Terms of this permit are hereby accepted. Approval/Nonapproval Recommended: 1644,(A) 41. di: Signature (Grantee) Date Date Title Date ORIGINAL DO U:' Nti?Y APPROVED: PROPERTYW?"r' CITY r—. ' : sALT LAKE 451 c- APPROVED SALT ` ORDERS OFFICE r;rNcL DGPAR Director `"' MHAI • S`i SO. STATE, RM. 415 FUNDS NOT NEEDED SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 FIRE DEPARTMENT PETER O. PEDERSON 315-EAST 200 SOUTH CHIEF OF FIRE DEPARTMENT SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 799-4101 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: May 2, 1989 RE: Dispatch Agreement between Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County. Salt Lake City Fire will dispatch Salt Lake County for a pre- determined monthly fee. Recommendation: That the City Council agrees to this cooperation agreement. We are already dispatching for Salt Lake County. This is merely an update on price for such services. 0 Availability of Funds: None required. Salt Lake County pays Salt Lake City for the service of dispatching fire and emergency calls. Discussion: The dispatching of other entities for a fee is a good way for Salt Lake City to build up a fund. We are dispatching for fire departments throughout the valley for negotiated amounts. Su•00 ted by f Peter O. Pederson Chief of Fire Department POP/aa - Encls. 4 Original 16 Copies RESOLUTION NO. OF 1989 AtT HCRIZING THE EXECTPION OF AN INI1R O AL COOPERATION. ACC BETWEEN SALT LAKE cnyCORPORATICN AND SALT LAKE COUNTY' CATION WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13, U.C.A., 1953, as amended, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS. the attached agreement has boon prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1. It does hereby approve the attached agreement generally described as follows: Exchange of services between Salt Lake City Corporation and the unincorporated areas of Salt Lake County, for Salt Lake City Fire Department to provide fire and medical dispatch calls as described in attached Interlccal Agreement for 1989. 2. Palmer A. DePaulis, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby authorized to execute said agreement on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation and to act in accordance with its terms. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By CHAIRMAN ATTEST: CITY RECORDER AMENDMENT TO INTER-LOCAL DISPATCH COOPERATION AGREEMENT THIS AMENDMENT is made and entered into by and between SALT LAKE CITY, a body corporate and politic of the State of Utah, hereinafter referred to as "CITY" , and Salt Lake County, a municipal corporation of the State of Utah, hereinafter referred to as "County" . WITNESSED: WHEREAS, on or about the 15th day of February 1984, the parties hereto entered into an inter-local agreement for the provision by Salt Lake City of fire and rescue dispatch services to Salt Lake County: and County. WHEREAS, paragraph 5 of said agreement provides that the monthly fee for said service shall be renegotiated annually by written amendment to said agreement, which renegotiation has been effected: NOW, THEREFORE, for consideration deemed just and adequate by the parties, said original agreement is amended as follows: 1. Paragraph 5 of said original agreement shall read as follows: Salt Lake County agrees to pay a fee of $18, 613.00 per month as a basic dispatch fee to Salt Lake City on a month by month payment beginning January 1, 1989 and continuing each month during 1989, contingent on when Salt Lake County enters the Valley Communications -1- Center. At said time, Salt Lake County shall give thirty (30) days written notice on the date that they will leave Salt Lake City. 2. All other terms and conditions of the original agreement between the parties relating to fire and rescue dispatch services not otherwise amended by this or prior amendments shall continue in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have subscribed this amendment this /� day of , 1989 . SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BY PALMER A. DePAULIS, Mayor ATTEST: KATHERYN MARSHALL City Recorder SALT AKE C NTY BY DART BARKER, Cha ' rman SALT LAKE COUNTY COMMISSION ATTEST: i2 SA T L E 0 TY RECOR R APCTIOVS0.3rotonN► 11e11 Coue� s Coop Ao -2- 1:°;7447-'7 14 )5 LEROY W. HOOTON, JR• a DIRECTOR . WENDELL E. EVENSEN, P.E. [S } I 1 1I �/g��,� r T ,N7lz SUPERINTENDENT 5 �' F P p<OJ .\5J<f.., R�Pjo.l�\ WATER SUPPLY & WATERWORKS --"' aa� dddsss E. TIM DOEY SUPERINTENDENT .'DEPARTMENT 'OF PUBLIC UTILITIES WATER RECLAMATION WATER SUPPLY WATERWORKS PALMER DEPAULIS JAMES M. LEWIS, C.P.A. WATER REC AMATION: MAYOR CHIEF FINANCE& ^" -- ACCOUNTING OFFICER 183O'S V EST?T,EMPL'E GEORGE JORGENSEN, P.E. SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84115 CHIEF ENGINEER TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: May 15, 1989 RE: Amendment to Water Sales Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Park City. Recommendation: That the Council approve the agreement and forward to the Mayor for execution in behalf of the City. Availability of Funds: Not applicable. Discussion: Salt Lake City Corporation and Park City entered into an agreement on January 29, 1980 for water sales from Spiro Tunnel. The agreement allowed Park City to purchase all the water in Spiro Tunnel in which Salt Lake City was entitled at City water rates. The amended agreement reduces the amount of water on a take-or-pay basis to 1, 000 acre feet per year at a water rate that is charged to Salt Lake City by the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City. Currently the price is $55.00 per acre foot. Please return three (3 ) agreements to this office for further processing. Submitted by: i EROY WI HOOTON, JR. Director Department of P .li Utilities LWH:dt Attach: RESOLUTION NO. OF 1989 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND PARK CITY WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13, U.C.A. , 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 of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1 . It does hereby approve the attached agreement generally described as follows: An agreement amending the parties ' agreement of January 29, 1980 pertaining to City water emanating from Spiro Tunnel . 2. Palmer A. DePaulis, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby authorized to execute said agreement on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation and to act in accordance with its terms. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989 . SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER RLM:rc ift AMENDMENT OF WATER SALES AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND PARK CITY THIS AGREEMENT AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of the 1st day of January, 1989, by and between SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a municipal corporation of the State of Utah, hereinafter "City" , and PARK CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, a municipal corporation of the State of Utah, hereinafter "Park" , whereby the parties agree to and do hereby amend that certain Agreement between them dated January 29, 1980 pertaining to the City' s water emanating from the Spiro Tunnel entrance in Park City, Utah, as follows: The sixth prefatory paragraph of this Agreement shall be revised to read as follows: WHEREAS, City desires to sell and Park desires to buy a portion of the waters available for sale to which City is entitled from the Spiro Tunnel which are surplus to the requirements of City or its inhabitants and subject to the above- described agreements. Paragraphs 1, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15 and 16 of said Agreement shall be revised to read, from and after the date of this Amendment, as follows: 1 . SALE OF WATER. Beginning May 1, 1989 for the price and on the terms and conditions hereinafter specified, the City agrees to sell and Park agrees to buy each year between May 1 and October 31, whether taken or not except as provided for under Paragraph 9 .b. , one thousand acre feet of water per year, to which City is entitled under said decree and subject to the aforesaid agreements, to be made available in the manner and at the place as hereinafter provided. In taking such water, Park shall not take more than 1/6th of said one thousand acre feet, or G$T66:67: :AF per month. At no time can Park take more than thrty1(30S percent of the flow from said tunnel to which City is entitled. 4. DELIVERY OF WATER. Subject to the provisions of the preceding Paragraph 3, the City shall make waters covered hereby available to Park at the place of measurement within said mine tunnel, at the mouth or at the natural tributary of East Canyon Creek into which the waters of the Spiro Tunnel are discharged or at such other point or points as the parties ' Directors of Utilities agree upon in writing. Park shall at it sole cost and expense, but with City' s complete cooperation, make the necessary arrangement or applications and obtain appropriate authorization from the Utah State Engineer for the diversion and delivery of such waters and agrees to pay all costs and expenses of administration and distribution thereof without cost or obligation to the City, and the City shall have no obligation to provide any works or facilities of any type, or measuring devices relating to the -2- distribution and delivery of the waters herein provided for. 7. Park will install to City standards at Park' s sole cost and to City specification, all necessary meters, shutoff valves and continual recording weirs at locations to be agreed upon between the parties, so that City and Park can measure and control the amount of water used by Park. Park agrees not to take, use or allow the use of any of said water without said metering and continual recording measuring devices in place to properly measure all of the water taken hereunder at least fifteen ( 15 ) days prior to May 1 of any year, and prior approved by City' s said Director or his designee. Park agrees to maintain said valves, meters and recording weirs to City' s standards and to repair or replace the same within forty-eight (48) hours of notice from City. Upon Park' s failure so to do, City shall have the right to terminate all water service to Park hereunder until such repairs are made to City' s satisfaction. Such failure for more than thirty (30) days shall entitle City to terminate this Agreement, while retaining City' s right to sue for any unpaid balance for water deliveries to Park. 8. City will at all times be provided with complete access to said facilities by and at Park' s expense. -3- 9 . a. Beginning May 1, 1989, and annually beginning May 1 each summer thereafter, Park agrees to accept and pay for said 1, 000 acre feet of water in two equal installments due May 1 and August 1 of each year at the same then current rate per acre foot as the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City (MWD) charges City for wholesale water, which rate shall change as MWD may change said rate to the City. Upon such a change, the City will notify Park in writing of the effective date of the change and the charges hereunder, which cannot be implemented earlier than such MWD rate change goes into effect for water MWD furnishes the City. b. Park will pay for said 1,000 acre-feet of water per year, whether Park takes and utilizes the water or not, so long as said water is available at any point of diversion and said unavailability is not caused or contributed to by Park. Otherwise, in the event a lesser flow is available, Park' s obligation to pay City will be reduced to the amount of City's water which is actually available to Park pursuant to the restrictions of Paragraph 1 hereof. c. As of the date of this Amendment, MWD presently charges $55.00 per acre foot of water. d. Park agrees to pay said charges on or before the above due date( s ) . -4- 1 e. Annually Park may be permitted to purchase some of City' s water in excess of said 1, 000 acre feet on the same terms and conditions, but only with the prior written consent of City' s Director of Public Utilities. 10. It is expressly understood and agreed that Park shall not extend its municipal system to supply any of the purchased water to any properties or facilities not within the city limits of Park or outside Summit County without the prior written consent of City. 11. Park shall use the water sold to it by City hereunder solely for Park' s municipal uses. 15. Park agrees to indemnify, save harmless and defend City, its agents and employees, from and against any and all suits, legal proceedings, claims, mechanics liens, demands, costs and attorney' s fees arising out of or by reason of Park' s construction, replacement and maintenance of said water lines and attendant facilities and use of said water obtained hereunder. 16. Park City may terminate this Agreement for any reason without further obligation upon at least 365 days prior written notice to Salt Lake City. EXCEPT AS MODIFIED HEREBY, said Agreement between the parties dated January 29, 1980 shall remain in full force and effect. -5- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this Agreement Amendment to be effective as of the day and year first above written. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION By Mayor ATTEST: CITY RECORDER PARK CIT MU IC AL ORPORATION By MAYOR ATTEST: CORPORATE G� ` • CITY RECORDER MARCH 1, 1884 -6- 1 l STATE OF UTAH ) ss. County of Salt Lake ) On the day of , 198 , personally appeared before me PALMER A. DEPAULIS and KATHRYN MARSHALL, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the Mayor and City Recorder, respectively, of SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a municipal corporation of the State of Utah, and said persons acknowledged to me that said corporation executed the same. NOTARY PUBLIC, residing in Salt Lake County, Utah My Commission Expires: STATE OF UTAH ) ) ss. County of Lv..,A- ) On the 3` " - day of k Lam/ , 19 8 C) , p rso all ap ear d before me �^(�� ,_, and �u t . I�t y�. , who, being b •my sworn, did Athat theyare the Mayor and city R- p .. _ ectivel of ay Y tY • �'r - P Y. PARK CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, a munf 'd co �'• tion of the State of Utah, and said persons ackno 4 1:ged rto rme• `at said corporation executed the same. Egzppiros�'.rr.,`7 ' , NO ` .• C, re ryQ. • in . l i._ •- Utah My Commission Expires: C ,i),( .t. \ rf\z RLM:pp -7- SAIT L a` '°'OMIT CORPORATION' DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS JOSEPH R. ANDERSON 324 SOUTH STATE STREET PALMER DEPAULIS PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 MAYOR 535-7775 TO : SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL DATE : APRIL 14 , 1989 RECOMMENDATION ; That the City Council adopt a resolution granting approval for the Mayor to sign the agreement in behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation . AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS ; The $5 , 500 . 00 to cover the cost of this work is in the City Engineer's operating budget line item. Account No . 03- 12900- 2329 . DISCUSSION ; The purpose of this Agreement is to authorize the Utah Department of Transportation , Research of Materials Division to perform various bituminous materials tests . These are tests such as viscosity , ductility , bituminous additive , and immersion compression which the City does not have the equipment to perform. Theses are tests that are essential to ensure the bituminous material complies with City specifications . The Research & Materials Division also calibrates , as necessary , the concrete compression machine , Marshall Stability Machine and CBR Press that are in the City's Materials Lab . All of the work to be performed by UDOT is only performed upon prior written request from the City . The period of the Agreement is from July 1 , 1989 to June 30 , 1990 . SUBMITTED BY : JOSEPH R . ANDERSON, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR d + '4 JRA : JH : po RESOLUTION NO. OF 1989 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13, U.C.A. , 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 of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1 . It does hereby approve the attached agreement generally described as follows: An agreement for UDOT to perform machine calibration and materials tests for the City. 2. Palmer A. DePaulis, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby authorized to execute said agreement on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation and to act in accordance with its terms. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989 . SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER RLM:rc DF6 11 01 40 4/80 STATE OF UTAH PROFESSIONAL CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT This Agreement entered into this day of . June , 19 89 between the Department of Transportation Research & Materi al s Department Division and Salt Lake City Corporation (Dept. of Public Works) Name *Social Security No./ 444 So, State Street Federal ID No. Address Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 City State Zip Code is for the purpose of providing temporary (less than one fiscal year) professional services as described below: Calibrate concrete compression machine, marshall stability machine . and CBR Press. Perform various bituminous materials tests as requested, i .e. , viscosity, ductility, bituminous additive, immersion compression. Perform various other materials tests as requested. Such work shall be performed only upon prior written request from the City. Services are to begin July 1, 1989 and will terminate June 30, 1990 The total amount for the services as outlined above shall not exceed $ • Payments shall include: Personal Service hours X hourly rate = Travel miles X rate = ~� Other (Description) • Amount = Amount = Amount = TOTAL = DEPARTMENTAL APPROVAL ?�"s = -8� -- - - LnclliAtraed 93-9 7 PROGRAM DIRECTOR CONTRACTOR DEPARTMENT HEAD OR AUTHORIZED AGENT DIRECTOR OF FINANCE * Contractor acknowledges by signing this agreement that no Social Security, Federal, or State taxes will be withheld from payments under this contract. However, payments under this contract may be taxable and an information return (IRS Form 1099) showing total contract payments made durng the year will be sent to all contractors and to the Internal Revenue Service. nE'r, V-D AS TO FORM Salt Lnko Ciiy 7Ati-ornoy'b Oaks* Doto kY7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ROSEMARY DAVIS Capital Planning and Programming DIRECTOR CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUH STATE STREET, SUITE 404 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 535-7902 May 26, 1989 TO: W.M. "Willie" Stoler, Chairperson Salt Lake City Council RE: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN A GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE U.S . DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FOR SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION'S FISCAL YEAR 1989-90 RENTAL REHABILITATION PROGRAM ALLOCATION Recommendation: That the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign a Grant Agreement with the U.S . Department of Housing and Urban Development so that Salt Lake City Corporation may receive its 1989-90 Rental Rehabilitation Program allocation. Background: Salt Lake City has been informed by the U.S . Department of Housing and Urban Development that its 1989 Rental Rehabilitation Program has been approved and allocated $221,000 . The Funding Approval Form, when executed and returned by the Mayor, will establish the obligation and line of credit for the funding. The funding will aid the improvement of the existing rental housing stock affordable to low-income families in Salt Lake City. Sincerely, Rosemary Davis Director RESOLUTION NO. OF 1989 APPROVING A GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13, Utah Code Ann. , 1953, as amended, allows public entities to enter into agreements for joint and cooperative action; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has approved Salt Lake City's application for 1989 Rental Rehabilitation Program funds; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah; 1 . It does hereby approve the attached Grant Agreement between HUD and Salt Lake City providing $221,000 in Rental Rehabilitation Program funds to Salt Lake City for its 1989-90 fiscal year; and 2 . Palmer A. DePaulis, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby authorized to execute the aforementioned agreement on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989 . SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL CHAIRPERSON APPROVED AS TO FORM Self lake ity ttorney's Office CITY RECORDER Date �S Mr Funding Approval U.S. Department of He 'ng Rental Rehabilitation Program and Urban Developme, Community Planning and Development HI-00527R under Section 17 of The United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437o) 1. Name of Grantee 2. Grant No. Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 R-89-MC-49-0202 3. api afdvrl anfling & Programming Division 4. HUD Geographic Locator 491092 de No. 324 South State, Room 240 5. a) Date of HUD Receipt ofQrogram Description 0I-LL-89 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 ' b) Date Grantee Notified of Approval LA 6X Original Funding Approval c) Fiscal Year 1989 9 1989 E Amendment (No.) 7. Category of Rental Rehabilitation Program Grant for this Funding Action (Check Only One) a. Direct Formula Grantee KXCity over 50,000 E Urban County Consortium b. 7 State Grantee c. = HUD-Administered Rental Rehabilitation Program Small City Grantee d. El HUD-Administered City Grantee 1. Amount of Rental Rehabilitation Program (RRP) Grant FY: FY: FY: FY: FY:1989 -0- a. Amount of RRP funds previously obligated for this grantee 221,000 b. Amount of RRP funds currently being obligated for this grantee -0- c. Amount of RRP funds currently being deobligated for this grantee • 221,000 d. New total of RRP funds now obligated for this grantee • 1. Special conditions (Check applicable box) a. XXNot applicable b. 7 Attached • 'or: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Y Title Date: � Director, Office of CPD l//ce7 revious Edition(F-are) nkord HUD-40015(11-84) 24 CFR Part 511 Grant Agreement U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Deve'-'ment ION� Office of Commi Planning and Development This Grant Agreement is made by and between the 3. HUD's payment of funds under this Grant is also subject Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and to the Grantee's compliance with HUD's electronic funds Salt Lak.e City, UT (the Grantee) transfer and information reporting procedures issued pursuant to the authority of Section 17 of the United States pursuant to 24 CFR 511.74. Housing Act of 1937 (42 USC 1437o). The Grantee's approved Program Description and the HUD regulations at 24 CFR 4. To the extent authorized by the HUD regulations at 24 Part 511 (as now in effect and as may be amended from CFR Part 511.33 and 511.82, HUD may, by its execution of time to time), which are incorporated by reference, together an amendment to the HUD Funding Approval Form 40015 with the HUD Funding Approval Form 40015 and any special deobligate funds previously awarded to the grantee conditions, which are hereto attached, constitute part of this without the Grantee's execution of such form or other Agreement. consent. Such a`deobligation of Rental Rehabilitation Program grant funds may also cause a recapture of a In reliance upon and in consideration of the mutual commensurate amount of Section 8 Existing Certificate or representations and obligations hereunder, HUD and the voucher contract authority. Grantee agree as follows: 5. The Grantee further agrees to accept responsibility for 1. Subject to the provisions of this Grant Agreement, HUD adherence to the Agreement by subrecipient entities and will make the funding assistance for Fiscal Year 19 89 property owners to which it makes funding assistance specified in the attached HUD Funding Approval Form hereunder available. 40015 available to the Grantee upon execution of the Agreement by the parties. 2. 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 HUD Funding Approval Form 40015, including the requirement for a release of funds by HUD under the Environmental Review Procedures at 24 CFR Part 58 for any activities requiring such release. • For: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development By: Title: Date: Director, Office of CPD t5-//e9 For: Grantee By: Title: Date: HUD-40015.1 (11-84) 24 CFR Part 511 LEROY W. HOOTON, JR. DIRECTOR WENDELLSUP ERI EVENSEN,, RE. SlP\. 2 S! Q�A1 my mR f t a(INI SUPERINTENDENT tiw� �f �� WATER SUPPLY&WATERWORKS E. TIM DOXEY SUPERINTENUENI DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES WATER RECLAMATION WATER SUPPLY & WATERWORKS• PALMER DEPAULIS JAMES M. LEWIS, CPA. WATERRECLAMATION":.; - MAYOR CHIEF FINANCE& ACCOUNTING OFFICER 1530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE GEORGE JORGENSEN, PE. SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84115 CHIEF ENGINEER May 8, 1989 TO: Salt Lake City Council RE: Easement for Pipeline Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County for the installation of Watermain Extension 33-C-1405. Recommendation; That the Council rescind the old agreement approved September 13, 1988 and approve the new agreement and forward to the Mayor for execution in behalf of the City. Availability of Funds: Budget Discussion: Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities has a need to install a watermain extension 1 . Please return five ( 5) agreements to this office to be forwared to Salt Lake County for final execution. Submitted by: L ROY W. OOTON, JR. Director Department of Public Utilities /srb Attachments File C-3 EASEMENT FOR PIPELINES THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 18 day of May , 19 89 , by and between the SALT LAKE COUNTY, a body of corporate and politic of the State of Utah, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY, " and Salt Lake City Corporation, Dept. of Public Utilities hereinafter called "GRANTEE." WITNESSET H: WHEREAS, the Grantee is desirous of obtaining from the County an easement to construct, and thereafter maintain and operate pipelines within the right-of-way limits of COUNTY roads and highways within the COUNTY and immediately adjacent thereto for the purpose of Water Supply ; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY is willing to grant said easement under the terms and conditions herein set forth, NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. LOCATION OF PIPELINES. (Address) Approximatley 970 East Garden Drive (4310 South) Watennain Extension 3a-C-1405 Length of Cut (Feet) a distance of approxiamtely 830 feet of 6-inch DIP pipe Owner, Corp. , Co. , etc. Address Dept. of Public Utilities, 1530 South West Temple, salt Lake City, Utah 84115 The pipelines to be installed, the diameter of which shall not exceed forty-two (42) inches shall consist of 6-inch Ductile Iron pipe, satisfactory to the COUNTY in all respects. The location of the pipelines within the roads and highways, on one or both l_des shall be as near the right-of-way lines as practicable in accordance with the plans, specifications and maps prepared by Dept. of Public Utilities Engineers and on file in the offices of the parties hereto. The foregoing description of pipeline location is subject to such changes or variations therefrom as may be required or approved by the County Public Works Department at the time of construction. Following completion of construction the foregoing numbered detail sheets will be furnished showing distance from right-of-way line to pipeline center lines on all roads and highways where said pipelines are installed. 2 . APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION. The excavation of trench for said pipelines shall not be commenced by the GRANTEE until and after notice has been given by the GRANTEE, to said County Public Works Department. Construction shall be carried forward to completion in the manner required by said Department. 3. PROTECTION OF TRAFFIC DURING CONSTRUCTION. The GRANTEE shall so conduct its construction operation that there shall be a minimum of interference with or interruption of highway traffic. The GRANTEE shall conform to such instruction of said Department as may be given with respect to handling of traffic, and shall at all times maintain such watchmen, barricades, lights or other measures for the protection of traffic as may be required to warn and safeguard the public against injury or damage during the operations of the GRANTEE in constructing said pipelines. 4 . COMPACTION OF BACKFILL. The backfill of any trench within the paved portion of the highway, the shoulders thereof, or the portion under or intersecting street or highway shall be thoroughly compacted. Method of compaction shall be as directed by 2 he COUNTY. The GRANTEE shall be liable for any damage which may result to the pavement due to failure to properly compact the backfill. 5 . RESTORATION OF EXISTING PAVEMENT. The GRANTEE shall replace, at its expense, any pavement removed or damaged with the same type and depth of pavement as that which is adjoining, including the gravel base material. This pavement shall be constructed in conformity with the standard specifications and shall be subject to the inspection and approval of the Public Works Department of the COUNTY. If weather conditions do not permit immediate placing of permanent pavement, a temporary pavement shall be placed until such time as weather conditions are favorable, at which time the temporary pavement shall be removed and replaced with a permanent pavement. If the gravel surface, gravel shoulders, or gravel surfaced approach roads become fouled with clay or other unsuitable materials, such entire surfacing shall be removed and replaced with a new gravel surfacing material. No cleated or metal crawler type equipment shall be permitted to operate on any COUNTY hard surfaced street. The repairs to pavement or surface shall include pavements which might have been damaged with construction equipment. The COUNTY shall have the option of restoring said roadbed to its original condition in every part of said highway at the expense of the GRANTEE. 6. DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS MATERIAL IN CLEANING UP HIGHWAY. Upon completion of the work, all surplus material shall be removed from within the limits of the highway. The disturbed surface shall be carefully graded to the lines and grades established. Any highway facilities such as signs, culverts, etc. , disturbed or damaged during the progress of the work shall be properly restored to their original condition. 7 . MAINTENANCE OF PIPELINES BY GRANTEE The said pipelines and their attached appurtenances, excluding fire hydrants 3 .1nd the connecting system thereof, shall at all times be maintained, repaired, reviewed and operated by and at the expense of the GRANTEE in such a manner as shall most suitably protect the highway and the traffic thereon, and shall be subject to the approval of the COUNTY. In the event emergency repairs of reconstruction of said pipelines or appurtenances are required as determined by COUNTY, and after notice in writing requiring GRANTEE to perform said repairs or reconstruction within a reasonable time, and upon a failure of GRANTEE to complete said repairs or reconstruction, the COUNTY reserves the right to make such emergency repairs to said pipelines as it may consider necessary and the GRANTEE hereby agrees to reimburse the COUNTY for the cost of such emergency reconstruction or repairs. 8. RECONSTRUCTION OF HIGHWAY. In the event that any of said highways or portion thereof is so reconstructed at any future date as to location, grade or width so as to require the relocation of the waterline or lines thereon, or adjustment of manholes or other facility thereof, including service connections (except for any fire hydrants, including the connecting system thereof) , the Grantee shall assume and pay all costs incident to relocation of the pipeline or adjustment of manholes or other facilities thereof including service connections. 9 . CROSSING OF PIPELINE IN EXPANSION OF HIGHWAY SYSTEM. It is expressly understood and agreed by the parties hereto and as part of the consideration for this agreement that the County shall have the right to cross said pipelines at any point necessary in the future construction and expansion of the COUNTY highway system, provided that the COUNTY shall use due care and diligence in the protection of said pipelines in making such crossings . 4 10. LIABILITY. Any supervision or control exercised by the COUNTY, or on its behalf, shall in no way relieve the GRANTEE of any duty or responsibility to the general public, nor relieve said GRANTEE from any liability for loss, damage, or injury to persons or property sustained by reason of the installation, maintenance, repair or removal of the pipelines and its appurtenances, nor of said GRANTEE's LIABILITY for damage to the highway, and the GRANTEE shall protect and indemnify and save harmless the COUNTY from any and all damages, claims or injuries that may occur by reason of the construction, maintenance, repair or removal of said pipelines by the GRANTEE provided. This agreement shall not constitute an admission of any liability as to any third party or give to any third party any greater or further right of cause of action. It is understood and agreed that neither the COUNTY nor the GRANTEE by entering into this agreement acknowledge any liability for any acts of negligence, whether of omission or commission, of any of its agents, servants or employees. 11. AGREEMENT NOT TO BE ASSIGNED. The Grantee shall not assign this agreement or any interest therein without the written consent of the COUNTY. 12. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. All covenants and agreements herein contained shall be binding upon the parties hereto, their successors and assigns. 13 . SUBJECT TO. This easement is subject to the right of the COUNTY at all times as the COUNTY deems necessary to construct roads, public buildings, sidewalks, parks or to carry out any other COUNTY purpose over the area covered by this easement, and when the GRANTEE' s lines, structures and appurtenances or any of them interfere with any COUNTY purpose, the GRANTEE 5 Till remove such lines, structures or appurtenances within a reasonable time after notice to do so by the GRANTOR and at the expense of the GRANTEE. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the COUNTY and the GRANTEE have caused these presents to be signed by their proper officials thereunto duly authorized as of the day and year first above written. SALT LAKE COUNTY By: D. MICHAEL STEWART, Chairman Board of County Commissioners ATTEST: H. DIXON HINDLEY Salt Lake County Clerk GRANTEE: Salt Lake City Corporation ATTEST: Mayor City Recorder STATE OF UTAH ) :ss COUNTY OF SALT LAKE) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1989, by , who is the of NOTARY PUBLIC; residing in Salt Lake County, State of Utah (SEAL) My Commission Expires: 6 RESOLUTION NO. OF 1989 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION 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 undertakings 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: I. It does hereby approve the attached agreement generally described as follows: An easement for a City utility pipeline. 2. Palmer A. DePaulis, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby authorized to execute said agreement on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation and to act in accordance with its terms. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989 . SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER 7.(3 .'art-aa:, C`;';"c RLM:rc 1 /J c67) SALT' a Cat GORIPORATI 0 Ni FINANCE DEPARTMENT LINDA HAMILTON Purchasing and Property Management Division PALMER DEPAULIS DIRECTOR OF FINANCE 451 SOUTH STATE STREET MAYOR ROOM 235 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 PURCHASING (801) 535-7661 RE >_iVr p May 22, 1989 MAY 2 5 Salt Lake City Council 19t'� Attn: Mr. Willie Stoler, Chairperson MAYOR'S OFFICE 324 South State Street, 3rd Floor Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 RE: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL TO ESTABLISH A WRITTEN I TI'ERLOCAL AGREDIDIF WITH THE CITY OF WEST JORDAN TO DISPOSE OF A 1967 FIRE BOSS TRUCK FROM THE SALT LAKE CITY AIRPORT AUTHORITY. Dear Mr. Stoler: Attached, please find the original and sixteen (16) copies of the above referenced interlocal agreement, which has been prepared by the City Attorney and, upon signature by the Council, will need to be signed by the appropriate representatives of West Jordan City. This agreement is for the conditional sale of a fire engine by Salt Lake City to West Jordan City for the sum of $10.00 and an agreement that West Jordan City will respond to fire calls at Airport number 2. If you have any questions in this regard, please feel free to call Mr. Tom Jewkes, Contract Specialist, telephone 535-7661. Respectfully, -Linda Hamilton Director of Finance GLF/il Attachments cc: G.L. Failner Contract Work File #l1F RESOT�i TP TON NO. OF 19 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SNIT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND WEST JORDAN CITY CORPORATION WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13, U.C.A. , 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 of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1. It does hereby approve the attached agreement generally described as follows: Conditional sale to West Jordan City of 1967 fire truck. 2. Palmer A. DePaulis, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby authorized to execute said agreement on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation and to act in accordance with its terms. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 19 . SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL BY CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER INTERLOCAL CORPORATION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of by and between SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a municipal corporation of the State of Utah, hereinafter "City" , and WEST JORDAN CITY CORPORATION, a municipal corporation of the State of Utah. WITNESSET H: WHEREAS , Salt Lake City and West Jordan City agree through their governing bodies to the title transfer by Salt Lake City Airport Authority of one 1967 fire boss truck to the City of West Jordan. WHEREAS, both parties desire to better serve the people residing within both jurisdictions by increased savings through mutually agreeable cost effective and cost conscious actions: and WHEREAS, Salt Lake City and West Jordan City though their respective governing bodies, . pursuant to Resolution, have authorized the execution of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual convenants and agreements herein contained, the parties agree as follows: 1 . Salt Lake City, through the Airport Authority, shall provide to West Jordan City one 1967 fire boss truck , VIN CE5385219414 , asset No. V0175 . 2. For said vehicle West Jordan will pay the total sum of TEN DOLLARS $10. 00 to Salt Lake City said amount shall be payable prior to transfer of title. 3 . West Jordan City will house the fires engine in "Station 1" located at 7839 South 2700 West. West Jordan City will use the fire engine to respond to calls at Airport #2 or other calls as they deem necessary. 4 . Upon delivery of the fire engine West Jordan City will provide all maintenance and repairs necessary to keep the vehicle operational. West Valley City will also assume all liability attendant to the vehicle and it operations at that time. 5 . Salt Lake City Airport Authority will deliver the fire engine loaded with foam and powder and otherwise operational with all hoses and equipment in place. 6 . West Jordan will take delivery and accept the fire engine "as is" without any warranties, expressed or implied . 7 . If within the term of this agreement, West Jordan City elects to dispose of the fire engine, it will be returned to Salt Lake City (resold) for the same considerations, terms and conditions as stated herein. 8 . Each City agrees to hold harmless the other City for the actions of its own employees or volunteers that are performed pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 9 . The terms of this Agreement shall commence the day of , 19 , and terminate two years from the date or title transfer of the vehicle. NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority contained in Title 11 , Chapter 13 , Utah Code Annotated ( 1953 , as amended) , the parties hereby mutually agree to perform this Agreement. Dated this day of . 19_ SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION By MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER WEST JORDAN CITY CORPORATION By MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Approved as to form: WEST JORDAN CITY ATTORNEY Approved as to form: SALT LAKE CITY ATTORNEY .pi° .r LEROY W. HOOTON, JR. DIRECTOR WATER E. EVENSEN,WATER P.E. MUM MAMMON SUPERINTENDENT WATER SUPPLY&WATERWORKS E. TIM DOXEY SUPERINTENDENT DEPARTMENT OFPUBLIC UTILITIES WATER RECLAMATION WATER.SUPPLY & WATERWORKS ,, PALMER DEPAULIS JAMES M. LEWIS,C.P.A. WATER RECLAMATION MAYOR CHIEF FINANCE& , r ' ACCOUNTING OFFICER 15111;SO4I;I !1(ELT.TEMPLE GEORGE JORGENSEN, RE. SALT LAKE''CITY, UTAH 84115 CHIEF ENGINEER May 30, 1989 TO: Salt Lake City Council RE: INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE CITY AND SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PIPELINE WITHIN THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT Recommendation: That the City Council approve the above noted interlocal agreement. Availability of Funds: Ir; Scenario 1) If Sandy City annexes into the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City, the $475,000 will become a general obligation of the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City in accordance to Resolution No. 1633. Scenario 2) If Sandy City is not annexed into the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake City will reimburse the Metropolitan Water District $475,000 plus interest by June 31, 1993. Discussion: The Salt Lake City Public Works Department is going to form a Special Improvement District for the construction of curb and gutter and paving of California Avenue, along with the installation of water and sewer facilities. Before this can be done, the Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department must install a 30-inch water transmission main. This main was to be financed as part of the Sandy City annexation into the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City; however, Sandy City's withdrawal from the Salt Lake County Conservancy District and annexation into the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City has been delayed. Thus, it is necessary to provide for interim financing in order to install the 30-inch water transmission main before the street and improvements are constructed. It is anticipated that the Public Works Department will bid the street improvement project during July of 1989; therefore, it is necessary to expedite the construction of the water transmission main in order to meet the street improvement construction schedule. ►. la ko a - LERSY WI HOOTON, JR. Director LWH/co FORMS 4. O INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE CITY AND SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF PIPELINE WITHIN THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT This Agreement entered into in Salt Lake City, Utah this day of June, 1989, by and between the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City, a Metropolitan Water District organized and existing under the laws of the State of Utah (hereinafter called "MWD" ) and Salt Lake. City Corporation, a municipal corporation of the State of Utah (hereinafter called "SLC" ) . WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Sandy City, by its Resolution No. 88-40C, dated May 17 , 1989 , determined it to be in the best interest of Sandy City and its inhabitants to annex to and become a part of MWD and pursuant thereto Sandy City filed its application with the Board of Directors of MWD for consent to annex Sandy City into MWD; and WHEREAS the Board of Directors of MWD by its Resolution No. 1633 , dated January 9 , 1989 , granted Sandy City' s application and fixed the terms and conditions upon which Sandy City may be annexed to and become a part of MWD and transmitted to the governing body of Sandy City a copy of its Order granting Sandy City' s application containing the terms and conditions thereof; and WHEREAS, to provide capacity in the Salt Lake Aqueduct and Little Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant for delivery of municipal and industrial water to Sandy City, Paragraph No. 2 of Resolution No . 1633 provides for the construction of three segments of water conveyance pipelines within the northwest quadrant of SLC, comprising a 36-inch pipeline from 2910 West California Avenue to 2200 West North Temple; a 30-inch pipeline from 2910 West California Avenue to Pioneer Road; and a 30-inch pipeline from 1300 South Redwood Road to 800 West, to connect the Victory Road Reservoir of the Salt Lake City Municipal Water system to Jordan Aqueduct Reach 3, and provides that MWD will pay $2,500, 000 .00 towards the costs thereof; and WHEREAS, the annexation of Sandy City to MWD is pending but has been delayed, and it is necessary that SLC commence construction and installation of the 30-inch pipeline from 2910 West California Avenue to Pioneer Road, and pursuant to Resolution No. 1633 MWD would finance the construction and installation costs thereof upon annexation of Sandy City to MWD; and WHEREAS, SLC desires to proceed with the construction and installation of said 30-inch pipeline even though Sandy City does not annex to MWD, and MWD is willing to finance the construction and installation thereof on condition that if Sandy City is not annexed to MWD SLC will reimburse MWD for the monies advanced to SLC by MWD under the terms of this Agreement. 2 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits which will accrue to the parties hereto, the parties agree as follows : 1 . MWD shall pay to SLC $475 ,000 .00 upon execution of this Agreement towards the construction and installation cost of the 30-inch pipeline to be located from 2910 West California Avenue to Pioneer Road. 2 . In the event that Sandy City is annexed to MWD, the $475 , 000. 00 paid to SLC by MWD shall become a general obligation of MWD. In the event that Sandy City is not annexed to MWD, SLC - shall repay to MWD $475 ,000 . 00, plus accumulated interest in an amount to be determined in accordance with Paragraph 3 below. Such repayment obligation may be paid in installments as P determined by SLC, but in any event shall be paid in full by SLC to MWD on or before June 30, 1993 . 3 . Accumulated interest shall be that amount which MWD would have otherwise received on its investment of the monies expended pursuant to this Agreement from the date of expenditure until repaid, and the rate of interest shall be the same as the rate of interest received by MWD under its Daily Repurchase Agreement with Zions First National Bank, South Temple Branch, Salt Lake City, Utah, as long as the same shall remain in effect, and thereafter, at the average rate of interest received by MWD . 3 4 . Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed to create a debt contrary to Article XIV, Section 3 of the Utah Constitution. 5 . This Interlocal Agreement embodies the entire agreement between the parties hereto and cannot be altered, except by written instrument signed by each of the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement to be effective as of the day and year first above written. ATTEST: METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE CITY By Secretary Its: Chairman ATTEST: SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION By City Recorder Mayor 4 r� SALT FAKE`GIN CORPORATI;0 v DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ROSEMARY DAVIS Capital Planning and Programming DIRECTOR 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 240 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 535-7902 April 24, 1989 TO: W.M. "Willie" Stoler, Chair Salt Lake City Council RE: LEGISLATIVE BUDGET REVISION OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS/CDBG FUND Recommendation: That you approve the following budget revision of the CIP/CDBG Funds: Current Recommended Project Budget Budget Change Source Westside Senior $ -0- $1,200 $1,200 CIP/CDBG Citizen Handrails Contingency (New Project) CIP/CDBG $62, 284 $61,084 ($1,200) NA Contingency ( 71-40901/9601931) Discussion: The Westside Senior Citizens Center has two entrances on the north side of the building which lead directly to the parking lot. The entrance stairs each have several steps and no handrails creating a hazard to all those who use the Center. The $1, 200 will provide four (4 ) handrails, two for each entrance. The budget of $1,200 includes the railing materials, installation and engineering fees . The City built the structure through its CDBG and CIP programs. The County runs the senior citizen program, and through an interlocal agreement with the City maintains the inside of the structure. The City is responsible to maintain the exterior of the structure. It is for this reason that this project is respectfully requested to be approved . If you have any questions, please call Joe Reno at 535-7902. Sincerely, / / ce Rosemary Da(ris Director , JR/Sh<Br> cc: Bruce Biesinger Joel Harrison File (44;;) • ROGER F. CUTLER \ , r) d G-IT�Y� ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS CITY ATTORNEY d �ii RAY L. MONTGOMERY STEVEN W. ALLRED LAW DEPARTMENT GREG R. HAWKINS LARRY V. SPENDLOVE DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING BRUCE R. BAIRD CHERYL D. LUKE 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, SUITE 505 FRANK M. NAKAMURA CITY PROSECUTOR SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111 (801) 535-7788 ASSISTANT PROSECUTORS FAX (801) 535-7640 DONALD L. GEORGE CECELIA M. ESPENOZA MEMORANDUM RECEIVFr RICHARD G.COOKHAMP GLEN A. MAY 2 5 1989 TO: Mayor Palmer DePaulis MAYOR'S OFFICE FROM: Greg R. Hawkins, Assistant City Attorney RE: Lost, Abandoned or Unclaimed Bicycles DATE: May 24, 1989 I am submitting this ordinance in conformance with a request to change city ordinance to allow the police to give bicycles to charitable organizations. The state law requires all unclaimed property to be sold. The Legislature this year passed a law allowing bicycles to be given to charitable groups. The attached ordinance changes the city ordinance to allow for the charitable donation. Ott- GRH:pp ,� 1 6,3 Enclosures 6-3(3 I/ -rill kP r°' 17,) A T SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (Lost, abandoned or unclaimed property defined--Duties of chief of police) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 2, CHAPTER 10, SECTION 020 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE, 1988, RELATING TO LOST, ABANDONED OR UNCLAIMED PROPERTY DEFINED--DUTIES OF CHIEF OF POLICE, BY ADDING A NEW SUBSECTION D AND RE-LETTERING AND AMENDING FORMER SUBSECTION D TO SUBSECTION E AS FOLLOWS: Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Title 2, Chapter 10, Section 020 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to Lost, abandoned or unclaimed property defined--Duties of chief of police is amended by adding a new subsection D and re-lettering and amending former Subsection D to Subsection E as follows: 2.10.020 Lost, abandoned or unclaimed property defined--Duties of chief of police. A. *** B. *** C. *** D. The chief of police is authorized to donate unclaimed, stolen bicycles to charitable organizations in accordance with applicable state law. The chief of police may draft such rules and regulations as are necessary in order to carry out this provision in a fair and impartial manner. [D-.-] E. The chief of police shall make full report to the city treasurer of the articles sold, and the amount of money received at such sale shall be covered into the city treasury[ .—] ; the number of bicycles and the charities to which the bicycles have been given shall also be reported to the city treasurer. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect upon the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on . Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER -2- (SEAL) Bill No. of 1989 . Published: . GRH:rc -3- ROGER F. CUTLER S4 111 r ( r aD ro ioNi ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS CITY ATTORNEY � �� ` RAY L MONTGOMERY STEVEN W. ALLRED . LAW DEPARTMENT GREG R. HAWKINS DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING LA R B BRUCE RU R.. BAIAIRDVE 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, SUITE 505 RD CHERYL D. LUKE SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 FRANK M. NAKAMURA CITY PROSECUTOR (801) 535-7788 ASSISTANT PROSECUTORS FAX (801) 535-7840 DONALD L. GECRGE CECELIA M. ESPENCZA RICHARD G. HAM? May 30, 1989 GLEN A. COOK Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Director Salt Lake City Council 451 South State Street, Suite 304 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: Petition No. 400-708-89/DeSantis Dear Cindy: I understand that, when the Council considered the above petition dealing with recreational facilities in residential districts, the Council asked to include a prohibition against the use of alcohol. No one present at the hearing recognized this prohibition' s effect on Salt Lake City's own golf courses, as well as other facilities including the Salt Lake Country Club. Unaware of these concerns, I drafted an ordinance to meet the Council ' s views as I understood they were expressed at the hearing. Allen Johnson has now replied to the draft Ordinance indicating the problems which such a blanket alcohol prohibition would cause. I would suggest that the Council might want to reconsider its earlier direction concerning the Ordinance at a meeting of the Council ' s Committee of the Whole. Another option would be to send the matter back to the Planning Commission for considera- tion. Please consider which option you believe to be appropriate and let me know. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely R. BAIRD Assistant City Attorney BRB:pp • t • yi- Lir/ • • Ali" t 41 G inyc edQRP RAiiIONi • DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CRAiG E. PETERSON 114 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING DIRECTOR SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111, • ' 535-7777 • TO: Salt Lake City Council April 3, 1989 Re: Petition No. 400-708-89 submitted by David DeSantis Recommendation:. That the City Council hold a'public hearing on May 2, •1989 at 6:20 p.m. to discuss Petition No. 400-708-89 submitted by David DeSantis. The petitioner has requested that Salt Lake City Corporation amend section 21.78.130 to allow for-profit organizations to operate ' private recreation facilities in a residential district. Availability of Funds: Not applicable • Discussion and Background: The Planning Commission has reviewed and approved this petition with the following conditions: MANDATORY CRI'itRIA: 1. The area to be used for recreationl purposes is of sufficient size to acccnmcdate all proposed facilities together with off street parking sufficient to accommodate the needs of the patrons of the proposed facility and still maintain a landscaped 30.' front yard, 10' side yard _and 25' rear yard. 2. That a].l drainage and water retention plans have been reviewed and approved by the Salt Lake City Engineer. 3. That all traffic impact mitigation has been reviewed and approved by the Salt Lake City Transportation Engineer. APPROVAL CRITERIA: 1 . Whether the proposed recreation area is of such size and shape and so located as to not cause any undue infringement on the privacy of the abutting areas and is in keeping with the design of the neighborhood. 2. Whether the proposed facility is in keeping with the adopted master plan for the area. • i. i ==� 3. Whether the proposed facility adversely impacts the surrounding residential neighborhood by way of such factors as lights, .noise, odor, time or method of operation or other similar objectionable operating characteristic. PROHIBITIONS: 1. No accessory uses such as retail and food services be authorized to operate exclusively or as a part of any Private Recreation Facility unless such use has been independently approved by the City. All such accessory uses must be solely for the use and convenience of the patrons of the proposed establishment. The Planning Commission shall have the authority to place whatever additional conditions or restrictions it may deem necessary to protect the character of the residential district, and to insure the proper development - and maintain of such residential area including the plans for the disposition or reuse of the property if the recreation area is not maintained in the manner agreed upon or is abandoned by the developer. The Planning Commission also discussed and approved changing the approval authority for granting conditional uses for recreational facilities in residential zones from the Board of Adjustment to the Planning Commission. Legislative Documents: The City. Attorney's Office has prepared and approved the proposed.ordinance. Submitted by: . CRAIG E. PETERSON Director lf/ • is • • '*. " SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (Amending Section 21.78. 130 Dealing with Recreational Facilities in Residential Districts Pursuant to Petition No. 400-708-89 ) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21.78.130, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, DEALING WITH RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-708-89 . WHEREAS, the City Council has held hearings before its own body and before the Planning and Zoning Commission and believes it appropriate to amend the provisions of Section 21.78 . 130, Salt Lake City Code, dealing with recreational uses in residential districts as conditional uses; :NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, hereby adopts the following amendment to Section 21. 78.130 of the Salt Lake City Code. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: . •SECTION 1 . That Section 21.78.130 , Salt Lake City Code, attached hereto as Exhibit A is hereby repealed. SECTION 2. That Section 21 . 78 . 130 is hereby reenacted to read as follows: 21.7.8.130 Recreational facilities in residential districts. A. Recreational facilities as conditional use. Where not otherwise authorized by this title, and when in its opinion the best interest of the community will be served thereby, the Planning and Zoning Commission may permit, as a conditional use, the use of the land in a residential district 7 for recreational purposes, subject to the following conditions and procedures: B. Definition. "Recreational uses", for the purpose of this section, shall be defined to mean a structure or developed open space designed and equipped for the conduct of sports, leisure time activities and other customary and usual recreational activities, including paths and playgrounds, tennis courts, swimming pools, golf courses and golf training facilities, nature exhibits and similar uses. "Recreational uses" shall not include commercial spa' or aerobic clubs, all terrain or recreational vehicle parks, amusement parks, waterslides, skateboard parks or similar uses. C. Application. Applications for conditional uses under this. section shall be filed with the Planning and Zoning Commission. Such applica- tions shall include detailed information concerning the criteria specified in subsection E. below. The application shall also require the payment of a one hundred dollar ($100.00) processing • fee which includes the cost of mailing any and all required notices. • D. Notice and hearing. • The Planning and Zoning Commission shall hold an informal hearing on applications for conditional uses under this section. Notice of the hearing shall be given to residents and property owners within six hundred feet of the proposed conditional use. -2- r,r ,* - r , • E. Approval criteria. In considering the petition for conditional use the Planning and Zoning Commission shall determine from the criteria below whether the proposed conditional use substantially supports the desirable development pattern for the area in question in conformity with the city master plan for that area. The factors and criteria to be considered include: 1. Whether the proposed recreation area is of such -size and shape and so located as to not cause any undue infringement .on the privacy of the abutting areas and is in keeping -with the design of the neighborhood. 2. Whether the proposed facility is in keeping with the adopted master plan for the area. 3. Whether the proposed facility adversely impacts the surrounding residential neighborhood by way of such factors as lights, noise, odor, time or method of operation or other similar objectionable operating characteristic. ' F. Design requirements. Before the Planning and Zoning' Commission may grant the proposed conditional use it must find that the following mandatory criteria have been met: 1 . That the area to be used for recreational purposes is of sufficient size to accommodate all proposed facilities, together with all required off street parking sufficient to accommodate the needs of the patrons of the proposed facilities while still maintaining required landscaped thirty foot front yards, ten foot side yards and twenty five foot rear yards. -3- • • • :y{ 2. That all drainage and water retention plans have been reviewed and approved by the Salt Lake City Engineer. 3. That all traffic impact mitigation has been reviewed and approved by the Salt Lake City Transportation Engineer. G. Additional design elements. Subject..to the provisions of this section, if the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the conditional use is appropriate for the site, the Commission may, in addition, require any or all of the design criteria specified below which . are determined to be reasonably necessary to minimize any ' negative esthetic, economic -or planning impacts associated with = the conditional use: 1 . An opaque masking structure or fence of a material in keeping with the character of the neighborhood to screen the proposed use from neighboring uses. 2. Such other conditions reasonably necessary to ensure compatibility of uses within the district in' conformance with adopted master plans and policies and the protection of property values. • H. Prohibited accessory uses. Accessory uses on the property such as retail sales and food services shall not be permitted except as such uses have been specifically approved by the Planning and Zoning Commis- sion. Any such accessory use shall be solely for the benefit and convenience of the patrons of the proposed establishment. -4- I. Security. Prior to the issuance of a permit to construct the • conditional use, adequate financial security shall be posted in a form acceptable to the city to ensure completion of the proposed and required landscape improvements. SECTION 'S . EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor ' s action: Approved Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER -5- -n ..15 • • ALLEN C. JOHNSON MEMBERS: PLANNING DIRECTOR SALT RALPH BECKER SANDRA MARLER ` ' I D „* CINDY CROMER T r,/`/CrITY� ��V Il,© � THOMAS A. ELLISON SECRETARY r+.�c�► a.�w�d � � ��vrs.�.o��`1 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES LAVONE LIDDLE•GAMONAL EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS: RICHARD J. HOWA MAYOR OF SALT LAKE CITY Planning and Zoning Commission RALPH P. NEILSON CITY ENGINEER 324 SOUTH STATE STREET. ROOM 200 GEORGE NICOLATUS CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 JOHN M. SCHUMANN CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL 535-7757 F. KEITH STEPAN PETER VANALSTYNE • March 23, 1989 KATHY WACKER Craig Peterson Director of Development Services - Building Dear Craig, - Attached herewith is Petition 400-708 by David Desantis. The petitioner is requesting .that Salt Lake City amend section 21. 78. 130 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance regulating the location and operation of private recreation facilities in residential zones. Presently, the Board of Adjustment may authorize as a Conditional Use the operation of a private recreation facility in a residential zone. In order to qualify for this provision in the zoning ordinance, the ownership of the facility must fall into one of two categories. Either the facility must be owned by the residents of the subdivision in which it is located or be owned and operated by a nonprofit corporation. The petitioner has requested that the city modify this portion of the zoning ordinance to allow for-profit organizations to operate private recreation facilities in a residential district. The Planning Commission reviewed this request on March 9, 1989 and recommends approval of Petition 400-708 by deleting paragraphs "a" and e through h of section 21. 78. 130. The Planning Commission also discussed and approved changing the approval authority for granting conditional uses for .recr.eational facilities in residential zones from the Board of Adjustment to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission recommends that section 21. 78. 130 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City be amended to include the following conditions: Mandatory Criteria: 1. The area to be used for recreational purposes is of sufficient size to accommodate all proposed facilities together with off street parking sufficient to accommodate the needs of the patrons of the proposed facility and still 4777, Craig Peterson March 23, 1989 Page -2- maintain a landscaped 30 " front yard, 10 " side yard and 25 ' rear yard. 2. That all drainage and water retention plans must be reviewed and approved by the Salt Lake City Engineer. That all required landscaped setbacks must be installed and their maintenance guaranteed by the installation of a sprinkling system. Ce-n -t-to is Criteria: 4. The proposed recreation area must be of such size and shape and -so located so as not to cause any undue infringement on the privacy of the abutting areas and be in keeping with the design of the neighborhood in which the recreation area is to be situated. 5. That the proposed facility is in keeping with the adopted master plan for the area. 6. The petitioner has demonstrated that all adverse traffic • impacts can be mitigated to the satisfaction of the Planning d��°�'�� Commission. ( This must be verified by the Salt Lake City r Transportation Engineer ). 7.. The proposed facility does not adversely impact the surrounding residential neighborhood by way of: lights, noise, odor, time or method of operation or any other objectionable operating characteristic. ------- ,fir,". That where the city may deem appropriate, the petitioner C6rQ must erect and maintain a 6 " fence. ( Type and material must be approved by the Planning Commission ) . Prohibitions: 9. No accessory uses such as retail and food services be authorized to operate exclusively or as a part of any Private Recreation Facility 'unless such use has been independently approved by the City. All such accessory uses must be solely for the use and convenience of the patrons of the proposed establishment. The Planning Commission shall have the authority to place whatever additional conditions or restrictions it may deem necessary to protect the character of the residential district, and to insure the proper development and maintenance of such a residential area including the plans for the disposition or reuse ■ ':.' r .� Craig Peterson ' :;' March 23, 1989 • Page -3- of the property if the recreation area is not maintained in the manner agreed upon or is abandoned by the developers. The Planning Commission would recommend that the City Council consider setting a date for a public hearing to receive input regarding this proposed ordinance change. Respectfully,. // -•i ?;;4 ; ? Allen C. Johnson AICP Planning Director • ij • • • • • ACJ: CAS .., Attachments • • ..,;.APPLICATION FOR ZONING AMENDEMENT To be filed in duplicate with the department of Development Services 324 South State Street Suite #201 Filing Fee $100.00 • Advertising Fee* $100.00 (*if a public hearing is held) Application is hereby made to the Mayor and City Council of Salt Lake City • Utah, to: AmerA the text of the Zoning Ordinance. By amending Section 21.78.130(A) (Use reverse side for requested text change) Amerd the Use District (Zoning) Map. Of Salt Lake City by reclassifying the following property located at: N/A from a classification to a classification (Use reverse side for legal description) ATTACH TO APPLICATION 1. The reasons why the present zoning- is not proper for the area. 2. Changes which have taken place in the area which justify a change in zoning. • 3. Description of the proposed use to be Trade of the property. 4. Other items which justify a change in the existing zoning. 5. Indication of support for rezoning from all affected property owners. • 6. Any other information or exhibits which would aid the planning Commission in arriving at a proper recommendation. 7. Sidw°ell Parcel Identification Number. THh ABOVE INFORMATICN, IN DETAIL, MJST ACCOMPANY THIS APPLICATION IN ORDER FOR . THE Plf'rriON TO BE PAY Iv a :, BY THE PIAENING CGt rssiay. • Signature of the applicant Address 2210 Sunnvbrook Wav Salt lake City, Utah Telephone Number 277-3027 Zip Code 84124 FILL cur REVERSE SIDE Attach all exhibits and supporting data to application. Petition No. Date Receipt No. n 6 ,D(Dc 3 Amount $ Jar), {) * The office of planning and zoning has indicated that a credit is available for the amount already paid by the applicant in connection with its prior conditional - MT. OLIVET CEMETERY ASSOCIATION 1 342 EAST 5TH SOUTH !'- SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84102 January 20, 1989 Mr. Alan Johnson Salt Lake City Planning and •Zoning 324 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah Dear Mr. Johnson, As you know I have petitioned the Planning Commission and the City Council to ammend the section of the zoning •ordinance dealing with allowing a for profit entity operating .a private recreation facility . in a residential • zone. Because of the importance and benefit of nurturing newly seeded grass in the Spring, I am requesting that the petition be put in front of the Planning Commission on the next available slot ( Feb_ 9 ) so that if a favorable recommendation by the Planning Commission is granted a decision from the City Council will be expedited . Also, I would like to inform you that a Mr. Kennley Brunsdale will act as my agent in this. case. • Sinc rly, -(./V /At- 4.Y David DeSantis • - ATTACHMENT .TO APPLICATION FOR ZONING AMENDMENT 1 . Reason why the present zoning is not proper for the area. Applicant has already been granted a conditional use permit for the development of the proposed Golf Center on the Mount Olivet Cemetery land in Salt Lake City; how- ever , the permit is subject to the restrictions in zoning ordinance 21 . 78 . 130 (A) which precludes development of the center by a for-profit organization. The nature of the pro- posed project and benefit it would provide to the community, will be difficult to realize if the status of the developer is unattractive to capital resources. The applicant has been unable thus far to secure caitalization as a non-profit organization. • 2 . Changes which have taken place in the area which justify a change in ;zoning . ;-, The office of planning and zoning as previously concluded that the proposed Golf Center compliments the - character of the surrounding neighborhood and will serve recreational and esthetic interests of the community. 3 . Description of the proposed use to be made of the property. (See the attached Development Plan. ) . 4 . Other items which justify a change in the existing zoning. _ The subject lands constitute the expansion area for the Mount Olivet Cemetery. The lands are not antici- pated to be needed for at least 25 years . Currently, the property is a vacant lot which is costly to maintain within • fire safety codes and often unattractive. The Golf Center plan provides for the development of vegetation, shrubbery, trees and other esthetics which will serve intended purposes of the Golf Center, as well as long term objectives of the Mount Olivet Cemetery. • . '-. 5 . Indication of support for rezoning from all • effected property owners . The applicant has undertaken to communicate with residents in the surrounding neighborhood and is aware of no objection to the proposed Golf Center development. The Mount Olivet Cemetery Trustees support and are enthusiastic about the Golf Center. 6 . Any other information or exhibits which would aid the planning .commission in arriving at a proper recommendation. .(The attached includes conceptual drawings of the proposed Golf Center) . • • • • • • • -2- ,: • SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Petition 400-708 By David DeSantis OVERVIEW • The petitioner is requesting that the city modify the text of the zoning ordinance by deleting portions of section 21. 78. 130. This section states that any private recreation facility operating in a residential zone must be owned by the residents of the subdivision in which it is located or operate as a nonprofit corporation. The petitioner is requesting that the city modify the text of the zoning ordinance to allow "for profit" corporations to •operate private recreation facilities in a residential zones as a conditional use. The petitioner has received conditional use approval from the Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment to operate a golf training facility as a nonprofit corporation at approximately 1519 East Sunnyside Avenue which is directly West of the National Guard Armory. BACKGROUND The present wording for this section of the zoning ordinance first appeared as a text amendment on September 1,•• 1959. Reasons for it 's adoption stem from concerns that were expressed regarding the commercialization of parks and open spaces by the sale of concessions and other goods to patrons of recreational facilities. ANALYSIS The question of whether of hot the operator of a private recreation facility is a nonprofit corporation -would be difficult to research and enforce. The State of Utah Department of Business Regulation has indicated that there are several types of nonprofit corporations that may be licensed. There does not seem to be any correlation between the city' s desires to regulate the operations of private recreation facilities and the requirement of licensing as a nonprofit corporation. The zoning ordinance is not specific as to what type of nonprofit corporation must be licensed to operate a private recreation facility in a residential zone'. The staff feels that- the more important question to be answered is whether or not the land use is appropriate for the adjoining neighborhood and the city as a whole. It is this portion of the zoning ordinance that required the city to zone- Raging Waters Commercial C-3A to allow the recreational use that is operated by a private Company. The Planning Commission and the Board of Adjustment authorized the approval of a Conditional Use for a Private Recreation Facility in the form of a "Golf Training" facility in this residential zone. Both the Planning Commission and the Board of Adjustment have determined that this type of land use would be appropriate for this neighborhood as an interim use until Mount Olivet Cemetery needs the land. The activities .that would cause the most concern on the site are the operation of the concessions • • • 1 r 0 • that would be incidental to the functions of a golf training facility. These functions are currently being practiced in city parks and golf courses with apparent success. - The petitioner has submitted operating guidelines to the staff as part of the request to change the text of 'the ordinance. This business plan is attached to the staff report. Cemetery officials indicate that the petitioner must still successfully negotiate an agreement with the Federal Government to ascertain whether a golf facility is a suitable interim use of a future cemetery. Only after this is completed do cemetery officials offer their support of the petitioners proposal. RECOMMENDATION ' The Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of Petition 400-708 by - deleting paragraphs "a" and e_ through h of section 21. 78. 130 and adding the additional conditions listed below: , In order to receive approval for a Private Recreation Facilit-y ' in a residential- zone the petitioner must demonstrate that: ". 1. That the proposed facility is •in keeping with the adopted • master plan for the area. 2. The petitioner has demonstrated that all adverse traffic -, impacts can be mitigated to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission. ( This must be verified by the -Salt Lake City Transportation Engineer ) . • 3. The proposed facility does not adversely impact the surrounding residential neighborhood by way ot: lights, noise, odor, time or method of operation or any other objectionable operating characteristic. 4. That all drainage and water retention plans must be reviewed and approved by the Salt Lake City Engineer. 5. That where the city may deem appropriate, the petitioner • must erect and maintain a. 6 ' fence. ( Type and material must be approved by the Planning Commission)_ 6. That all required landscaped setbacks must- be installed and their maintenance guaranteed by the installation of a sprinkling system. 7. That all accessory uses such as retail and food services be independently approved by the City. All such accessory uses must be solely for the use and convenience of the patrons of the proposed establishment. Cristian A. Schulz City Planner II March 1, 1989 DEPARTMENT OE PUBLIC WORKS; PALMER DEPAULIS i;'City.Engineering Division MAX G. PETERSON, P.E. MAYOR $ .444 SOUTH-STATE STREET • CITY ENGINEER SALT:LP.KE;G,LY,; UTAH 8411 1' 535.7871 TO: SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL DATE: MAY 11 , 1989 REFERENCE: Resolution to create the California Avenue, Pioneer Road - 3400 West Special Improvement District, Project No. 38-808 RECOMMENDATION: City Council adopt the resolution to create the District as described in the "Notice of Intention" . AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS : FY 89/90 Capital Improvement budget from Class "C" road funds , Public Utilities Department funds , and property owner assessments through the Special Improvement District . The City' s cost for this project which would be allocated in 1989/90 Capital Improvement budget is $250 , 000 and Public Utilities will provide $500 , 000 . DISCUSSION : This original District will provide for construction of 2 lanes of concrete pavement on the north side of the street, turn lanes , intersections , curb, gutter , and drainage improvements. It should be noted waiver and consent agreements have been entered into by the City to add Dahlberg Enterprises and Utah Power and Light to the District. This will facilitate the construction of 2 lanes of concrete pavement on the south side of the street and construction of culinary water and sanitary sewer from Pioneer Road to 3200 West. Also, Public Utilities will fund construction of a 36 inch water line from Pioneer Road to 3400 West as part of this project . The project will provide a viable first step in construction of this arterial street and demonstrate the City ' s commitment toward development of the Northwest Quadrant. The Department of Public Works intends to advertise this project for bids in June and begin construction in August 1989 , with completion by October , 1989 , if construction funds are made available in FY 89/90 . Attached are drawings showing the areas to be constructed , an information sheet , and a summary of protests against the District . CONTACT PERSON: Daniel C . Noziska , P.E. 535-7819 SUBMITTED BY : Joseph R. Anderson, Director of Public Works 5'0A" JRA:DN: kg Attachments cc : Max G . Peterson/Dan Noziska/Vault INFORMATION SHEET CALIFORNIA AVENUE SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 38-808 DISCUSSION: The original California Ave./Pioneer Road to 3400 West (Gladiola ) project called for the construction of 2 lanes of concrete pavement on the north side of the street , turn lanes, intersections , curb, gutter , and drainage improvements. With the addition of the Dahlberg Enterprise and Utah Power and Light properties two lanes of pavement on the south side of California Avenue and culinary water and sanitary sewer lines from Pioneer Road to 3200 West will be constructed as well . Also, as part of this project the Public Utilities Department is funding construction of a 36 inch diameter transmission line from Pioneer Road to 3400 West . This project demonstrates the city ' s commitment toward development of the Northwest Quadrant. The Department of Public Works intends to advertise this project for bids in June and begin construction in August 1989 , with completion by October , 1989 . AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Funds for this project will come from the 1989/90 General Fund (Class "C" road funds) , Public Utilities funds and property owner assessments through the Special Improvement District. PRELIMINARY ESTIMATED COSTS : Original Property Owner Portion $569 , 812 Added Property Owner Portion for Streets Construction 287, 848 Added Property Owner Portion for Water and Sewer 131 , 920 Public Utilities Portion 500 , 000 City ' s General Fund Portion 250 , 000 Total Estimated Cost $1 , 739 , 580 ( 100o Commercial) For added assessments see next sheet. PROPERTY ADDITIONS TO SID 38-808 CALIFORNIA AVENUE (PIONEER - 3400 WEST) DAHLBERG PROPERTIES Rate No. 3 $100/LF Construct new concrete pavement, curb and gutter and asphalt shoulder . 157 LF at $100/LF = $15 , 700 Rate No. 4 $148/LF Construct new concrete pavement, curb and gutter , asphalt shoulder and drainage ditch . 25 LF at $148/LF = $3 , 700 Rate No. 5 $133 . 35/LF Construct new concrete pavement, seal existing curb and gutter , construct asphalt shoulder and drainage ditch. 1 , 192 LF at $133 . 35/LF = $158 , 953 . 20 Rate No. 6 $88 . 00/LF Construct new concrete pavement , seal existing curb and gutter , and construct asphalt shoulder . 496 LF at $88 . 00 = $43 , 648 Rate No . 7 $68 . 35/LF Seal existing curb and gutter and existing pavement, construct asphalt shoulder and drainage ditch. 487 LF at $68 . 35/LF = $33 , 286 . 45 Rate No. 8 $40 . 00/LF Install new 12" PVC SDR18 watermain. 1417 LF at $40 . 00/LF = $56 , 680 . 00 Rate No . 9 $90 . 00/LF Install new 8" PVC SDR35 sewermain. 836 LF at $90 . 00/LF = $75 , 240 . 00 UTAH POWER AND LIGHT Rate No. 4 $148/LF Construct new concrete pavement, curb and gutter , asphalt shoulder and drainage ditch. 220 LF at 148/LF = $32 , 560 TOTAL ADDITIONAL ABUTTERS PORTION $419 , 767. 65 SUMMARY OF PROTESTS CALIFORNIA AVENUE (PIONEER - 3400 WEST) PROPERTY OWNER FRONT FOOTAGE Overnight Trucking 839 . 62 ft Total assessable footage = 4 , 034 Lineal Feet Protest Rate = 839 . 62 = 20 . 8% 4 , 034 • • . , i r� l'• CALIFORNIA AVENUE - \ ,: I PIONEER ROAD TO 3400 WEST `i• i �� _ PROJECT NO. 38-808 /l \. . . ■I' \,\1 II / o i II .- fi ICIriiii d• ICI IT ' :` , _ 1 le - --_-__-_ I H I . op,*9Q� \�1TEI U 1 �,�� i -NORTH I '\ /it /.�; ./A :: . , . j .4,..., ..N./ I 111..REOTORS ROW cl. . • • i! INDUSTRIAL a ' CALIFORNIA AV NUE 1..J/J -- - .. II 1-215 -- --.. 1 .�il _ r I CENTER • \\\.), . .• _..1...., ,... i .; �;.• ‘, • . : _ : • ..... • . . ; 21 •0 '_ _'thb ir..-_-:-:--:--.-:7-_7-----Ji. — — — .ram •—� -_ .------'-J'_�-4 Q=-- --_..-. -Z STAFF RECOMMENDATION Proposed Ordinance Amending FY 1988/89 Budget June 2, 1989 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: LEE KING ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Amend Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 39 of 1988 adopting the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1988 and ending June 30, 1989. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On June 6, 1989, a Public Hearing will be held on the requested budget amendment at which time departmental representatives and members of the budget staff will be available for questions and comments. This is the fifth and final budget amendment for FY 1988-89. STAFF ANALYSIS: The amount requested in this budget opening is $378,930 in the General Fund; $725,000 in Public Utilities; $242,000 in Internal Service Funds; $377,500 in the CIP; $272,720 in Grants; and $16,000 in Special Revenue. The total amount is .$2,013,150. Most of the requests and recommendations are self-explanatory. However, there are several line items that require additional information. The first is the $27,900 appropriation from Contingency to Parks. This amount will partially offset anticipated water costs that the Parks Department will incur. It will also deplete the General Fund Contingency, which is where we would like to be at this point in time in the budget year. The second item is the $242,000 Transfer listed on page 1 of the budget spreadsheet. $178,000 of these funds are additional revenues received from Sales Tax. The remaining $65,000 comes from employee insurance contributions. This amount will be used to offset Salt Lake City's deficit in PEHP health insurance premiums. Paying off the deficit in this fiscal year will free un this amount in the FY 1989-90 budget. The savings will be applied to the $454,600 offered to the various bargaining units which is not contained in the Mayor's Recommended 1989-90 Budget (this leaves $212,60O_to be identified as reduc ions in the proposed budget for next year). �. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Appropriate $2,013,150 for Budget Amendment NO. 5 for Fiscal Year 1988-89. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: I move that we close this public hearing. 0 CO ;' p I move that we amene Salt Lake City Ordinance NO. 39 of 1988 adopting the budget of Salt Lake City for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1988 and ending June 30, 1989. .� ANTICIPATED OPPOSITION: None * 4'4 k IktN SARfl MY(COLPO d J1 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE 324 SOUTH STATE STREET. 5TH FLOOR LINDA HAMILTON SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 PALMER DEPAU LIS MAYOR DIRECTOR OF FINANCE (801) 535-7676 May 23 , 1989 TO: Salt Lake City Council RE: JUNE 6 , 1989 , PUBLIC HEARING AND PURSUANT TO ACTION ON FORMAL BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 5 FISCAL YEAR 1988-89 TRANSMITTAL: Transmitted herewith are: 1 . The Ordinance amending budgets of Salt Lake City, Utah for the fiscal year beginning July 1 , 1988 and ending June 30 , 1989 . 2 . The budget amending package, which includes a summary fact sheet and applicable budget schedules . DISCUSSION: On June 6, 1989 , a Public Hearing will be held on the requested budget amendment at which time departmental representatives and members of the budget staff will be available for questions and comment . Salt Lake City Council May 23 , 1989 Page - 2 RECOMMENDATIONS: The Budget Staff recommends : All items in the amendment package be approved Tuesday, June 6 , 1989 . Respectfully subirpitted, Linda Hamilton Director of Finance LH/hd Enclosures SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE NO. OF 1989 (Amending the Budget of Salt Lake City, Utah) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE NO. 39 OF 1988 ADOPTING THE BUDGET OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1988 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 1989 . PREAMBLE On June 13, 1988, the Salt Lake City Council (the "City Council" ) adopted the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1988 and ending June 30, 1989, in accordance with the requirements of Section 118 of Chapter 6, Title 10, Utah Code Annotated, 1953 as amended; and said budget was approved by the Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah. The Director of Finance, acting as the City' s Budget Officer, prepared and filed with the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and inspection by the public. The City Council fixed a time and place for a public hearing to be held on June 6, 1989 to consider the attached proposed amendments to the budget and ordered notice thereof be published as required by law. Notice of said public hearing to consider the amendments to said budget was duly published and a public hearing to consider the attached amendments to said budget was held on June 6, 1989 in accordance with said notice at which hearing all interested parties for and against the budget amendment proposals were heard and all comments were duly considered by the City Council. All conditions precedent to amend said budget have been accomplished. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah as adopted by Salt Lake City Ordinance 39 of 1988. SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance be, and the same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1988 and ending June 30, 1989, in accordance with requirements of Section 128 of Chapter 6, Title 10, Utah Code Annotated ( 1953, as amended) . SECTION 3 . Certification to Utah State Auditor. The Director of the City' s Finance Department, acting as the City' s Budget Officer, is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments with the Utah State Auditor. SECTION 4. Filing of Copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments in the office of said Budget Officer and in the office of the City Recorder, which amendments shall be available for public inspection. SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989 . SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By CHAIRPERSON ATTEST : 1.:PP:70VED S TO FORM ..;fL..tite City .`•orrey's Oii ca Diau __ 6_ Sl _ CITY RECORDER Approved by the Mayor this day of , 1989 . MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER FMN:cc -3- 1989 Budget Amendment #5 June 6, 1989 page 1 of 3 I MAJOR FUND CLASSIFICATIONS I INTERNAL CAPITAL SPECIAL EXPLANATION AGENCY/ GENERAL ENTERPRISE SERVICE IMPROVEMENT GRANT REVENUE OTHER PROJECT OR DEPARTMENT OF • DEPARTMENT FUND FUNDS FUNDS FUND FUNDS FUNDS FUNDS FUND CLASS TOTALS AMENDMENT REQUEST Police /-50,710. Fleet Paint. Reduction in fleet maintenance account. The savings generated are recommended to fund increases in the interest expense, and the water expense budget for the Park's Department which are discussed below. ri'(C'`C -50,710 Non-Departmental i A6,610 , N ne. , `• \/�/ A Interest Department Request: To budget additional amount V llJ ,L till✓✓✓��\ estimated for the cost of interest expense. tot 7 (,r Discussion: Interest rates have risen slightly more 16) W than the rates budgeted for. An increase in budget v. �� j,r+� tt, is needed to cover the projected deficit. ~`� \4jfO� n({, U'Y `+ Recommendation: Appropriate 546,610 of the savings \l 'v✓ , from fleet maintenance charges in the Police Dept. �/� ! and increase the budget for interest expense. V -27,900 , 1�� R yl� Contingency Transfer contingency to Parks for water. //242.00Q._ „ ( fCJ/�\J �� I " Transfers Department Request: To budget additional revenue / 4 from Sales tax and appropriate that amount as a transfer to Risk to csoverr additional current �� ^�n �l 5 O S deficit i health hasu orr_a ed rot usImo. of \ 'S1V.V- Discussion: PEHP has informed us of our amount of ' {{ S �Q� their deficit in health insurance premiums received ( `( 4 St? ��`\} versus payments made. We have received additional `!-� \1l y\" J(` �f" sales tax revenue to cover this expenditure. , _ x end' ur a ment this fisca ear `J'� ` t e C ty o re uce a e P m og.,Oaxd. /� , r [ ` ffical year_rrom__cIR'down to 2% �� 1� a(/�� AI, ` Recommendation Appropriate 5242,000 of revenue to V�1.7� ,1 a ./[' transfers to the Risk fund to cover the cost of the l�lJ1`v, /Jr/1 ), 0 additional premium charges. l \ 'P 260,710 Community and Economic Devel. 0 `) in 125,000 Urban Homestead Department Request: To budget grant funds received \)p1 ✓ to create an ❑rban Homesteading program. Discussion: Salt Lake City will receive a Federal grant which will allow us to create a program. The program will be administered by the Redevelopment Agency. This is a separate program from the CDC. Recommendation: Appropriate 8125,000 of new grant funds to create an Urban Homesteading program. 148,720 RDA/Capitol Department Request: To budget program income from Hill-program loan repayments of Redevelopment and Capitol Hill income programs and revolve those proceeds to the RDA and Capitol Hill. Discussion: The RDA has received 5147,695, and Capitol Hill has received 51,025 from repayments of loans. These repayments normally revolve back to the program to reloan or grant. Recommendation: Appropriate 5147,695 of pro._ income to RDA, and S1,025 of program income to Capitol Hill. 6,000 Demolition Department Request: To budget revenue received and Revolving Fund fund balance to cover the cost of demolishing two buildings. Discussion: The demolition fund has received unbudgeted revenue of S3.900. It is requested to use this revenue and an additional amount from fund balance of 52,100 so two buildings which are Public hazards can be demolished. Recommendation: Appropriate S3,900 of revenue received and S2,100 of fund balance to cover the cost of demolishimg two buildings. 279,,7J20 /�/�I ' W Z-/S.c 61) 01-)14%-leAS anirlE0j-76 \ , 6,6 Lyz 6A) = /-7q, 660 ,] ?) t ( 1"� ) r t ri-er c Uri For nerx U�u� /s 1 (� ,cibD.�' - �t rl)m % -I•A x . CoTe In 6&3 i I - MAJOR FUND CLASSIFICATIONS I page 2 of 3 INTERNAL CAPITAL SPECIAL EXPLANATION AGENCY/ GENERAL ENTERPRISE SERVICE IMPROVEMENT GRANT REVENUE OTHER PROJECT OR DEPARTMENT OF DEPARTMENT FUND FUNDS FUNDS FUND FUNDS FUNDS FUNDS FUND CLASS TOTALS AMENDMENT REQUEST - Parks V 32,000 Water budget Department Request: To budget contingency funds and fleet savings from Police to the water budget of Parks to cover the additional amount needed. Discussion: The contingency budget included an amount for additional water costs which the Park's Dept. might incur. This amount has been determined to be S32,000. It is requested to transfer the remaining budget of contingency and an additional amount which is identified as savings in the fleet maintenance budget of Police to cover the cost of additional water. Recommendation: Appropriate S27,900 of contingency and S4,100 of fleet savings of Police to cover additional water purchases. 32,000 Public Works 116,9.3O Road Work Department Request: To budget additional revenue from work Streets completed for the State and from an additional allocation of Class 'C' Road fur received to Streets to purchase needed materi. and manpower to complete road work which was severely impacted by last winter. Discussion: The Street's division has performed work for the State and has received S49,930. Add- itionally the City has received S87,000 from Class 'C' Road funds previously unanticipated. Due to the extremely harsh winter which caused Streets to purchase more salt than usual and more emergency road repair material than usual, it is necessary to appropriate this additional revenue to Streets In order for them to replenish their road material and manpower budget to accomplish their normal workload this spring. Recommendation: Appropriate S136,930 of additional revenue and S136,930 to Streets for additional road materials and manpower. 377,500 CIP Projects Department Request: To budget additional Class 'C' Road funds, additional property owner assessments, additional RDA funds, shift from one project to another, and additional UDOT funds to complete needed projects. Discussion: This proposal will appropriate S86,500 of additional Class 'C' Road funds to the California Avenue-Redwood to Pioneer Road project to cover additonal costs of railroad relocation: will appropriate S145,000 of additional property owner assessment revenue funds and S121,000 of additional RDA funds to expand the CBD Beautification project: will appropriate S53,406 of project funds currently appropriated to 1700 S.-State to Jordan River to the 1300 S.-State to 500 West project to allow payment for additional land costs brought about by legal judgement against the City in favor of the la- owner. Engineering feels that sufficient fur ill remain in the 1700 S. project to complete: W. appropriate S25,000 of UDOT funds received fot providing Street lighting on Redwood Road-North Temple to 1000 N. to the street lighting capital replacement account. Recommendation: Appropriate S377,500 of additional funds to the CIP fund. 514,430 Fire 10.000 E911 Fund Department Request: To budget E911 dispatch funds received from SL County to be used to cover some initial start-up costs of the program. Discussion: This proposal will appropriate S10,000 of E911 funds recived from SL County for purchases which will be made to begin operation of this program. Recommendation: Appropriate S10,000 of E911 revenue for purchases for the program. 10,000 I MAJOR FUND CLASSIFICATIONS I page 3 of 3 INTERNAL CAPITAL SPECIAL EXPLANATION AGENCY/ GENERAL ENTERPRISE SERVICE IMPROVEMENT GRANT REVENUE OTHER PROJECT OR DEPARTMENT OF DEPARTMENT FUND FUNDS FUNDS FUND FUNDS FUNDS FUNDS FUND CLASS TOTALS AMENDMENT REQUEST . Human Resources 242,000 Insurance Prem. Discussion: See non-departmental for complete discussion regarding payment of additional health ;• insurance premiums. (l,!, 242,000 WPublic Utilities 725,000 California Ave Department Request: To budget revenue from add- Water Conduit/ itional water sales and an interlocal agreement Water Purchases with Metropolitan Water to construct a water conduit on California Ave.-Pioneer Road to Gladiolia street, and additional water purchases. Discussion: This proposal will appropriate S475,000 to construct a water conduit on California Ave.- Pioneer Road to Gladiolia street, and S250,000 for additional water purchases. Recommendation: Appropriate S725,000 of additional funds to capital construction and water purchases. 725,000 Total 378,930 725,000 242,000 377,500 273.720 16,000 0 2,013,150 61 1 _ / ^ rS2° �I• Y(f i t mertd/Ral .)un'89 L;\.0 -- \-2-j(.9 ‘,..) . (46\• 1-- Q1--X. ' r aud lei - • P -ik"6'4 �--I I �Q t -- D; Cc0,....) r �. AD 4 uI c. z-7 , .c-Ck7,, ' \s' ' 1Col . ‹e:-\ ,, . 4. ,i, t i n %.....,) ‘ 00,00 iy.! voi.ui 1 612,, trl.,e,f./.LO um.. i , . ��1 �� 0 , NDkp t„ ,t- v,G) GENERAL FUND AMENDED BUDGET SUMMARY FY 1988-89 1988-89 1988-89 COUNCIL AMENDED BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS BUDGET RESOURCES Revenue Taxes: Property Taxes $24,741,909 $0 $24,741,909 Sales & Use Taxes 19,688,000 242,000 19,930,000 Franchise Taxes 15,389,560 0 15,389,560 Total Taxes 59,819,469 242,000 60,061,469 Other Current Revenue: Licenses & Permits 4,349,064 0 4,349,064 Fines & Forfeitures 3,313,060 0 3,313,060 Interest 2,486,500 0 2,486,500 Charges For Services 1,835.395 49,930 1,885,325 Federal Revenue Sharing 0 0 0 State Beer/Liquor Tax 480,000 0 480,000 Intergovernmental Revenue 2,325,676 87,000 2,412,676 Parking Meter Collections 1,300.000 0 1,300,000 Interfund Reimbursement 3,496,655 0 3,496,655 Other Revenue 251,285 0 251,285 Payment in-lieu of Taxes 288,976 0 288,976 Total Other Current Revenue 20,126,611 136,930 20,263,541 Other Sources Bond Reserves 424,240 0 424,240 Transfer In From Other Funds 0 0 0 Fund Balance (Reserves) 0 0 0 Total Other Sources 424,240 0 424,240 TOTAL RESOURCES $80,370,320 S378,930 $80,749,250 USES Expenditures Administrative Services $2,995,747 SO S2,995,747 Attorney 1,121,503 0 1,121,503 City Council 563.628 0 563,628 Community and Economic Dev. 3,270.215 0 3,270,215 Finance 4,086,546 0 4,086,546 Fire 15.966,089 0 15,966,089 Mayor 1,878,298 0 1,878,298 Non Departmental 3,855,334 46,610 3,901,944 Parks 5,300,794 32,000 5,332,794 Police 20,499,867 -50,710 20,449,157 Public Works 14,010.341 136,930 14,147,271 Total Expenditures 73.548,362 164.830 73,713,192 Other Uses Interfund Transfers: Street Lighting Fund 102.668 0 102,668 Capital Projects Fund 4,462,890 0 4,462,890 Refuse Collection Fund 289,000 0 289,000 Fleet Replacement Fund 1,909,500 0 1,909,500 Demolition Fund 15,000 0 15,000 Weed Abatement Fund 15,000 0 15,000 Risk Management Fund 0 242,000 242,000 Contingency 27,900 -27,900 0 Approp. To Fund Balance 0 0 0 Total Other Uses 6,821,958 214,100 7,036,058 TOTAL USES $80,370,320 $378,930 $80,749,250 WATER UTILITY ENTERPRISE FUND BUDGET SUMMARY FY 1988-89 G AAP BUDGETARY BASIS 1988-89 1988-89 1988-89 ADOPTED COUNCIL AMENDED AMENDED BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS BUDGET BUDGET OPERATING REVENUES: Sales & Charges for Services $16,000,000 $250,000 $16,250,000 $14,700,000 Rate Increase for Watershed Plan 250,000 0 250,000 250,000 Sales & Charges For Services Rate Increase 3,100,000 0 3,100,000 3,100,000 Other Revenue 1,004,000 0 1,004,000 1,004,000 TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES 20,354,000 250,000 20,604,000 19,054,000 OPERATING EXPENSES: Water Supply 2,574,398 250,000 2,824,398 1,574,398 Water Power & Pumping 1,825,656 0 1,825,656 1,525,656 Water Treatment 2,745,028 0 2,745,028 2,745,028 Water Distribution 3,611,483 0 3,611.483 3,611,483 Water Support Services 1,455,916 0 1,455.916 1,455,916 Water Customer Services 1,954,514 0 1,954.514 1,954,514 Administration 1,430,692 0 1,430,692 1,430,692 Depreciation & Amortization 0 0 0 1,900,000 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 15,597,687 250,000 15,847,687 16,197,687 NET OPERATING INCOME 4,756.313 0 4,756,313 2,856,313 OTHER SOURCES (USES) : Interest Income (Expense) 625,000 0 625,000 625,000 Transfer from Reservoir & Supply Line Fees 686,600 0 686,600 Other Contributions/Loans 1,735,000 475,000 2,210,000 Capital Outlay -9,917,513 -475,000 -10,392.513 Bond Principle -1,043,800 0 -1,043,800 Bond Interest Expense -1,451,000 0 -1.451,000 -1,701,000 TOTAL OTHER SOURCES (USES) -9,365,713 0 -9,365,713 -1,076,000 Appropriation to Fund Balance Appropriation of Fund Balance -5,109,400 0 -5,109,400 Change in Retained Earnings $1,780,313 Beginning Fund Balance (Deficit) 7,576,142 0 7,576,142 Ending Fund Balance (Deficit) $2,466,742 $0 $2,466,742 Note: Fund balance is defined as cash and investments, less accounts payable, accrued payroll, contract retainage, and restricted accounts. RISK MANAGEMENT INTERNAL SERVICE FUND BUDGET SUMMARY FY 1988-89 G AAP BUDGETARY BASIS Basis 1988-89 1988-89 1988-89 COUNCIL ADOPTED ADOPTED BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS BUDGET BUDGET OPERATING REVENUES: Premiums $8,437,840 $242,000 $8,679,840 $8,679,840 OPERATING EXPENSES: Personal Services 187,940 0 187,940 187,940 Compensated Absence Allowance 0 0 0 2,000 Materials & Supplies 7,044 0 7,044 7,044 Data Processing Services 25,024 0 25,024 25,024 Contractual Services 115,500 0 115,500 115,500 Claims 1,601,539 0 1,601,539 1,601,539 Premiums 5,950,971 242,000 6,192,971 6,192,971 Administrative Fees 25,000 0 25,000 25,000 Administrative Fees to C.F. 71,400 0 71,400 71,400 Other Charges & Services 376,204 0 376,204 376,204 Depreciation 0 0 0 5,000 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 8,360,622 242,000 8,602,622 8,609,622 NET OPERATING INCOME 77,218 0 77,218 70,218 OTHER SOURCES (USES) : Interest Income (Expense) 71,192 0 71,192 71,192 Capital Outlay -8,410 0 -8,410 Transfer In 0 0 0 0 Transfer Out 0 0 0 Refunds 0 0 0 TOTAL OTHER SOURCES (USES) 62,782 0 62,782 71,192 Appropriation of Fund Balance 0 0 0 Appropriation to Fund Balance 140,000 0 140,000 Change in Retained Earnings 0 0 0 $141,410 Beginning Fund Balance (Deficit) -1,591,294 -1,591,294 Ending Fund Balance (Deficit) ($1,451,294) $0 ($1,451,294) Note: Fund balance is defined as cash and investments, less accounts payable, accrued liabilities, and deferred revenue. CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND BUDGET SUMMARY FY 1988-89 1988-89 1988-89 COUNCIL AMENDED REVENUES BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS BUDGET Community Development Block Grant ( CDBG) S1,695,600 1,695,600 Federal Agency Loan Proceeds 150,000 150,000 UDOT and Federal Highway Admin. 1,218,295 111,500 1,329,795 Salt Lake County 1,100,000 1,100,000 Misc. Private/InterAgency/Federal Grants 966,000 966,000 Transfer in from General Fund 4,462,890 4,462,890 Redevelopment Agency 1,720,000 121,000 1,841,000 Fund Balance (Surplus Property Account) 908,000 908,000 Prior Year Closeouts 255,953 255,953 Special Assessment Taxes 1,000,000 145,000 1,145,000 Central Fire Dispatch 50,000 50,000 H.U.D. Section 108 Loan 1,675,000 1,675,000 TOTAL RESOURCES S15,201,738 5377,500 S15,579,238 PROJECT EXPENDITURES PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Street Improvements Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter: SID 820,000 820,000 Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter Emergency Repairs 200,000 200,000 Local Street SID 322,000 322,000 California Avenue 57,795 86.500 144,295 900 W. 900-2100 5. 1,300,000 1,300,000 Railroad Safety Project 250,000 250,000 400 S. Viaduct Emerg, Repair 1,850,000 1,850,000 Traffic Safety Mgmt. 100,000 100,000 900 West Folsom Ave.-100 5. 600,000 600,000 CBD Beautification 1,520,000 266,000 1,786,000 Main Street Bus Bays 220,000 220,000 Windsor-Dooley Blk. Redesign 150,000 150.000 Peoples Freeway St. Imp. 300,000 300,000 E. Central St. Imp. 525,000 525,000 E. Central St. Design 25,000 25,000 W. Capital St. Design 20,000 20.000 N. Temple Parking Lot 135,000 135,000 Safer Sidewalks 10,500 10,500 Total Street Improvements 8,405,295 352,500 8,757,795 Drainage Improvements Avenues Cross Drain 30,000 30,000 N. E. Central Design 10,000 10,000 w. Temple Storm Drain 575,000 575,000 Main Street Storm Drain 20,000 20.000 State Street Storm Drain 20.000 20,000 Total Drainage Improvements 655,000 0 655,000 Public Buildings and Other Facilities City-County Landfill 1,100,000 1,100,000 Misc. Facilities Repairs 211,600 211.600 Earthquake Hazard Improv. 150,000 150,000 Fire Station 44 & 4 10 Plan. 100,000 100,000 Fire Station 410 Const. 415,000 415,000 Street Light Replace account 80,000 25.000 105,000 CDBG Public Bldg. Projects 130,000 130,000 Canterbury Apartments 1,675,000 1,675,000 Total Public Bldg. S Other Fac. 3,861,600 25,000 3,886,600 Total Public Works S12,921.895 377,500 13,299,395 PARKS DEVELOPMENT Riverside Park Parking 106,290 106,290 Liberty Park Pool Design 30.000 30,000 Sunnyside Park Rec. Center 150.000 150,000 Urban Forestry Program 50,000 50,000 S. Central Mini Park 90,000 90.000 Athletic Park Construction 90,000 90,000 Jordan Park Irrigation 20,000 20,000 Victory Tennis Crt. Redesign 7,500 7,500 N. Point Park 150,000 150,000 Glendale Youth Facility Land 108,000 108,000 Total Parks 801.790 0 801,790 MAYOR City-County Bldg. Rehab. 1,140,000 0 1,140,000 Total Mayor 1,140,000 0 1,140,000 PERCENT FOR ART 13,100 0 13,100 13,100 0 13,100 NON-DEPARTMENTAL Contingency 226,000 0 226,000 Slippage 98,953 98,953 Total Non-departmental 226.000 0 226,000 TOTAL USES 515,102,785 5377,500 S15,480,285 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT 14TH YEAR OPERATING FUND BUDGET SUMMARY FY 1988-89 1988-89 COUNCIL AMENDED RESOURCES BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS BUDGET 1988 (14th Year) Entitlement $2,099,400 0 $2,099,400 Program Income 366,778 148,720 515,498 Prior Year Entitlement Balances 1,634,248 0 1,634,248 TOTAL RESOURCES $4,100,426 $148,720 $4,249,146 PROJECTS COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Housing Rehabilitation $1,065,807 147,695 $1,213,502 Crime Prevention 70,000 70,000 Assist Emergency Home Repair 200,000 200,000 Operation Paintbrush 35,000 35,000 New Hope Cultural Center 11,900 11,900 Housing Outreach Rental 29,000 29,000 West Side Food Pantry 24,000 24,000 Men's Shelter Operation 38,500 38,500 Neighborhood Attorney 5,000 5,000 Security Lock Program 30,000 30,000 Alliance House 30,000 30,000 Environmental Assessments 7,800 7,800 Administration/Planning 382,000 382,000 NHS Housing Revolving Loan Fund 75,000 75,000 New Women Family Shelter 175,000 175,000 Operations of Existing Womens Shelter 25,000 25,000 Capitol West Boys & Girls Club 28,500 28.500 Rape Crisis Center 25,000 25.000 YWCA Mechanical System Impr. 15,000 15,000 Neighborhood Self-Help Grants 25,000 25,000 SL City Housing Resource Board 3,000 3.000 Housing Development Corp. 300,000 300,000 Cleaning & Securing Vacant Properties 20,000 20,000 SL Historic Survey 26,000 26.000 SL Community Progress Survey/Publication 11,500 11,500 Total Comm. & Econ. Develop. 2,658,007 147,695 2,805,702 NON-DEPARTMENTAL Operating Contingency 89,516 89,516 89,516 0 89,516 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS All Prior Year Projects 1,352,903 1,025 1,353,928 1,352,903 1,025 1,353,928 TOTAL ALL PROJECTS $4,100,426 $148,720 $4,249,146 MISCELLANEOUS GRANT SPECIAL REVENUE FUND AMENDED BUDGET SUMMARY FY 1988-89 1988-89 1988-89 COUNCIL AMENDED BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS BUDGET RESOURCES State/County EMS Grant $63,000 $0 $63,000 Fed/County Homeless Grant 66,000 0 66,000 SL County CDBG Grant 6,840 0 6,840 H.U.D. Rental Rehab. Grant 295,000 0 295,000 H.U.D. Secretary Grant 500,000 0 500,000 H.U.D. Section 103 Loan 0 0 0 Mckinney Act Shelter Grant 62,000 0 62,000 Urban Homestead Grant 0 125,000 Prior Year Grants: Homeless Mentally 111 219 0 219 District Heating/Cooling 72,275 0 72,275 Rick Warner UDAG 237,568 0 237,568 Renter Rehab. Fed87/88 243,200 0 243,200 Renter Rehab. Fed88/89 295,000 0 295,000 TOTAL SOURCES $1,841,102 $125,000 $1,841,102 EXPENDITURES Charges and Services $1,341,102 $125,000 $1,466,102 Housing Development Corp. 500,000 0 500,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,841,102 $125,000 $1,966,102 DEMOLITION SPECIAL REVENUE FUND BUDGET SUMMARY FY 1988-89 1988-89 1988-89 ADOPTED COUNCIL AMENDED BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS BUDGET RESOURCES Transfer From General Fund $15,000 SO $15,000 Approp. of Fund Balance 0 2,100 $2,100 Lien Payments 0 3,900 $3,900 TOTAL SOURCES $15,000 $6,000 $21,000 USES Demolition Expense $15,000 $6,000 $21,000 TOTAL USES $15,000 $6,000 $21,000 E911 DISPATCH SPECIAL REVENUE FUND BUDGET SUMMARY FY 1988-89 1988-89 1988-89 ADOPTED COUNCIL AMENDED BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS BUDGET RESOURCES E911 Surcharge fees $0 S10,000 S10,000 TOTAL SOURCES $O $10,000 $10,000 USES Capital Outlay $0 S10,000 $10,000 TOTAL USES $0 $10,000 $10,000 Cp7-00/ DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CRAIG E. PETERSON 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 201 DIRECTOR - . SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 535-7777 To: Salt Lake City Council April 6, 1989 RE: Technical amendments to the City's Floodplain Ordinance Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing on June 6, 1989. at 6:30 p.m. to discuss technical amendments to Salt Like City's Floodplain Ordinance. Availability of Funds: Not applicable Background sand Discussion: An assessment was made of Salt Lake City's floodplain-hazard ordinance by the Natural and Technological Hazards Division and they reco„u„ended some minor changes to our ordinance. The changes will assure Salt Lake City's participation in the National Flood Insurance Program. The Planning Commission has reviewed and approved the proposed changes. The appropriate City Department have also reviewed and approved the proposed changes. • Legislative Documents: The City Attorney's Office had prepared and approved the necessary ordinance and is ready for your action. Submitted by: -�.- CRAIG E. PETERSON Director lf/ (f7ZY o • SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. 1989 (11 (Technical amendments to the City's floodplain ordinance required by FEMA. ) AN ORDINANCE MAKING CERTAIN TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 68 OF TITLE 18 DEALING WITH FLOODPLAIN HAZARD PROTECTION PURSUANT TO REQUIREMENTS OF THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM OF THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY. WHEREAS, the City needs to make certain technical amendments to its floodplain hazard protection ordinance to comply with the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program; THEREFORE, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, hereby adopts the following amendments to Chapter 68 of Title 18. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Section 18.68.020 is amended by adding a new Subsection 30 as follows: 18.68.020(30) "Lowest Floor" means the lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including basement) . An unfinished or flood restraint enclosure, usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage, in an area other than a basement area, is not considered a building' s lowest floor, provided that such enclosure is not built so U I as to render the structure in violation of the applicable non-elevation design requirements of this ordinance. SECTION 2. That Section 18. 68. 100(b) is amended to read as follows: 18. 68. 100(b) All new construction and substantial improvements of residential structures within the floodplain hazard area shall have the lowest floor ( including basement ) , elevated to or above the base flood elevation. SECTION 3. 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 , 1989. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: A? CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s Action: Approved Vetoed MAYOR -2- • ALLEN C. JOHNSON s„�� 1 it e v je MEMBERS: PLANNING DIRECTOR NANCY K. PACE. CHAIRMAN BRENT B. WILDE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ROBERT LEWIS ZONING ADMINISTRATOR Board of Adjustment on Zoning PETER VAN ALSTYNE GEORGINA DUFOUR 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 200 1. J. WAGNER SECRETARY SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 ALTERNATES: 535-7757 FAUN O. HANSEN W. KENT MONEY March 14, 1989 Craig E. Peterson, Director Department of Development Services 324 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: Floodplain Ordinance Amendment Dear Craig: Attached is the background information relating to a proposed amendment to the City's Floodplain Hazard Regulations, chapter 18. 68. This amendment is in response to a letter received from the Federal Emergency Management Agency ( FEMA). To summarize : • - FEMA initially contacted the city on November 15th, 1988 requesting the changes be made ( see Attachment A) . - The City's current Floodplain Hazard Protection Ordinance, Chapter 18. 68, was sent to Mr. Doug Gore, with FEMA Denver office, for review during the second week of January. - An assessment was made of Salt Lake City' s Floodplain Hazard Protection Ordinance by* Jerome M. Olson and Doug Gore from the Natural and Technological Hazards Division which stated that minor changes were needed to be made in the City's Ordinance. Please refer to the January 20, 1989 response letter ( Attachment B). A policy statement on the term "Lowest Floor" was also sent by FEMA ( Attachment C ) . - Several departments were contacted for comments on the proposed amendment including Building and Housing Services, Permits and Zoning, Planning Department, Heritage Foundation, City-County Health Department, Assist Inc. , Neighborhood Housing Services, Redevelopment Agency, Housing Authority. . Y}'f - A staff report was prepared February 21, 1989. ( Attachment D ) - The Planning Commission met on March 9, 1989 and made a motion to approve the proposed amendment (Attachment E - minutes ). The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council hold a public hearing for this ordinance amendment. The Planning Commission and staff anticipate no adverse impacts of the ordinance amendment and the changes will assure the City ' s continued participation in the National Flood Insurance Program. The date has been extended from May 1st to June 19, 1989 for final adoption of these changes into the City' s ordinance. The two proposed changes are outlined in the February 21 staff report recommendation. Respectfully Submitted, Allen C. Johnson, AICP Planning Director � Ogg z Federal mergency Management g'ncy (; '' 1 ` •,o Region VI II `f pry 12 Denver Federal Center, Building 710 Gy°,; Box 25267 Denver, CO 80225-0267 November 15, 1988 • The Honorable Palmer DePaulis Mayor, City of Salt Lake City 324 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear Mayor DePaulis: On October 1 , 1986 , the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) implemented several revisions to its regulations. Prior to that date, a letter was sent to you as your community' s 'Executive Official indicating what changes were needed and. the deadline for - adoption. Our records indicate that your community has not yet adopted these revisions, and we are offering our assistance to ensure your community's regulatory compliance with the NFIP. Your community is required, as a condition of continued eligibility in the NFIP, to adopt or show evidence of adoption of floodplain management regulations that meet the +standards of Section 60 .3 (d) of the enclosed NFIP regulations (44 CFR 59 , etc. ) . These standards are the minimum requirements and do not supersede any State or local requirements of a more stringent nature. Standards specified in Section 60.3 (d) of the NFIP regulations must be enacted in a legally enforceable document. Some of the standards should already have been enacted by your community in order to establish initial eligibility in the NFIP. Your community can meet any additional requirements by taking one of the following actions: • 1 . Amend your existing local floodplain management ordinance to incorporate any new regulations adopted to meet the additional requirements of Section 60.3.(d) . 2 . Adopt all of the standards of Section 60 .3 (d) into one new, comprehensive set of regulations (model ordinance enclosed) ; or, 3. Show evidence that regulations have previously been adopted that meet or exceed the minimum requirements of Section 60. 3 (d) . 2 Communities that fail to enact the necessary floodplain management regulations will be suspended from participation in the NFIP and subject to the prohibitions contained in Section 202 (a) of the 1973 Act, as amended. To expedite your community' s adoption of a compliant ordinance, you may adopt the enclosed model ordinance which contains all of the minimum requirements of the NFIP. If, however, your community elects to amend its current ordinance rather than adopt a new one, an ordinance assistance packet is being provided Mr. Alan Johnson. This packet will include a copy of our model ordinance, current NFIP regulations , an itemization of all October 1 , 1986 regulatory revisions , and a paper describing the two regulatory options for manufactured (formerly referred to as mobile) homes located in an existing manufactured home park or subdivision. We request that a draft copy of your community' s ordinance be sent to our office prior to adoption so we may review it and determine whether or not it meets NFIP requirements: To ensure your community' s continued participation in the NFIP, a compliant floodplain management ordinance must be adopted la May 1 , 1989 . If we can be of assistance in the preparation of your community' s floodplain management ordinance, please contact Mr. Doug Gore at (303) 235-4830 . Sincerely, Jerome M. Olson, Chie Natural and Technological Hazards Division cc : Mr. Alan Johnson, Ping. Dir. , w/enclosures Mrs . Lorayne Frank, CEM G_ My4,'. ( attachment B • • a. r Federal mergency Management Agency Region VIII Sri yo .1' •_ Denver Federal Center, Building 710 Box 25267 ti Qi, Denver, CO 80225.0267 • January 20, 1989 Mr. Allen McCandless Environmental Planner Salt Lake City Corporation 324 South State Street Fifth Floor, Suite 500 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear Mr. McCandless: • Thank-you for your letter of January 1 , 1989 to Mr. Doug Gore of this office requesting our review of Salt Lake City' s floodplain management ordinance. While we find the ordinance addresses the latest requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) , relating to manufactured homes etc. ; an amendment is necessary for correcting past discrepancies. Once the amendment is received, Salt Lake City' s participation will be continued. The issue in question relates to City standards for residential , floodplain construction. Section 18 .68 .100 B of the City ' s ordinance states , "All new -construction- and substantial improvements of residential structures within the floodplain hazard area shall have the lowest floor (including basement) , if habitable, elevated to or above the base flood elevation. "-{The phrase, "if habitable, " is inconsistent with part 60. 3 D of the enclosed NFIP regulations and should be deleted) In addition, since the term "lowest floor" can be misunderstood, we are -, providing our policy statement on this issue and recommendithe following definition be incorporated into the definition section (18.68 . 020) of the City ' s ordinance J "Lowest floor" means the lowest floor of the lowest • enclosed area (including basement) . -An unfinished or flood resistant enclosure, usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage, in an area other than a basement area, is not considered a building' s lowest floor, provided that such enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in violation of the applicable non-elevation design requirements of this ordinance. 2 We appreciate your interest in the NFIP. Please contact Mr. Doug Gore of this office at (303) 235-4830 if we can be of assistance. Sincerely, ' Jerom M. Olson, Chief Natural and Technological Hazards Division Enclosures cc: Mrs. Lorayne Frank, CEM := attachment C W ,®;t1 Federal Emergency Management Agency 1•111j), Region VIII Denver Federal Center P.O. Box 25267 `'a*` Denver, CO 80225-0267 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM POLICY STATEMENT: Use of the term "Lowest Floor" Clarification of the "lowest floor" issue can best be provided by distinguishing between lowest floor determinations for flood plain management purposes, and those necessary for flood insurance rating purposes. The distinction is important more from the standpoint that the concept of lowest floor serves two related, but functionally different components of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and not because significant definitional differences exist between the two. For flood plain management purposes, the term "lowest floor" is used to define the lowest level of a building which must be located at or above the 100-year flood elevation (also called the base flood level) . Communities which participate in the NFIP must require that new construction comply with this standard in accordance with the requirements of 44 CFR 60.3 . NFIP flood plain management policy requires that all floor levels of a building, except those exclusively used for parking of vehicles ( i. e. garage) , limited storage, or building access ( i.e. stairs, elevator shafts, etc. ) must be elevated to or above the base flood elevation. Thus, for example, any floor level equipped for such uses as a kitchen; dining, living, family or recreation room; bedroom, bathroom; office, professional studio or commercial occupancy, may not be permitted below the base flood elevation. Basements ( i.e. those enclosures with floor levels completely below ground level) are never permitted below the base flood elevation, unless an exception has been granted to the community by FEMA (ref. 44 CFR 60 . 6 (b) ) . The allowance of certain reasonable uses below the base flood elevation, such as parking of vehicles, is permitted because the amount of damage caused by flooding to these areas can easily be kept to a minimum by following design and construction requirements contained in the NFIP regulations. The conditions outlined below must be met whenever such enclosed space ( i. e. used for parking of vehicles, storage, or building access) is located below the base flood elevation. Failure to meet these requirements can increase the structure ' s damage potential and . -- result in application of higher insurance premiums . These requirements include: 1. No machinery or equipment which service a building such as rn-y' furnaces, air conditioners, heat pumps, hot water heaters, washers, dryers, elevator lift equipment, electrical junction and circuit breaker boxes, and food freezers, are permitted below the base flood elevation; and 2. All interior wall, floor and ceiling materials located below the base flood elevation must be unfinished and resistant to flood damage; and 3 . The walls of any enclosed area below the base flood elevation must be constructed in a manner to prevent flotation, collapse, and lateral movement of the structure . Note from item ( 1) above that machinery and equipment are not necessarily prohibited from an entire enclosed area, but only from that portion which is located below the base flood elevation. Machinery and equipment can often be raised above the base flood elevation on pedestals or platforms within these enclosed areas. Item ( 2 ) is meant to exclude use of materials and finishings which are normally associated with living areas constructed above the base flood elevation. However , materials and finishings which are necessary to meet applicable fire resistant codes are permitted. Item (3 ) is intended to address structural integrity considerations , since these walled areas are subject to external loading from a wide range of flood inundation levels . These standards apply to all flood plain construction and are required under 44 CFR 60 . 3 (a) ( 3 ) ( 1) . These particular requirements are intended to be "performance" oriented, as opposed to standards which provide detailed written specifications for design and materials . Performance oriented standards tend to allow greater flexibility in choice of design and materials, and in many instances, allow lower construction costs . In order to meet the requirements of 44 CFR 60 . 3 ( a) ( 3 ) ( i) , the walls of an enclosed area below flood elevation, such as a garage, must be designed and constructed to prevent buildup of flood loads which could result in foundation failure or damage . For most residential construction, this becomes a necessary design consideration where expected flood depths above grade exceed one foot . In these cases, the enclosure should be designed to minimize the buildup of flood loads by allowing water to automatically enter into, flow through ( in higher velocity) , and drain from the enclosed area. The manner in which this is accomplished can vary depending on the type of flood conditions possible at the building site . For example, under low velocity conditions this may be accomplished simply by a series of small vents, louvers , or valves which permit the level of floodwaters inside the enclosed area to match rising and falling flood levels on the outside of the building. - 2 - r • For fully enclosed areas, balance of internal and external water f pressure is controlled by size and placement of the openings. - NFIP flood plain management regulations 44 CFR .60_.3( c) (5) require, for all new construction and substantial improvements, that fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor that are subject to flooding shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters. Designs for meeting this requirement must either be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect or meet or exceed the following minimum criteria: A minimum of two openings having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding shall be provided. The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade. Openings may be _equipped with screens, louvers, valves, or other coverings or devices provided that they permit the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters. From an insurance rating standpoint, a determination of a structure' s "lowest floor" level provides a mechanism for defining a structure ' s exposure to risk, and thus permits application of - appropriate actuarial rates. With the exception of only one rating category, as further explained below, the floor level described as a structure ' s "lowest floor" for rating purposes would be consistent with that required for flood plain management purposes under 44 CFR 60 . 3. `' For insurance rating purposes, placement of an enclosure, such as a garage, below the base flood elevation would not result in the garage floor becoming the structure ' s "lowest floor" level, as long as certain design considerations are met. These considerations are explained both in the Flood Insurance Agent ' s workbook and FEMA 's elevation certification form as follows: The floor of an unfinished enclosed area at ground level or above, which is a crawl space, or space within the foundation walls, useable as areas for building maintenance, access, parking vehicles, or storing of articles and maintenance equipment (not machinery or equipment attached to the building) used in connection with the premises is not considered the building 's lowest floor (emphasis added) if the walls of the unfinished enclosed areas are constructed with openings ( such as with parallel sheer walls, open lattice walls, discontinuous foundation walls, or combinations thereof) to facilitate the unimpeded movement of flood waters, or the walls are breakaway walls. The unimpeded movement of flood water is imperative to equalize the hydrostatic pressure inside and outside of the walls of the building and/or garage. - 3 - The primary consideration from the above language is that . sufficient effort in the -design of the structure has been made to - equalize the hydrostatic pressure inside and outside the walls of the building during conditions of flooding. The insurance manual suggests use of parallel shear walls, open lattice walls, or discontinuous foundation walls as preferred examples for preventing excessive flood loads on the enclosed portion of the structure. However, any other design such as those previously described above as meeting the flood plain management requirements of 44 CFR 60 .3 ( a) (3 ) ( i ) would also be acceptable. One circumstance exists where a structure ' s lowest floor level used for rating is not consistent with that provided for under the flood plain management regulations. In V-Zone special flood hazard areas, the flood plain management requirements permit breakaway wall enclosures below the base flood elevation without regard to the size of the enclosed area. For insurance rating purposes, however , the floor of such an enclosed area will become the structure 's lowest floor level if the size of the enclosed area exceeds 300 square feet. The "300 square foot" limit was - established because of the risk of excessive loading on the structure ' s foundation system as the size of the enclosure increases. This provision establishes an upper size limit where, from an insurance standpoint, additional design information is needed in order to set proper risk premium rates. Where information on the building 's design has been provided ( such as through an optional Individual Risk Rating form) , which shows that the structure adequately meets the performance standards for V-Zone construction, then lower rates can be provided. - 4 - F ` -N. Attachment D SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT FLOODPLAIN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT OVERVIEW • On October 6, 1986, the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP ) made several changes to its regulations which have not been yet incorporated into the Ordinances of Salt Lake City. Salt Lake City is required as a condition of continued eligibility in the NFIP, to meet the minimum standards of the NFIP regulations, and is required to adopt these changes into the City's ordinance by May 1, 1989. Please refer to November 15, 1988 letter ( attachment A) from Federal Emergency Management Agency ( FEMA). BACKGROUND To date, the following has transpired:- FEMA has initially contacted the city on November 15th, 1988 requesting the changes be made ( see attachment A). - The City's current Floodplain Hazard Protection A_ Ordinance, Chapter 16. 68, was sent to Mr. Doug Gore who is with FEMA for review during the second week Of January. - An assessment was made of Salt Lake City's- Floodplain Hazard Protection Ordinance by Jerome M. Olson and Doug Gore from the Natural and Technological Hazards Division which stated that minor changes were needed to be made in the City's Ordinance. Please refer to the January 20, 1989 response letter ( attachment B). - Several departments were contacted for comments on the proposed amendment including Building and Housing Services, Permits and Zoning, Planning Department, Heritage Foundation, City-County Health Department, Assist Inc. , Neighborhood Housing Services, Redevelopment Agency, Housing Authority. Comments from these sources will be included for review if submitted. ANALYSIS Two Proposed Changes. In the January 20, 1989 response letter from FEMA ( attachment B), two changes are needed in the City's ordinance. Q. The first change is to delete the phrase "if habitable" in section 18. 68. 100 B, as follows: All new construction and substantial _ improvements of residential structures within the floodplain hazard area shall have the lowest floor ( including basement), i€ habitable, elevated to or above the base flood elevation. The second change is to include the definition of Lowest Floor into the City' s Ordinance as follows: "Lowest Floor" means the lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area ( including basement). An unfinished or flood resistant enclosure, usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage, in an area other than a basement area, is not considered a building's lowest floor, provided that such enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in violation of the applicable non-elevation design requirements of this ordinance. FEMA Policy Statement. Along with the January 20th response letter from FEMA, a policy statement relating to the term "Lowest Floor" was included ( attachment .C ) . Please refer to this statement which provides clarification to the term Lowest Floor. Agency Responses. To date, Assist and RDA has contacted the Planning Department by phone and has indicated that perhaps some minor repairs and improvements in flood areas could not be accomplished. The definition applies to "new construction" and "substantial improvements" rather than to minor -repairs. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Staff respectfully recommends that two amendments be made to the Floodplain Hazard Protection Ordinance ( Chapter 18. 68 ) as follows: • 1. The words, "If Habitable" be deleted from the paragraph in section 18. 68. 100 B, and 2. The definition of "Lowest Floor" as stated above, be inserted into the definition section ( 18. 68. 020 ) of the City"s ordinance. Allen G. McCandless Environmental Planner February 21, 1989 PC MINUTES =� �:._ . March 9, 1989 '`1 Pa a 15 - . g • • Mr. Howe moved to approve. staff ' s recommendations to amend • Section 21.78 . 130 (A) of. the Zoning Ordinance to allow for profit . and nonprofit private recreation facilities as conditional uses ; ` in residential zones.--Mr. .Nicolatus._.second.ed the motion.;- all . (7)voted "Aye. " The motion passes . PLANNING ISSUES 1,///' Proposed Amendment to the City' s Floodplain Ordinance. Mr . Allen McCandless presented the staff report and stated that on October 6, 1986 the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) • made several changes to its regulations which have not been yet incorporated into the Ordinances of Salt Lake City. Salt Lake • City is required as a condition of continued eligibility in the NFIP, to meet the minimum standards of the NFIP regulations, and • is required to adopt these changes into the City's ordinance by May 1, 1989 . • • Mr . McCandless stated that to date, the following have transaired: 1 . FEMA initially contacted the city on November 15th, 1988 requesting the changes be made. i - . 2 . The City' s current Floodplain Hazard Protection Ordinance, Chanter 16 . 68, was sent to Mr . Doug Gore who is with FEMA for review during the second week of January. 3 . An a==�==ment was made of Salt Lake City' s Flocdplain Hazard Protection Ordinance by Jerome M. Olson and Doug Gore. from the Natural and Technological Hazards Division J which stated that minor chances needed to be made in the City' s Ordinance. f 4 . Several departments were contacted for comments on the orccosed amendment including Building and Housing Services , Permits and Zoning, the Planning Division, the . Utah Heritage Foundation, City-County Health Department, Assist, Inc . , Neighborhood Housing Services, Redevelopment Agency, and the Housing Authority. Mr . McCandless stated that two chances are needed in the City's ordinance. The first change is to delete the phrase "if habitable" in section 18 . 68 . 100 B, as follows : rti, ‘; g. l do $.) _______ All new construction and substantial improvements of residential structures within the floodplain hazard area shall have the lowest floor (including basement) , - 1.:.acita'c_ , elevated to or above the base flood elevation. Y PC MINUTES March 9 , 1989 Page 16 _, The second change is to include the definition of Lowest Floor 4 into the City ' s Ordinance as follows: . . "Lowest Floor" means the lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including basement) . An unfinished or flood resistant • enclosure, usable solely for parking of vehicles, building ,I access or storage, in an area other than a basement area, is . not considered a building' s lowest floor, provided that such enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in violation of the applicable non-elevation design requirements of this ordinance. Mr . McCandless stated that the Planning Staff recommends the two amendments be made to the Floodplain Hazard Protection Ordinance (Chapter 18 . 68 ) as follows : • 1. The words, "If Habitable" be deleted from the paragraph in section 18 . 68 . 100 B, and 2 . The definition of "Lowest Floor" as stated above, be inserted into the definition section ( 18 . 68 . 020 ) of the City ' s ordinance . Ms . Cromer moved to approve staff ' s recommendation to amend the f_cod. lain ordinance as listed in the two conditions . Ms . L'_ddle-Gamcnal seconded the motion; all voted "Ave. " The motion passes . + . Briefing on the proposed 1969-90 CDBC Project by Stechanie Lcker . :j Rosemary Davis and Ms . Stc :a:_E Lcker fromCa ?tat Planning _ and Programming were present for this discussion. Ms . Loke_ handed cut a chart of the Funding Recommendations for CDBC 15th year ( 1989-90) to the Planning Commissioners . She excla_ned that they had received approximately 96 proposals totalling almost Si0 million . She added that housing had emerged as a priority this year , that HUD had allocated accrox_mately Sl 2 , 000 more this year since they had deleted UDAG on a national scale . Ms . Davis added that the 312 program ( 3% rehab loans tc homeowners ) had also been deleted . Ms . Loker proceeded to explain the chart in detail to the Planning Commission A discussion on the funding requests and allocations followed . A core cf the chart is filed with the minute_ . Ms . Lcker recues t`d a r,=,sacns` from the Planning Commission on the funding requests and aallocations at the March `)L3 OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET.SUITE 304 - SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111 535-7600 MEMORANDUM To: Council Members Date: May 24, 1989 From: Cam Caldwell "Subject: Work in the Public Way I am writing to very briefly outline key issues in the proposed ordinance governing work in the public way. • The purpose of the ordinance is 1) to consolidate existing ordinances that are somewhat fragmented and confusing, and 2) to establish a fee structure which more equitably reflects the cost of the City providing inspection and review of work which isinitiated. The new ordinance also contains provisions which provide incentives for companies that do a great deal of repair work. If they • repair their job site well, the ordinance provides cost savings incentives for future work performed. One of the new features of the ordinance is that it places ultimate responsibility for work done on the property owner or tenant hiring the contractor. It is the property owner or tenant who is obligated to obtain the appropriate permit and insure that work is performed properly. This change has been proposed to enable the City to have someone to fall back on if the contractor does a substandard job. Property owners may sometimes do the work themselves, or hire unlicensed contractors. Because the City retains liability for the public right of way, the City needs to have someone to be accountable for insuring that work is performed in keeping with City standards. • Several fee changes have been proposed in the ordinance. The fees are intended to enable the City to be fairly reimbursed for the actual costs associated with the issuing of the permits and inspection of the work performed. The "quality construction fee credit" (Section 14.32.413 on Page 45) , establishes standards for a fee credit if permittees doing frequent excavations have an average failure rate for repair below three percent. The permittee is eligible for a ten to twenty percent refund of the permit fees -1- paid for meeting. fee credit criteria, including having a certified inspector on site and complying with barricading and traffic control standards. The twenty percent credit is awarded if no failures have been identified for the historical month being evaluated. The refund credit may be applied toward future permit fees. I have discussed this ordinance with the City Attorney's Office and with Public Works. Please let me know if you need additional information. CC: Greg Hawkins. - Joe Anderson Rick Johnson • -2- { f • L r • DEPARTMENT. OF PUBLIC.WORK_5 PALMER DEPAULIS IItI•ill City. Engineering Division. ;;; MAX G. PETERSON, P.E. MAYOR ai }444-SOUTH'STATE STRET:':` CITY ENGINEER SAL ,G4,7=UTAH,8411 f• 535-7871 TO: CINDY GUST-JENSEN , CITY COUNCIL FROM : RICK JOHNSTON , ENGINEERING kDATE : MAY 17 , 1989 SUBJECT : WORK IN THE PUBLIC WAY ORDINANCE As we discussed there is a typo in the "blue" copy of proposed Chapter 14. 32 "Work in the Public Way" . On page 44, Article IV , paragraph 14 . 32. 411 , A, 2 ; Multiple Utility Excavations should • read : Minimum charge : April 1 - November 15 November 16 - March 31 Hard Surfaced [ $45 . 001 $50 . 00 [ $70 .OQ] $80 . 00 The crossed out figures above were incorrectly marked $70. 00 and $105 . 00 respectively . All other fees listed in both the "blue" and "white" copies are correct . Also , the copies of the original ordinance Chapter 14 . 32 , Excavations & Obstructions which was sent as part of council packet, were incomplete . Apparently you received only every other page . Attached are complete copies of that ordinance . • Please let me know if you need additional information or have other questions . RAJ: po cc : Max Peterson Chuck Morrison Vault • SALT LAKE, CITY RPOR ITION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS JOSEPH R. ANDERSON 324 SOUTH STATE STREET PALMER DEPAULIS PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111 - MAYOR 535-7775 TO : SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL DATE : APRIL 14 , 1989 RECOMMENDATION : That the City Council adopt a resolution amending Title 14 , and deleting Chapter 18 . 60 of the Ordinances of Salt Lake City . AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS : • There is no commitment of City funds . Some of the permit fees are being adjusted to more equitably reflect the cost of providing review and inspection of work within the public way . However , there should be no significant change in the net revenue . DISCUSSION : The current ordinances has been somewhat confusing and inconsistent. For example , certain statements which should only apply to digging in the streets apply to all other aspects of. working in the public way. Also , related paragraphs are duplicative , and separated by unrelated paragraphs . In Title 14 , the first , fourth , sixth , and eighth chapters deal with permitting and enforcement of construction within the public right of way . The third , fifth , and seventh chapters deal with legal uses of the • sidewalks and streets . The proposed revision consolidates similar sections and places them in articles for : 1) General - those items which apply to all work in the public way , such as insurance requirements . 2) Occupying the public way - those who need to block the street or sidewalk , but are not doing any actual construction on the public facilities , such as using the sidewalk for a staging area . 3) Installation or modification of public improvements - the construction or replacement of curb , gutter , sidewalk, driveways , or other facilities in the public way . 4) Excavation in the public way - digging , backfilling , and patching the street or other surfaces in the public way , such as installation or repair of utilities , and 5 ) Storm drainage facilities and related regulations . A • Paragraphs that have been deleted are mostly redundant or no longer apply. Chapter 18 . 60 should have been deleted several years ago when the responsibility for sidewalk barricades was transferred from Building and Housing Services to Engineering. The intent of that chapter is duplicated in 14 . 32 . Chapter 14 . 04 has also been deleted. This chapter requires the city to be totally liable for every sidewalk related injury if any city employee was aware of a defect. It also presents a conflict in that it limits permit fees to $50; yet subsequent sections require the engineer to charge higher fees . Two incentive programs are included to promote better restoration of utility cuts . Those incentives include a slight break in permit fees for those companies which cooperate in decreasing the number of extra site visits city inspectors must make . The regular permit fees have been adjusted upward to compensate for the lost revenue due ,to the incentive programs . SUBMITTED BY : JOSEPH R. ANDERSON, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR A JRA:LRR 14.28.060 any such street for more than five minutes after ` 1432.220 Tampering with traffic ~3. being requested to do so by any police officer or barricades. citizen. (Prior code § 41-2-6) 1432.230 Relocation of structures in public ways. 1432.240 Emergency work. Chapter 1432 1432.250 Hold harmless agreement. 1432.260 Liability limitations. EXCAVATIONS AND OBSTRUCTIONS 1432.270 Obstructing public ways prohibited. 1432.280 Work without permit—Penalty. Sections: • • 1432.010 Definitions. 1432.290 Violation—Penalty. 1432.020 Permit—Required for certain work. 1432.010 Definitions. 1432.030 Permit—For scaffold or As used in this chapter. staging over public way. A. "Applicant"means any person who makes 1432.040 Permit—Application application for a permit. requirements. B. "City" means Salt Lake City, a municipal 1432.050 Permit—Eligible persons. corporation of the state. 1432.060 Permit—Review and inspection fees. C. "Emergency" means any unforseen cir- 1432.070 Alternate fees—One-year cumstance or occurrence,the existance of which permits. constitutes a clear and immediate danger to per- 1432.080 Additional charges authorized sons or property,or which causes interruption of when. utility services. 1432.090 Insurance requirements. D. "Engineer"means the city engineer,or his 1432.100 Bond—Required when. or her authorized representative. 1432.110 Bond—Conditions. • E. "Engineering regulations," "construction 1432.120 Default in performance. specifications," and "design standards" mean 1432.130 Completion time—City to - the engineering regulations,construction specifi- perform work when—Costs. cations and design standards of the city engineer. 1432.140 Starting work before permit F. "Obstruction" means any rubbish. glass. issuance. material,wood, ashes,tacks, metal,earth,stone, 1432.150 Permit—Contents—Duration. structure, or other object, thing or substance of and extensions. any kind which may interfere with or obstruct 1432.160 Permit—Extension fees. the free use of view of the public way by travelers. 1432.170 Restoration fees. 1432.180 Permit—No transfer or or injure or tend to injure or.destroy or render assignment. unsightly the surface of a public way, or which 1432.190 Permit—Suspension or may cause or tend to cause such public way to revocation—Stop orders. become restricted in its traffic uses or unsafe or 1432.200 State highway permits. dangerous for travelers thereon. 1432.210 Compliance with G. "Permittee" means any person who has specifications, standards and been issued a permit and has agreed to fulfill the traffic-control laws. requirements of this chapter. 513 14.32.020 the general public shall be provided at all times ` 1. Contractors licensed by the state as general that any work or storage of material is being contractors; accomplished under this permit. (Prior code § 2. Public utility companies; or 41-5-2) 3. Property owners performing less than five hundred square feet or one hundred linear feet of 1432.030 Permit—For scaffold or staging sidewalk,curb and gutter, or driveway approach over public way. work upon a portion of the public way adjacent It is unlawful for any person to erect, build, to their residence. maintain,swing or use any scaffold.ladder.stag- B. However,it shall be lawful for a city or state ing crane or any. other mechanical device or employee to perform routine maintenance work, equipment of any description over or upon the not involving excavations, without first having public way without first obtaining a permit for obtained a permit therefor. (Prior code§ 41-5-6) that purpose and paying the fee for such permit. No fee shall be charged for scaffolding or staging 1432.060 Permit—Review and inspection done behind an approved barricade fence.(Prior fees. code§41-5-3) A. The engineer shall charge, and the city treasurer shall collect,upon issuing a permit,the 1432.040 Permit—Application requirements. following fees, for review of the application and A. Each and every person desiring to perform site inspection of the work: 1. Excavation. any work of any kind described in Section a. $0.15 per square foot—Hard-surfaced; 14.32.020, or its successor, subject to regulation a.- by this chapter, in a public way within this city, - b. $0.10 per square foot—Other. shall make application for a permit. Such . Minimum Charge. April 1— November 16— application shall be filed with the engineer on a - November 15 March 31 form or forms to be furnished by the engineer. -- - B. When necessary in the judgment of the Hard-surfaced • S70.00 S105.00 Other 545.00 S65.00 engineer to fully determine the relationship of the work proposed to existing or proposed facili- ties within the public ways, or to determine 2. Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter, and/or Drive- ' whether the work proposed complies with the way Approaches. engineering regulations, construction specifica- a. Curb and gutter, $1.00 per lineal foot: tions and design standards, the engineer may b. Sidewalk, driveway approach, $0.15 per require the filing of engineering plans, specifica- square foot. tions and sketches showing the proposed work in sufficient derail to permit determination of such Minimum Charge. April 1— November 16— November 15 vlarch 31 relationship or compliance, or both, and the application shall be deemed suspended until $70.00 5105.00 such plans and sketches are filed and approved. - (Prior code § 41-5-4) c. For in-kind replacement of existing side- walk, curb and gutter, or driveway approach. a 1432.050 Permit—Eligible persons. no-charge permit will be issued. A. No person shall be eligible to apply for or 3. Storm Sewers.Storm sewers,$1.75 per lin- receive permits to do work within the public eal foot($70.00 minimum charge)in addition to ways of the city, save and except the following: excavation fees. 515 (. ( - 14.32.090 whether or not the excavation has been filled or be increased or decreased.in the discretion of the resurfaced and whether or not the surface has engineer, whenever it appears that the amount been opened to public travel; and cost of the work to be performed, and not 2. To indemnify, save harmless and defend satisfactorily completed, may vary from the the city from any and all liability for the city's amount of bond otherwise required under this own negligence occurring by reason of such chapter. opening or excavation. This indemnification B. Public utilities franchised by the city, and agreement covering the city's liability for its own property owners performing work adjacent to negligence shall not apply to injuries or damages their residences, shall not be required to file a sustained while city employees are present at the corporate surety bond,provided such companies excavation pouring cement or asphalt therein; or persons agree to be fully bound by the condi- 3. To indemnify, hold harmless, and defend tions set forth in Section 14.32.110 of this chap- the city and its officers and employees against ter, or its successor. (Prior code§ 41-5-19) any claim or loss, damage or expense sustained on account of damages occurring by reason of failure to maintain proper barricades and/or 1432.110 Bond—Conditions. lights as required from the time of the opening of A. The bond required by Section 14.32.100, the excavation until the excavation is surfaced or its successor, shall be conditioned that the and opened for travel; person making the excavation shall: 4. Naming the city as an additional insured, 1. Fully comply.with the requirements of the and providing that thirty days' notice shall be city ordinances and the regulations, specifica- given to the city prior to termination of the pol- tions and standards promulgated by the city rela- icy,for any reason.Prior to cancellation of insur- tive to work in the public way,and respond to the ance, the permittee shall forthwith close the city in damages for failure to conform therewith; excavation and complete all worksite restoration 2. After an excavation is commenced,the per- work. . mittee shall prosecute with diligence and expedi- C. A public utility company or property tion all excavation work covered by the owner performing work adjacent to such owner's excavation permit,and shall promptly complete residence may be relieved of the obligation of such work and restore the public way to its origi- submitting certificates of insurance if such per- nal condition, or as near as may be. so as not to • son or company shall submit satisfactory evi- obstruct the public place or travel thereon more dence in advance that it is insured, or has than is reasonably necessary; - adequate assets and provisions for self-insur- 3. Guarantee the worksite restoration for a ance. Public utilities may submit annually evi- period of two years from completion of such dence of insurance coverage in lieu of individual restoration, reasonable wear and tear excepted. submissions for each permit. (Prior code § B. Unless authorized otherwise by the 41-5-24) engineer on the permit, all paving and replace- ment of street facilities shall be done in conform- 14.32.100 Bond—Required when. ance with the regulations contained herein A. Each applicant, before being issued a per- within seven calendar days from the time the mit. shall provide the city with an acceptable excavation commences. If on major or collector corporate surety bond of ten thousand dollars.to streets, within three days, and five calendar days guarantee faithful performance of the work on all other streets from the time excavation is authorized by a permit granted pursuant to this backfilled. whichever is less. except as provided chapter. The amount of the bond required may for during excavation in winter. If work is 517 • 14.32.150 finds that work under the original permit, or as event of nonpayment of all or part thereof afier extended, has not been satisfactorily performed. thirty days, the balance due may be collected by (Prior code§ 41-5-12) legal action. C. In the event of nonpayment,the permittee 14.32.160 Permit—Extension fees. shall not be entitled to receive further permits A. The length of the extension requested by from the city, or to perform further work within the permittee shall be subject to the approval of the city's public ways. (Prior code § 41-5-8) the engineer. No extension shall be made that allows work to be completed in the winter period without payment.of winter fees. 14.32.180 Permit—No transfer or B. The extension fees shall be as follows: assignment. Permits shall not be transferable or assignable, I. Excavation and surface restorations, and work shall not be performed under a permit twenty dollars: in any place other than that specified in the per- t. Building construction barricades, three times the review and inspection fees described in mit. Nothing herein contained shall prevent a Section 14.32.060, or its successor, for each permittee from subcontracting the work to be month that the permit has.not been extended. performed under. a permit; provided, however, C. The engineer may waive this extension that the holder of the permit shall be and remain when work is not proceeding on the project in a responsible for the performance of the work satisfactory manner. (Prior code § 41-5-9) under the permit,and for all bonding, insurance and other requirements of this chapter and under 1432.170 Restoration fees. the permit. (Prior code § 41-5-13) • A. In the event a cut or excavation exceeds one hundred feet in length or three hundred 14.32.190 Permit—Suspension or • square feet in area, the restoration of the surface revocation—Stop orders. shall be accomplished by the permittee. Any cut A. Any permit may revoked or suspended or excavation smaller than the above-mentioned by the engineer,after notice to the permittee fon size may be restored by the city, at the option of I. Violation of any condition of the permit. the engineer, and the following fees shall be the bond, or of any provision of this chapter; required in addition to permit specified under 2. Violation of any provision of any other Section 14.32.060, or its successor. ordinance of the city or law relating to the work: 1. Asphalt restoration, two dollars and fifty 3. Existence of any condition or the doing of cents per square foot for local streets;five dollars any act which does constitute, may constitute or per square foot for major and collector streets. cause a condition endangering life or property. 2. Minimum Charge. B. A suspension or revocation by the a. April —October, $250.00: engineer, and a stop order, shall take effect b. November— March, $375.00. immediately upon entry thereof by the engineer B. In the event that the actual cost of restora- and notice to the person performing the work in tion by the city exceeds the amount paid by the the public way. permittee by more than twenty-five dollars, the C. A stop order may be issued by the engineer permittee shall be liable for the difference directed to any person or persons doing or caus- between such actual costs and the amount paid ing any work to be done in the public way with- by him/her.which shall be billed to the permittee out a permit, or in violation of any provision or by the city at the conclusion of the work,or from provisions of this chapter, or whenever the time to time as the work proceeds; and in the engineer shall suspend or revoke a permit. 519 (. 14.32.240 • when emergency circumstances demand the responsibility by reason of inspections autho- work to be done immediately;provided a permit rized hereunder, the issuance of any permit, or could not reasonably and practicably have been the approval of any work. (Prior code § 41-5-26) obtained beforehand. B. In the event that emergency work is corn- 14.32.270 Obstructing public ways menced on or within any public way of the city prohibited. during regular business hours, the engineer shall It is unlawful for any person to place, cast, be notified within one-half hour from the time deposit, permit, erect, or suffer to remain in or the work is commenced. The person commenc- upon any public way in the city any obstruction, ing and conducting such work shall take all nec- as defined in this chapter, without obtaining essary safety precautions for the protection of the from the city engineer permission so to do. and public and the direction and control of traffic. then only in strict accordance with the terms and C. Any person commencing emergency work conditions of these ordinances and of the express in the public way during off-business hours with- permission granted. (Prior code § 41-5-23) out a permit shall immediately thereafter apply for a permit or give notice during the first hour of 14.32.280 Work without permit—Penalty. the first regular business day on which city offices Any person found to be doing work in the are open for business after such work is corn- public way without having obtained a permit,as menced, and a permit may be issued which shall provided by this chapter,shall be required to pay be retroactive to the date when the work has a permit fee equal to two times the normal per- begun, in the discretion of the engineer. (Prior mit fee. (Prior code§ 41-5-29) code§ 41-5-16) 14.32.290 Violation—Penalty. • A violation of any-provision of this chapter 1432.250 Hold harmless agreement. shall be a Class B misdemeanor. Each day the The permittee agrees to save the city, its violation exists shall be a separate offense. No officers. employees and agents harmless from criminal conviction shall excuse a person from any and all costs, damages and liabilities which otherwise complying with the provisions of this may accrue or be claimed to accrue by reason of chapter. (Prior code § 41-5-28) any work performed under the permit described in this chapter. The acceptance of any permit • • under this chapter shall constitute such an agree- Chapter 1436 ment by the permittee, whether the same is expressed or not. (Prior code § 41-5-25) NEWSRACKS 1432.260 Liability limitations. Sections: This chapter shall not be construed as impos- 14.36.010 Purpose and intent of ing upon the city or any official or employee any provisions. liability or responsibility for damages to any per- 14.36.020 Definitions. son injured by or by reason of the performance of 14.36.030 Registration—Required when. any work within the public way, or under a per- 14.36.040 Registration—Filing time. mit issued pursuant to this chapter, nor shall the 14.36.050 Registration—Information city or any official or employee thereof be required. deemed to have assumed any such liability or 1436.060 Registration—Processing fee. 521 Jy,-.. L. , DRAFT ' P f� 1. SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1988 (Work in the public way) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING, REORGANIZING AND REPEALING THE ORDINANCES IN TITLE 14, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO WORK IN THE PUBLIC WAY AS FOLLOWS: Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That the various sections in Title 14, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to work in the public way, be, and the same hereby are repealed and reenacted or amended as follows: Chapter 14.32 WORK IN THE PUBLIC WAY Sections: 14.32.011 Definitions. ARTICLE I. CAI, 14.32.101 Pernit—Appliczctirn requirements. 14.32.115 Emergency wow. 14.32.121 Authorization of a additional domes. 14.32.125 Pit Lcz: waiver. 14.32.131 Permit—Ccnbents—Dtncatian and dons. 14.32.J as Permit—No Lrcusfe ar assigrm xt. 14.32.141 Compliance i are with speaifications, S 1iazL� and traffic control regulations. 14.32.143 Jcb site permittee ident ficatirn_ 14.32.145 Parking removal or occupation_ 14.32.151 State highway petits. 14.32.153 Relocation of des in public ways. 14.32.155 Insurance requirements. 14.32.157 •Band—Req 1 wl�i. 14.32.161 nd—Cc edit ions ty. 14.32.165 Hold barmy ayieeuent. 14.32.167 Liability 1imitaticns. 14.32.171 Work withart permit—Penalty. 14.32.173 Failure to oemply—Penalty. 14.32.175 Default in p'sfuui -Penalty. 14.32.177 Canpletiontime City to p iuuu work i- Cots. 1 14.32.181 Failure to conform to design Penalty_ 14.32.183 Appeal of suspension, revocation, or stoic corder. 14.32.185 Tamparirg with iraffic beiricades. 14.32.187 Vi-alatirtn—Penalty. ARTICLE II. OCCUPYING THE PUBLIC WAY WHEW ON PRIVATE PROPERTY 14.32_201 Ftrmit required far certain wadi. - 14.32.211 Ftrmit limitations. ons. 14.32_221 Performance BondEsrampt Lc n_ 14.32_231 fight of Way Permit--Review, and inspection fees ARTICLE III. INSMLATIC , MODIFICATICHORIMIIAOR1MT OF PUBLIC WAY IMPROVEMENTS 14.32.305 Purpose and benefit of provisions. 14.32.311 Defective of oimer or tenant_ 14.32.315 Defective corm-Di y"by city. 14.32.321 Defective concrete—Noitice to . 14.32.325 eve concrete—Repair option and cost. 14.32.331 Ordinary repairs. 14.32.335 Waiver of replacemattrerNdiEnent. • 14.32.341 Abatement of assessnerrt—Ccrxii ticris. 14.32.345 Specifications and grades for ccnstruction. 14.32.159 SiSidewalks—Inspection and approval. 14.32.361 Driveway construction. 14.32.365 Public Way Improvement Pit review and inspection fees. ARIIC'uz IV. EXCAVATION IN THE PUBLIC WAY 14.32.411 Permit Review and inscection fees. 14.32.413 Q ial i ty constructicn fee credit. 14.32.417 Timely notification credit. ARTICLE V. STOW MAINS 14.32.501 Storm drain inspection fees. 14.32.511 Private drain 11 t_---'bility, ARTIICT F VI. REPEAL OF PRIOR ORDINANCES 14.32_601 Fl. STREETS AND SIDEWALKS -2- • the city and shall have charge of all public stets, , e (Prior code §41 1 2) All defects in public streets cog to r • 6y prier-mac §41 1 3) 14.04.040 Stre t3 and midges crgirecring fee3. • • 86:prior code §41 1 4)] CHAPTER 14.20 SIDEWALK USE RESIRICTICN 14.20.080 [Clogging gutter3] right of way with snow prohibited. -3- r ' • 20 0 70, t l-.. ........' C � para n by any.T.iT.Q7'Q�".' �i'� mcana §38 3 11)] It is unlawful to place snow r9loved frau private property in the public way. It is unlawful to place sncw removed fiun sidewalks, drive approaches or other public pl2s in a manner so as to cauc a hazard to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Cections: • 18.60.020 Permit Fbc. 18.60.030 Twit. 18.60.060 Street uoc area re3triction3.. 18.60.070 Fence Required aromiameoroccupied. 18.60.170 Permit axxl ricqu rta. 18.60.180 Itzmit Nat . 18.60.190 Permit rtario3 of sty RmiecatirEn. official. 18.60.210 Employe car d3. . -4- eticct for the c_ • • • • • (Prior code §5 6 1) 18.60.020 Permit' Tee. • . . (Prior 18.60.030 Permit Fifteen feet toe restriction. • ��r��rran-ate granted until the applicant thcrc€er sal e viva a • t t of -5- f • f fi • • r r five thouoand dol1ar3. (Prior code §5 6 4} 18.60.050 I rmit I vecatinn cenditicns. • r mar the z7D=der r r r public good require3 rcveeotien. (Prier eedc- §5.6.3) 18.60.060 Street WC arCa restdcticns. • • • r canoe. (Prior Code §5 6 5) erecting or • - -6- fccd in width (Prior Ccdc §5 6 7) • etc §5 6--8) • • -- r -7- • • y • • • r fees r cede §,5 6 12) • • • ced c §5 6 14) • • • • 1 pay to the • PY streets and sidewalks and eperatc under such -9- • • • 18.60.I6(} Alternate foes for calendar year gets. ethe - . . , or its successor, and paying focs as follows: d31ars; • -1 n- C. rcr3ono inatalli g glass, a fee of fifty dollars; D. rer3cna acrvieing or installing awni igs, a foe of tyrnty five dollars; , §5 6 15) Pe._ • . . , • , • • • -11- it is , 55 6 13) such holder eedc §5 6 20) 18.60.210 Employec3 Tdenficaticr cards. permit provided by • - , • work authorized ent and to return the--same • age . . 10, or its- 3ucccs3or. (Prior code §5 6 22) -12- The provisi , , alley. (Prior code §5 6 24)] Cyr 14.32 CONSTRUCTION, ENEAVATICN AMID CESTRUITONS IN THE PUBLIC AUGHT OF WAY [14.32.010]14.32.011 t finiticrs. As used in this chapter: [14.24.02CJ]A. "Apar-bi nt house" means a building comprising four or more dwelling units (Resigned for separate housekeeping tenements. [14=32.010'\]B. "Applicant" means any person who makes application for a permit. [14.24.020C3]C. " means miscellaneous mete surfaces within the public way, such as parking bays and carriage walks. [E]D. "Business" means any place in the city in which these is conducted or carried on principally or exclusively any pursuit or occupation for the purpose of gaining a livelihood. [14.32.01003]E. "City" means Salt Lake City, a municipal corporation of the state. [4 =24: ]F.1. "Defective concrete" means the existence of any of the following conditions within the public way: a. Where sidewalk, curb, gutter and driveway approach sections or appurtenances have boon displaced either horizontally or vertirally to a point -13- that one section or even a part of a section is separated at least one-half inch frau the other; or b. Where sidewalk, curb, gutter and drive approach sections or appurtenances have a minimum of three cracks of any length or width between score marks and/or expansion joints; or c. Where, greater than twenty-five percent of the surface area of any sidewalk, curb, gutter and drive approach sections or appurtenances is filed; or d. Where sidewalk, curb, gutter and drive approaches or appurtenances have settled, spelled, or have depressions which allow water to become entrzrped or ca»sp ice pockets; or e. Where sections of sidewalk, curb, gutter and drive approaches or appurtenances contiguous to sections which are in a condition as defined in subdivisions a, b, c or d of this subsection [$]F1, show similar signs of deterioudtion to such an extent that they can reasbly be considered as part of the overall defective areas, or which must be replaced to effect a propar correction of the defective sections. 2. A drawing illustrative of subdivisions [D]F.1.a. through [B]F.l.e. of this subsection is adopted as part of the ordinance codified in this section for illustrative purposes only. Three copies of the defective concrete replacement criteria drawing shall be kept on file in the city murder's office and the city engineer's office. [14.32.010]G. "Emergency" means any unforeseen circumstances or occurrence, the existence of which constitutes a clear and immediate danger to persons or property, or which causes interruption of utility services. [B]H. "Engineer" means the city engineer, or his/her authorized representative. -14- [E]I. "Engineering regulations", "construction specifications", and "design standards" mean the latest version of the engineering ng regulations, or [ ] Standard specifications and Detai 1 s for Municipal Construction [decigz standards of] published by the city engineer. J. "Failure" means a work site restoration which fails to moot City Engineer scecsficaticns, or which results in a deteriordted or substandard corditicn within the duration of the warranty period. Failure may be settlement of surfxps, deterioration of materials, or other surface irregularities. Measurement of failure shall be further defined in the engineering regulations. [14.24.02CE]K. "In one ownership" meads when the same person is owner of two or more lots or tracts of land even though such person may cwn them jointly with dissimilar persons. [F]L. "Multiple dwelling units" means four or more dwelling units designed for separate housekeeping tenements when such units are so situated as not to constitute an apartment house, when such units are located on the same lot or tract of lard, or on two or more lots or tracts of land which are connecting and in one ownership. • M. "New Street" means any street which has been constructed, or resurfaced within a two year period with a minimum of one inth of paving material. [14 -2O18F`]N. "Obstruction" means any rubbish, glass, material, wood, ashes, tacks, metal , earth, stone, structure, or other object, thing or substance of which may interfere with or obstruct the free use or view of the public way by LLdvelers, or injure or tend to injure or destroy or render unsightly the surface of a public way, or which may cause or tend to caiis such public way to become, restricted in its [traffic] intended ups or unsafe or dangerous for LLdvelers dvelers thereon. -15- [ _ • • • • property usr3cr any contract of purchapc. 14.32.01C0]0. "Permittee" means any person who has boon issued a permit and has agreed to fulfill the requirements of this chapter. [H]P. "Person" means and ircli des any natural person, partnership, firm, PqPnci aticn, public uti 1 i ty canny, corporation, company, organization, or entity of any kind. Q. "Pipe Driveway" means a driveway approach which iiss a pipe or other means to bridge the gutter. R. "Property Owner" means person or persons who have legal title to property and/or equitable interest in the property, or the ranking official or agent of a company having legal title to property and/or equitable interest in the property. [�]S. "Public utility company" means[ for the purpooes of thic chapter. only,] any company subject to the juri sji ctio n of the Utah State Public [Utilities] Service Commission, or any mutual [nonprofit] coivoration providing gas, electricity, water, tpleph ne, or other utility product or seivicpc for tisP by the general public. "Public Way" means and includes all public rights-of-way and easements, public footpaths, walkways and sidewalks, public streets, public roads, public highways, public alleys, and public drainage ways. It dcps not, however, include utility tents not within public ways of the City. U. "Private Drain Line" means a pipe installed solely for the transmission of water collected or generated on private property such as drainage, spring, or storm water, or condensate into the public drainage fit. -16- • V. "Referenced, " when relating to survey monuments, means a monument which has hPen measured from Thrall y set (usually within 100 feet) survey points sufficient to enable the rent to be reestablished if disturbed. [14.24.02011.]W. "Residences" mean buildings or dwellings comprising not more than three dwelling i ng units designed for separate hyping tenements and where no business of any kind is conducted, except such home occupations as are allowed and defined in the zoning ordinances of the City. X. "Resident" means the person or perscns currently making their hone at a particular dwelling. ; g. [.]y. "Section" means a portion of the concrete which is setapart by expansion joints and/or construction joints. Z. "Storm Drain" means a dedicated pipe, conduit, water way; or ditch installed in a right of way or easement for the transmission of storm and drainace water. This term sloes not include private drain lines. AA. "Temporary Structure" means a facility constructed or installed for use during the construction of a project, but not a permanent part of the project, such as scaffolding, fences, trash containers, trailers, or portable offices. BB. "Traffic Barricade Manual " means the manual on proper barricading and traffic coiL of practic Qs, published by the Transportation Engineer. CC. "Transportation Engineer" means the City Transportation Engineer or his/her authorized representative. [14.32.010K]DD. "Work site restoration" means and includes the restoring of the original ground or paved hard surface area to [ comply with engineering regulations, and in liieG but is not limited to repair, cleanup, backfilling, compaction, and stabilization, paving and other -17- • work necessary to place the site in acceptable condition following the conclusion of the work, or the expiration or revocation of the permit. [The (pjt), 1086; prior code §38 2 1(3). ARTICLE I--( 1L [4.32.040]4.32.101 Permit—Application requirements. A. Each and every person desiring to perform any work of any kind [described in o-ticn 14.32.020, er its -successor, ] subject to regulation by this chapter, in a public way within this city:Shall make application for a • permit. Such application shall be filed with the engineer on a form or forms to be furnished by the engineer. Property owners and/or tenants for whom work is being done shall be responsible for obtaining the permits, provided, tr�wever, contractors may obtain the permit in the acaitractor's name. 14.32.050A Permit Eligible i'ble persa . B. No person shall be eligible to apply for or receive permits to clo work within the public ways of the City, save and except the following: 1. Contractors licensed by the State as general ccntractors; 2. Public utility c meanies; or 3. Property owners installing, replacing, or maintaining [performing] le, s than 500 square feet or 100 linear feet of sidewalk, curb and gutter, or driveway approach, or other work approved by the engineer, upon a portion of the public way adjacent to their residence. 4. Persons offering a service which requires occupation of-the public way, such as scaffold or staging, staging of a crane, installation or -18- _ maintenance of electric signs, gla_R.s, awnings, and painting or cleaning of buildings or sign boards or other strictures. C. The City Engineer may deny the issuance of permits to contractors, utility companies, or other permit applicants who have shown by past performance that they will not consistently conform to the engineering regulations and specifications. [34.1327 ]D. When necessary, in the judgement of the engineer, to fully determine the relationship of the work proposed to existing or proposed - facilities within the public ways, or to determine whether the work proposed complies with the engineering regulations, motion specifications and design standards, the engineer may require the. filing of engineering plans, specifications and sketches staring the proposed work in sufficient detail to permit determination of such relationship or compliance, or both, and the application shall be deemed suspended until such plans and sketches are filed and approved. (Prior code §41-5-4) [ . . .][A]E. It shall be unlawful for any person to commence work upon the public way until the engineer has approved the application and until a permit has been issued for such work, except as specifir-a1ly provided to the contrary in this chapter. [ - , .] [e]F. The disapproval or denial of an application by the engineer may be appealed by the applicant to the director of public works by the filing of a written notice of appeal within ten days of the action of the city engineer. The director of public works shall hear such appeal, if written request therefore be timely filed as soon as practicable, and reader his/her decision within [a rblc time] two weeks following notice of such appeal . -19- MG. In approving or disapproving work within the public way; or permits therefore, in the inspection of such work; in reviewing plans, sketches or specificaticns; and generally in the exercise of the authority conferred upon him/her by this chapter, the engineer shall act in such manner as to preserve and protect the public way and the ire thereof, but shall have no authority to govern the actions or inacticn of permittees and applicants or other persons which have no relationship to the 1 ice, preservation or protection of the public way or the lice thereof. (Prior code §41-5-5) [ ]H. [However,] It shall be lawful for a city, county, or state employee to perform routine maintenance work, not involving excavations, without first having obtained a permit therefore. (Prior axle §41-5-6) I. A permit is not required from the engineer for hand digging excavations for installation or repair of sprinkler systems and landscaping within the non-paved areas of the public way. However, conformance to all City specifications is required. [14.32.240]14.23.115 Emersertywark. [A]Any person maintaining pipes, limes or facilities in the public way may proceed with work upon existing facilities without a permit when emergency circumstances demand the work to be done immediately; provided a permit could not reasonably and practicably have been obtained beforehand. [B]A. In the event that emergency work is axmmenced on or within any public way of the City during regular business hours, the engineer shall be notified within one-half hour fran the time the work is ccrmenced. The person crxnnerring and acnducting such work shall take all necessary safety precautions for the protection of the public and the direction and control of traffic, and shall insure that work is aeoamplished according to the engineering regulations. -20- GB. Any person commencing emergency work in the public way during off business hours without a permit shall immediately thereafter apply for a permit or give notice during the first hour of the first regular business day on which city offices are open for business after suCh work is commenced, and a permit may be issued which shall be retroactive to the date when the work has begun, [in] at the discretion of the Engineer.x r. (Prior rri §41-5-16) [14.32.080114.32.121 Auttummization of ni ticnal charges [ ]. Adiit1cnal charges to cover the reasonable rrl t and expenses of any required engineering review,inspection, and work site restoration associated with each undertaking may be charged by the City to each permittee, in addition to the permit fee. (Prior code §41-5-11) 14.32.125 Ftrmit fee waivers. The engineer may waive permit fe s or penalties, or portion thereof when he/she determines that such waiver is in the best interest of the city. [4 50]14.32.131 P mitts—t iratian and extensions. A. Each permit application shall state the starting date and estimated completion date. Work shall be completed within sixty (60) days from the starting date or as directed by the engineer. The engineer shall be notified by the permittee of carrencerent within 24 hours prior to commencing work. The permit shall be valid for the time period specified. B. If the work is not completed during such period, the permitter may apply to the engineer for an adrditianal permit or an extension, which may be granted by the engineer for good cause-shown [ ' that work ] -21- [?]c. The length of the extension determined by the permittee shall be subject to the approval of the Engineer. No extension shall be made that allows work to be completed in the winter period without payment of winter fees. , [147. 180114.32.135 B r ni t-4Io Lr.asfe or assist. Permits shall not be transferable or assignable, and work shall not be performed under a permit in any place other than that specified in the permit. Nothing herein contained shall prevent a permittee from subcontracting the work to be performed under a permit; provided, however, that the holder of the permit shall be and remain responsible for the performance of the work under the permit, and for all bonding, insurance and other requirements of this chapter and under said permit.: (Prior code §41-5-13) p.4.32.210114.32.141 Coopl ante with specifications,r ati arts, standards and fic- nit w -[lam va] regulations. The work performed in the public way shall [in all respects] conform to the requirements of the engineering regulations, design standards, constriction specifications and traffic control regulations of the City, [a copy] copies of which shall be available from the engineer and kept on file in the office of the [crrincer] City Recorder and shall be open to public inspection during office hours. (Prior code §41-5-14) 14.32.143 Job site pprrmittee i den-t-i fi ern. Where a job site is left unattended, before completion of the work, a sign with minimum two-inch high letters shall be attached to a barricade or otherwise posted at the site, indicating permittee's name, or company name, tc 1 ephone number, and after Yxxirs telephone number. 14.32.145 Parking meter removal or coaipatirn. -22- • [14. .0G9"13] Where any of the [above described] activities permitted by this chaptc r require the removal or extended occupation of parking meters, applicant shall [ pay required fees.] comply with conditions set forth in 14.12.130 Removal of Parkiro Meters. [14.32.200]14.32.151 Slate highway mitts. A. Holders of pewits for work on state highways within the City limits, issued by the Department of Transportation of the State of Utah, shall not be required to obtain permits from the City under the provisions of this chapter, unless the work extends beyond the back side of the curb. Any city permit shall not be construed to permit or allow work in a state highway within the city without a state permit. B. The engineer shall have the right and authority to regulate work • under [sue ] State highway permits with respect to hours and days of work, and measures required to be taken by the permittee for the protection of Lraffic and safety of persons and property. (Prior rrx9P §41-5-18) [14.32.230]14.32.153 Re-location of structures in p ihl i r ways. A. The city engineer may direct any person awning or maintaining facilities or structures in the public way to alter, modify or relocate such facilities or structures as the engineer may require. Sewers, pipes, drains, tunnels, conduits, pipe driveways, vaults, trash receptacles and overhead and underground gas, electric, ti l ephane and communication facilities shall specifically be subject to such directives. B. Any directive by the City Engineer shall be based upon one of the following grounds: 1. The facility or structure was installed, erected or is being maintained contrary to law, or determined by the engineer to be structurally unsound or defective; -23- 2. The facility or structure constitutes a nuisance as defined under slate statute or city ordinance. (This section shall not, however, be deemed to diminish the vehicle impound authority of the police department under Chapter 12.96 of the Salt Lake City Crilp, or its successor; 3. The authority under which the far'ility or structure was installed has expired or has been revoked; 4. The facility or structure is not in conformity with public improvements proposed for the area; or 5. The public way is about to be repaired or improved and such facilities or structures may pose a hindrance to construction. C. Any person owning or maintaining ng facilities or structures in the public way who fails to alter, modify or relocate such facilities or structures upon notice to do so by the City Engineer shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. All costs of alteration, modification or relocation shall be borne by the person owning or maintaining ng the fani 1 i ties or structures involved. (Prior rude §41-5-27) [147,3249910�]14.32.155 Try rr arena requirements. ' A. Before a[ ] permit, as provided in this chapter, is issued, the applicant shall furnish to the City a certificate of insurance in a campany authorized to issue insurance by the State of Utah, evidencing r g that such applicant has a comprehensive general liability and property damage policy that includes contractual liability coverage with minimum limits of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000) for injuries, including ancidental death to any one person; in an amount rot less than Five Hundred Thousand ($500,000) on account of injuries sustained in any one accident; and property damage insurance in an amount not less than One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) for each accident. The City Attorney may increase or decrease minimum insurance limits, depending on the potential liability of any project. -24- B. [Such] Said insurance policies shall include the following provisions: 1. To indemnify, save harmless and defend [the] Salt Lake City and its officers and employees against any claim or loss, damage or expense sustained on account of damages to persons or property Virg by reason of [arc excavathm-madel permit work done by the permittee, his subcontractor or agent, whether or not the [exec ] work has he'n [filled or resurfcccd] completed and whether or rot the [ face] right of way has been opened to public travel; L , s r • , ] [a]2. To ;rriify, hold harmless and dPfend the City, and its officers and employees against any claim or leis, damage or expense sustained by any person [ ] occurring by reason of doing any work pursuant to the permit including, but not limited to falling objects or failure to maintain proper barrir.PdPs and/or lights as required frau the time [of the opening of the excavation] work begins until the [excavation is surfaced] work is completed and right of way is opened for [travel] public n ; [4]3. Naming the City as an additional insured and providing that 30 day's notice shall be given to the City prior to termination of said policy, for any reason. Prior to cancellation of insurance, the permittee shall [ ] complete all work and work site restoration[work] ; • _)s_ • • C. A property owner performing work adjacent to his/her residence may submit proof of a home owners insurance policy in lieu of the insurance tents of this section. [e]D. A public uti 1 i ty company [or property owner performing work ] may be relieved of the obligation of submit`,;ng certificates of insurance if such [person cr] oampany shall submit satisfactory evidence in advance that it is insured in the amounts set forth in this document, or has complied with State reauirenents to became self insured• [ .] Public utilities may submit annually evidence of insurance coverage in lieu of individual submissions for each permit. (Prior code §41-5-24) [34.32-T190]14.32.157 Bald—Required when. A. Except as noted in this chapter, []each applicant, before being issued a permit, shall provide the City with an acceptable corporate surety bond of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) to guarantee faithful performance of the work authorized by a permit granters pursuant to this chapter. The amount of the bind required may be increased or decreased in the discretion of the engirter whenever it appears that the amount and cost of the work to be performed, and not satisfactorily completed, may vary frau the amount of bond otherwise required under this chapter. B. Public utilities franchised by the city and property owners performing work adjacent to their residence, shall rot be required to file a corporate surety band provided Said companies or persons agree to be fully Ixxnx1 by the conditions set forth in Section [14.32.110] 14.32.121 of this Chapter, or its successor. (Prior code §41-5-19) [14.32.110]14.32.161 Band.—Q r ditiorxs—Wawa rrty. -26- • construction schedule for approval. The schedule will address means and methods to minimize traffic disruption and complete the construction as soon as rely psible. (Prior code §41-5-20) [ �50]14.32.165 Hold h-m-^ a eicit.. Q The permittee agrees to save the City, its officers, employees and agents harmless from any and all costs, damages and liabilities which may accrue or be claimed to accrue by reason of any work performed under [the] maid permit[desoribcd in this chapter] . The acceptance of any permit under this chapter shall constitute such an anent by the permittee whether the same is expressed or not. (Prior r aP §41-5-25) [14.32.260]14.32.167 Li abi 1 i ty limitations. This chapter shall not be construed as imposing upon the City or any official or employee any liability or responsibility for damages to any person . injured by or by reason of the performance of any work within the public way, or under a permit issued pursuant to this chapter; nor shall the City or any official or employee thereof be deemed to have assumed any such liability or respcnsibility by reason of inspections authorized hereunder, the issuance of any permit or the approval of any work. (Prior crde §41-5-26) • ['" 32 2 0]14.32.171 Work without permit—Realty. [14.32.190 C] A stop order may be issued by the engineer directed to any person or perscns doing or causing any work to be done in the public way without a gut[, whenever the engineer shall suspend er revoke a permit] . The abutting property owner shall be respcnsible for causing work to be done. [14.32.280] Any person found to be doing work in the public way without having obtained a permit, as provided by this chapter, shall be required to pay a permit fee equal to two times the normal permit fee. For replacement work, where a fee is not normally charged, the normal permit fee for new constructiai shall apply. (Prior code §41-5-29) [14.32.19 • ]14.32.173 Failure to ably—Penalty. A. Any permit may be revoked or suspended and a stop order issued by the engineer, after notice to the permittee for: 1. Violation of any condition of the permit, the bond, or of any provision of this chapter; 2. Violation of :any provision of any other ordinance of the City or law relating to the work; 3. Existence of-any edition or the doing of any act which dons constitute, may constitute or cause a condition endangering life or property. B. A suspension or revocation by the engineer, and a stop order, shall take effect immediately upon entry thereof by the engineer and notice to the person performing the work in the public way. • [44. 29]14.32.175 fl fa it t in performance—Penalty. Whenever the engineer finds that a default has occurred in the performance of any term or edition of the permit, written notice thereof may be given to the principal and to the surety on the bond, if there is a surety bond. Such notice shall state the work to be done, the estimated cost thereof, and the period of time deemed by the engineer to be reasonably necessary for the completion of the work. (Prior code §41-5-21) [ 120]432.177 Completion et+c time City to perform work when--Costs. -29- • In the event that the surety (or principal ), within a reasonable time following the giving of such notice, (taking into consideration the exigencies of the situation, the nature of the work, and the requirements of public safety and for the protection of persons and property) fails either to commence and cal le the required work to be performed with due diligence, or to indemnify the city for the ccst of doing the work, as set forth in the notice, the city may perform the work, at the discretion of the engineer, with city fords or contract fords or both, and suit may be commenced by the city attorney against the contractor and bonding g company and such other persons as may be liable, to recover the entire amount due to the city, including attorney fPes, on mint thereof. In the event that cash has been deposited, the costs of performing the work may be charged against the amount deposited, and suit brought for the balance due, if any. (Prior code §41-5-22) 14.32.181 Failure to conform to design standards—Penalty. For failure to conform to the design standards and regulations, the engineer er may: A. Suspend or revoke the permit. B. Issue a stop order. C. Order removal and replacement of faulty work. D. Require an extended warranty period. E. Negotiate a cash qPttlemrent to be applied toward future maintenance costs. 14.32.183 Appeal of suspensio' n, revocation, or 5Uop order. ['" XD] Any suspension or revocation or stop order by the engineer may be appealed by the permittee to the director of public works by filing a written notice of appeal within ten days of the action of the engineer. The director -30- ;y^ of public works shall hear such appeal, if written request therefore be timely filed, as sccn as practicable, and render his/her decision within a reasonable time following filing of notice of appeal. (Priore §41-5-17) [14-T327,-220114.32.185 Tam paring with traffic barricades. It is unlawful for any person maliciously or wantonly or without authorization and legal cai vsa to extinguish, remove or diminish any light illuminating any barrirac3e or excavation or to ter down or remove any rail, fence or barrirad protecting any excavation or other construction site. (Prior mr3Q §41-5-15) [14 0]14.32.187 Vialaticn—malty. A violation of any provision of this chapter, or failure to oily with a stop order, shall be a Class B misdemeanor. Each day the violation exists shall be a separate offense. No criminal conviction shall excuse a person fiait otherwise complying with the provisions of this chapter. (Prior code §41-5-28) m,IrrE U OCCUPYING THE FueL,Ic WOCIMEILEEWOCU43 ON PRIVATE TE PROPERTY [ . . . . ]14.32.201 Permit required for certain wank. [14—270] A. Required for obstruction of public Way. Except for a period of 14 days prior to scheduled City sponsored cleanup campaigns, Mit is unlawful for any person to place, cast, deposit, permit, erect, or suffer to remain in or upon any public way in the city any obstruction as defined in this chapter, without obtaining fiuu the city engineer permission so to do, and then only in strict accordance with the terms and conditions of these ordinances and of the express permission granted. (Prior code §41-5-23) -31- • • A. Removal of obstruction and ruthish required. No portion of a public way other than that set forth in the permit shall be used for depositing materials for future work or for receiving rubbish fran such work. All obstruction and other rubbish shall be removed by the rnrm; tbee at such times as the Engineer may direct and in case of the neglect or refusal of such permits to remove such rubbish or obstruction, the Engi rear [-hall] may cause it to be removed at the pe7mittee's expense in accordance rdai with the law. [D]B. to eight feet.. No permit to cc upy the public way with building materials or barricade fence shall be granted that will allow oc cu aticn of more than eight feet in the [3 t r.et from the curb lire] roadway portion of the public way. This distance may be extended to a maximum distance of fifteen feet at the discretion of the City transportation engineer - when, in his/her opinion, additional space is died necessary and when the arlditional space will not adversely impact traffic flow. [D]C. of drainage chanrels. Fisting drainage channels • such as gutters or ditches shall be [ ' opprcyd by the cngincer.]kept free of dirt or other debris so that natural flow will mat be interrupted. When it is necessary to block or otherwise interrupt flow of the drainage channel, a method of rerouting the flow must be submittPd for approval by the engineer prior to blockage of the channel. [D]D. Maintenance of g2destrian ways. Bazric,z-des or covered walkways [ gcnc'rol public] placed in accordance with the Salt Lake City Barricade Manual , shall be provided at all times for the protection of the general public [that] when any work or storage of material which has been approved and is being accomplished within the public right of way. [urer eedc §41 5 2)] • B. Required far occuperticxi of sLLcdL with building material. It is unlawful for any person to occupy or its any portion of a public way for the [ ] storage of construction or landscaping materials and/or equipment without first making application for and riving a permit for the occupation or imP[for building purposes, of ] . fiver, no fence contraction pursuant to [this code] these ordinaries and no building ding mate ia1 shall remain in place on any public [ct coot] way after the ending date of the permit, unless tea;d permit is extended by the Engineer. [14.32.030]C. [Permit ro]r,equired EOL sc-,afffol d or staging wer P ihl i c- way. It shall be unlawful for any person to erect, build, maintain, swing or nsP any scaffold, fence [ladder, staging =ane]or any other teii orary structure iption over or upon the public way without first obtaining ng a permit for that purpose and paying the fee for such permit. [ D. Nat required En. A permit is not required for use of the public way, other than as noted in this article. fir, all persons working within the public way shall properly protect travelers therm by conformance to the Salt Take City Traffic Barricade Manual . Any obstruction of a gavel lane on any collector or arterial street, as defined in the Salt Lake City Offir l Street Man, for a ricd of more than t,�nty minutes shall be barricaded in aornrdarce with a LLaffic plan approved by the Transportation Engineer. 14.32.211 Permit limitations. • [14.32 -C] Q • 14.32.221 Irforman e Band—ExemptLan. A perfoiarce bend is flat required far staging in, occupation of, or obstructing the public way except where such activity inclurxes excavation or replacerent of public improvements as covered in articles III or IV of this chapter. Fiawever, the permittee shall be sLrictly responsible to repair any damage to the public way caused by the use thereof, and for any and all damage ca>>sei to any other person. ['" ]14.32.231 Right of Way Ctstnon I.tiew and inspection fees. A. The Engineer shall charge, and the City Treasures shall collect, upon issuing a permit, the following fees for review of the application and site inspection of []obstructions in the public way: [6]1• - y fee. (Beciad requiring more than five days). In addition to excavation fees: a. Flat fee for all or any part-of a block face: $125.00/ituiith; b. Each adn i tional block face: $125.00/north; 2. St zu L-temm cc upatian of the public i c way. ( Ctr t]five days or legs) sraf folding or other temporary structures OVer public way, or storage of construction materials or soil. [Flat fcc]Permit up to and including five days - [$10.00 ]$20.00/setup. No fee shall be charged for scaffolding dr staging done behind an approved barricade fence. [ . . . issued a as folloFra: -34- • 1. Ferocno ce vicing-electrieai sue, ene hundred dollars; 2. Perecn2 metalling glass, a dollars; qua aa ,, 3tructures, enc hundred dollars. - • • . . _g • • ] ARTICLE III INSTALtATICN, MDIFICATICN OR REPLACEMENT OF RELIC WY immavalayrs. [14.16.010 Permit rewired jai. • permit for such eenotructien. (Prier ede §38 1 1) 14.24.010]14.32.305 Purpose are benefit of provisions. A. Purpose. This [chapter and Chapter3 14.16 and 14.20 are]article is enacted for the purpose of prawting the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the city by keeping sidewalks, curb, gutters, drive approaches and appurtenances, such as parking bays and carriage walks in safe, usable condition. To this end it is deemed the responsibility of owners to notify the city of any defective concrete existing at their property and, upon replacerent of the defective concrete, to pay an amount equal to the resulting benefit to the improved property. B. Benefit. It is hereby found and determined that the replacement of defective concrete will result in an improvement benefiting the adjoining property in the amount of fifty percent of the total replacement cost in the -35- rase of property used as a residence or residences, and one hundred percent of the total replacement cost in the rasp of property used as multiple dwelling units, an apartment house, a business, or for any purpose other than as a residence. The difference in resulting benefits as compared to the cost of • replacement is based upon a finding of the city council of factors indicating substantially greater benefits to properties used for the purpose other than as residences. (Ord. 24-86 1 (part), 1986; prior code §38-2-1(1) and (2) ). [14.24.030]14.32.311 Defective of owner or tenant. Any person owning real property in the city and any tenant of real property in the city shall_ l.a. Report to the City Engineer's office the fact that any defective concrete exists in fruit of or along the side of the property owned or occupied by such owner or tenant. (Prior crde §38-2-2) b. The owner shall correct the problem and may elect to proceed to coL L tX:L the problem in accordance with 14.32.325, and 2. Take such temporary steps as needed, to protect the public from the hazard until the hazard is repaired. [14.24.040]14.32.315 Defective concrete—may by city. In the event any defective concrete is discovered or observed by the city, the city shall have the right to give notice to the owner of the adjacent property the same as if reported by the owner or tenant. The owner and/or tenant shall have the same duties as qpt forth in 14.32.311. (Prior code §38-2-3) [14.24.050]14.32.321 Defective arba—Notice to . Wherever the city receives notice of any defective concrete, [as provided in Section 14.24.030] or discovers same [fir'a -in Se ran-} 4g,er ouo .ccor sectIens,] and the city deems that such concrete is defective, it -36- must be replaced. Upon such determination by the city; it -may notify the property owner whose property is adjacent to the defective concrete where such replacement is needed that the owner shall have the options provided in Section 14.32.325[14.24.060], or its successor, for the method of replacement. Such notice shall also set forth the cost of replacement to the owner in the event such replant is made by the city or by a cca-itractor employed by the city. (Prior mree §38-2-4) [ 960]14.32.325 Infective ate—Repair cgti rls and costs. After notice is given as specified in Section 14-32-321, [14.24.050,] or its successor, the replacement of any defective concrete may be made in the manner as herein set forth, and the cost thereof shall be paid as follows: A. If the adjacent property is a residence, the owner may employ a contractor or act as a contractor to make the required replacement. Such replacement must be done according to city specifications, to the satisfaction and approval of the city engineer, only after obtaining the required permit and shall be completed within [thirty] sixty calendar days of receipt of the notice provided for in the preceding section. Replacement made under this subsection A shall be at the sole cost and expense of the owner. Election by the owner to proceed under this subsection A shall be entirely voluntary on the part of the owner and the replacement costs paid by the owner shall not be deem to be an assessment by the city. B. If the adjacent property is a residence, the owner may agree in writing, upcxi forms approved by the city attorney, to pay fifty percent of the cost thereof in advance, and the city shall pay the remaining fifty percent of the cost of replacement, such amount being equal to the resulting benefit to the property. In such case, the city shall make the replacement or employ a contractor to make same, subject to the availability of funds. -37- C. For replacement made to defective concrete adjacent to an apartment hose, business, multiple dwelling units and any other case other than a residence, the owner of the adjacent property shall pay one hundred percent of the total cost of such replacement, said amount being equal to the resulting benefit to the property. Such Leplacement may be accomplished, at the option of the cwner, by a contractor employed by the owner or, upon payment to the city of the total cast thereof in advance, by the city. If done by a contractor employed by the owner, such replacement-must be done wording to city specifications, to the satisfacticn and approval of the City Engineer. It shall be done only after obtaining the required permit and completed within sixty [thirty] calendar days, weather permitting, of receipt of notice provided for in this chapter. [the preceding oection.] D. The owner must notify the City Engineer, within seven calendar days of receipt of the notice provided for in the preceding section, under which option said owner wishes to proceed. E. In the event the canes refuses to or (ices not notify the City Engineer as to the option elected by the owner for the necessary replacement, or if the owner submits a written request to have his or her property included in a special improvement district, the city may then create a special improvement district for the purpose of making the required replacement after such district is created, and levy assessment on the property in accordance with Section 10-16-1 et"seq., Utah Co1P Annotated, 1953, as amended, or its successor. The assessment of the owner's portion of the total replacement cost shall be equal to the benefit received by the owner in accordance with the provisions of subsections B and C of this section. Such assessment shall be cjesignated by the ordinance creating the special improvement district to be paid by the owner of the property assessed over a period of five years fruit the effective date of such ordinance. -38- F. This section shall not preclude payment being made for replant to defective concrete adjacent to a residence by the city under special conditions, such as the city receiving a federal grant for such replacement, a low income abatement, as provided in Section 14.32.341 [14.24.090] of this chapter, or its successor, for the city to pay all or a portion of Laid cost. • Prior to making any abatement in excess of fifty percent in the re e of a residence, the mayor must first establish a written executive policy concerning what percentage the city will pay. (Prior m5e §38-2-5) 1A 2A :99 [ 0]14.32_331 Qrdinary repairs. Any repairs required to be made to sidewalk or appurtenances which are not defective, as defined in this chapter, shall constitute ordinary repairs. In the event the city determines that any ordinary repeir should be made, the entire cost thereof shall be borne by the City, subject to availability of funds. (Prior rrde §38-2-7) [14.24.080]14.32.3a5 Waiver- of ielazumpentrequireuent. In the event the city determines that any defective Crete should not be replered because of a contemplated overall sLreet repeir or replant project, la k of 'funds or other good reason, the [Mayor] Engineer or the [Mayor's] Engineer's designee may temporarily waive the requir neat of replacement. (Prior cede §38-2-6) [14.32.090]14.32.341 Abatement of part--ardLticns. Assessments shall be equal and uniform acrnrd.ing to the benefits received: however, when the owner of a residence adjacent to any defective concrete which requires replacement shall have a combined family income at or below the levels established by the Department of Housing and Urban Development in its "Income e Limits for Housing and Ccrm unity Development, Section 8 Program for Salt Lake City and Ogden, Utah Sti1SA", as amended fium -39- time to time, the entire cost of replacement may be pid by the city, subject to the availability of funds. Such owner must file an application therefore with the city, in order far payments [required by Section 14 32 34l 4.24.060, or it3 successor,] to be abated. In order for the above income guidelines to become effective for the purposes of this section, the city must receive notice of such amendment and same must be adopted by the mayor by executive action. (Prior code §38-2-8) 14.16.02014.32.345 Specifications and grades for . All construction authorized by the permit issued under this chapter [ .1-6.010, i-ts-sue] shall be constructed in accordance with the specifications and grades [furni._hed] approved by the engineer[public works director], and the acceptance of such permit shall be deemed an agreement by the permittce to perform such construction in accordance with such specifications and grades. (Prior code §38-1-2) . - • director. (Prior Bede §38 1 3) 14.16.040]14.32. 1S5 Si iks—Insi cx and argroval. All sidewalks constructed in accordance with the permits authorized by this chapter shall be subject to inspection and approval by the [public work3 director] engineer. (Prior ende §38-1-4) [l ]14.32.361 Etcivemstycmstaiction. A. R rmits. No permit shall be granted by the city engineer without the favorable recarmendation of the Transportation engineer, for any driveway exceeding thirty feet in width except: • -40- • 1. Industrial M-1, M-1A, M-2 and M-3 di U.icts, as set forth in Title 21 of the Salt Lake City Crre, wherein driveways not exceeding forty feet in width may be permitted; and 2. In developed areas where street construction requires replacement of • existing nonconforming driveways, the city engineer, upon favorable recommendation frau the transpertaticn engineer, may allow replacement of such nonconforming driveways when relocation of the driveway is not practical and will adversely affect traffic. B. Concrete this. No driveway, including sidewalk section through a driveway, shall be less than six inches thick; .provided, hoover, that the • city engineer may require that any driveway, including sidewalk, must be at least eight inches thick when, in the opinion of" the city engineer, such driveway and sidewalk will be used for heavy trucks, vehicles or equipment. C. Iiltip1P drives, islands and landscaping. When more than one driveway is required for any parcel of land, a sidewalk island of at least twelve feet in width shall be provided and landscaped between such multiple driveways, except in developed areas, where the street construction requires replant of existing driveways with nonconforming islands. In such the city engineer, upon the favorable recommendation of the transportation engineer, may allow the replacement of driveways with nonocnforming islands or separations of less than twelve feet in width, when relocation of the driveway is not practical and Will not adversely affect LLdffic. The city engineer may direct that areas between such multiple drives that are 1Pgs than twelve feet in width be paved, if landscaping is impractical . • D. (trees lot and violation_ In no can shall a permit be granted for a driveway which will be within ten feet of the property line where it abuts -41- any intersecting street. [It i3 unlace for any person to drive any vehicle Jrrs-r-] E. Eenial far dangerous ccnditiarss. Where, in the opinion of the city engineer, upon reccmnendation of the transportation engineer, it would be dangerous becaimP of traffic, or because a driveway conflicts with any permanent improvements or waterway, the city engineer may refuse to issue the requested driveway permit. Such denial by the city engineer shall be final unleRs the applicant appeals the matter to the board of adjustment. The board of adjustment shall have the authority and discretion to either affirm the city engineer's dP ision or specify the conditions and location upon which a driveway may be permitted. (Prior code §38-1-5) F. Pipe driveway - Property ownormslx]ns.dalailiiy, Permits for pipe driveways shall be issued only for locations which meet criteria established • by-the engineer, and where no other practical means is available to prevent vehicles fran dragging on the street or driveway. Pipe driveways are installed solely for the convenience of the abutting property owner and must conform to Salt Lake City clPsi.gn standards. The owner is responsible for keeping pipe driveways structurally sound and'free of debris so as not to impede the gutter flow. [14.32.060]14.32.365 Public Tray Improvement Permit review and inspection fees. A. The Engineer shall charge, and the City Treasurer shall collect, upon issuing a permit, the following fees for review of the application and site inspection of [max] public way improvements: [e]1. Curb and Otter $1.00 per lineal. foot [b]2. Sidewalk, driveway approach $0.15$0.18 per square foot -42- Minimum m Charge: April 1 - November 15 $70.00 November 16 - March 31 $105.00 [14.32.160C]3.Permit extension - $25.00. [T (Prior code §" ] [14_32.060A2 ]4.For in-kiwi replacement of existing sidewalk, curb and gutter, or driveway appraac-h, a no-charge permit will be issued. [14.32.0160C]5.Where any of the foregoing subsections specify a higher fee rate for any period, such higher fee shall be applicable if any portion of the work is Deleted during the higher fee pericd. (Prior rode §41-5-7) ARTICLE IV 1VATICrS IN THE PUBLIC WAY [14.32.020 Pcit Rog far eactiArturtric. . - r any , , rlf . 14.32.060]14.32_411 Excavation P nit—Beview dud inspection feel., A. The Engineer shall charge, and the City Treasurer shall collect, upon issuing a permit, the following fees for review of the application and site inspection of [tr rk] excavation and restoration in the public way: 1. Ecavation a. [SO.15] $0.18 per square foot Hard Surfaced b. [U0.14] $0.12 per square foot Other -43- • • Minimum Charge: April 1 - November 15 November 16 - March 31 Hard Surfecesi [$70.00] $80.00 [S105.00] $120.00 Other [$4580] $50.00 [C65.00] $75.00 [-E]2. Multi Pi P utility excavation. Minimum foes shall be in accordance with the following schedule, if the distance between excavations drS not exceed one block (six hundred sixty feet) along the same street[are the Minimum charge: April 1 - Naveinber 15 November 16 - March 31 Hard Surfaced [$^ ] $50.00 [S70.00] $80.00 Other ($25.00] $30.00 [S40.00] $45.00 3. New SLLLS. Excavation permits for new streets shall be issued only uaxn written authorization of the City Engineer and the permit fees shall be two times the normal rates published in this section. The engineer may also rewire persons working in new streets to ploy extraordinary measures in restoring said street such as applying rne1 cat or other surface treatment to maintain the overall integrity of the surface. 4. Survey moniirents. Survey Monuments that are disturbed by ce ion in the public way must be referenced and replaced by a licensed land surveyor. The City Surveyor will reference and replace monuments for a fee of $400.00. If a nuxrument is distorted without being referenced, the cost of replacerrent will be $1,000.00. Such cost of recovery will be the respcnsibility of the person causing the damage. [4]5. Pales and anchors. Poles and Anchors, [$10.00] $20.00 each pole or concrete pedestal or anchor_ [, (S45.00 minimum chZrge).] -44- r [E]B. Where any of the foregoing subsections specify a higher fee rate for any period, such higher fee shall be _applicable if any portion of the work is n 1etPd during the higher fee period. (Prior code §41-5-7) [14.32.160C]C. Permit extension - $20.00 $25.00. The Engineer may ware deny this extension when work is not proceeding on the project in a satisfactory manner. (Prior .00de §41-5-9) 14.32.413 Qzality constructirn fee credit. A. Permittees doing excavations frequently in the City may qualify for a quality construction fee credit subject to the following: 1. The permittee or an employee of the permittee who has been wined and certified by the engineer in proper inspecticn and materials testing, barricading and traffic control is on the job site during all =construction activities. 2. The engineer or his/her designee will make random inspections of work done by pesmittees to insure ocmoliance with the regulations and specifications of the city. 3. A permittee or an employee of the permittac who has been certified by the engineer may have mid certification revoked by the engineer for failure to properly enfowue the regulations and specifications of the city. 4. An average of not more than three percent of all excavations completed within any month will have failed by the one-year inspection. B. Permittees participating in the Quality Construction program shall receive credit refunds of permit fees as follows: 1. If an average one-year failure rate is below three percent, the engi r r will issue a credit refurx3 equal to ten percent of the permit fps paid for the month being evaluated. -45- 2. If a warranty inspection reveals no failures, the engineer will issue a credit refund equal to twenty percent of the permit fe paid for the month being evaluated. 3. Such refund credit is not valid for a cash refund, but may be applied toward the fee for future permits. 4. The warranty inspection pecti on and fee credit in no way removes the permittee of respcazsibilities for repairs if a failure ocxrurs within two years as required in section 14.32.121.A.3. 14.32.417 Timely natification credits. If a permittee schedules an inspection by notifying the engineer twenty- four hours in advance of the actual time backfilling to take plate, and if the backfilling restoration actually takes place at the appointed time, the engineer or his/her inspector may issue a refund credit to the permittee in the amount of ten dollars. Such refund credit is not valid for a cash refund, but may be a..lied toward the fee for future permits. Only one refund credit can be issued per permit. [14.32.170 Floateratiort fees. y ' 14.32.411, or its successor: 1. Asphal�r �r-ati eel-€or i /._of a — 1.00 per square feet for major and collector streets: 2. Minimum charge. April Detour $25.00 -46- • • • • • • • City's public y3. (Prior code §41 5 8)] ARTIC'rF V STORM DRAINS [' 32.060 3]14.32.501 S Luuu []drain inspection fees. A. Stu ui drains. Storm [cc rs] Drains, $1.75 per lineal foot ($70.00 minimum charge) in adrlitia-i to excavation fees. B. Private drain line ccrnectdens. 1. Connection to existing storm drain - $50.00. 2. Construct clean out box for connection to existing storm drain - $75.00. 3. Connection into face of curb or existing inlet or clean out box - $30.00. 14.32.511 Private drain line Responsibility. Private drains may be installed in the right of way, but cleaning, maintenance and replacement thereof remains the responsibility of the owner. A private drain is considered privately owned from the source to the point at which it with a public storm drain. Any repairs made within the public way shall require a permit. ARTIC'TF VI—REPEAL OF PRIOR. ORDINANCES 14.32.601 meal. This ordinance, Construction, Excavaticn, and Option in the Public Right of Way, Chaptizr 14.32, Articles I - IV, repl c s Chapters 14.04.010 thrc ch 14.04.040, Struts and Sidewalks Administration and Enforcerent, 14.32.010 through 14.32.290, Excavations and Obstructions, Chapter 14.16.010 throuch 14.16.050 Sidewalk and Driveway Construction and Chapter 14.24.010 thrcuch 14.24.090 Repair and Repint of Sidewalk, curb and gutter, and Chapter 18.60, Articles I and II, Earrir-aries and Scaffolds. Passing and adoption of this ordinance voids and supersedes the previous ordinances as noted. SECTION 2 . This ordinance shall take effect upon the date of its first publication. Passed by .the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: • CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER -48-