The URL can be used to link to this page

03/21/1989 - Minutes PROCARINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI , UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 1989 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met as the Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, March 21, 1989, at 5:00 p.m. in Suite 300, City Hall, 324 South State Street. The following Council Members were present: Florence Bittner Sydney Fonnesbeck Tom Godfrey Wayne Horrocks Alan Hardman Willie Stoler Councilmember Kirk was absent. Council Chairperson Stoler presided at the meeting. The Council interviewed Dan Mr. Stoler said that because of Bethel prior to consideration of the rumors, damage had already his proposed appointment to the been done to individual reputa- Planning Commission. Council- tions and the image of the Coun- member Stoler asked Mr. Bethel cil. He said he wanted the inves- what his interests and qualifi- tigation to clear the air. He cations were for the job. Mr. said he believed that he could Bethel said he had been attending lead the investigator to the the Westside Community Council source of the rumor. Council- meetings and he had worked with member Florence Bittner said that several architectural firms on because her name was mentioned in projects in the downtown, such as connection to the rumors she the Salt Palace Expansion. He wanted the investigation to clear said he had a bias toward histori- her name and the reputation of the cal preservation and had worked Council. She said the charges with the Landmarks Committee in were very serious and reflected developing some property in the poorly on the Council and on the Capitol Hill neighborhood. financial institution involved. Councilmember Horrocks said Mr. Bethel had spoken with the Chair Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked of the Planning Commission about if the investigation was to deter- the time commitment needed and mine the truth of the rumor, or Mr. Bethel felt he had the time. just its source. Mr. Stoler said it would try to do both. Ms. Mr. Stoler said he wanted to Fonnesbeck also asked if any names call an emergency meeting of the had been mentioned specifically by Redevelopment Agency to discuss Councilmember Godfrey, Mr. Stoler the possibility of hiring an inde- said that no names had been men- pendent investigator to investi- tioned. gate the source of, and the valid- ity of, rumors of impropriety in Mr. Stoler said the financial the selection of bond counsel for institution involved deserved to the Block 57 project. have the suspicion removed from its reputation, as did the Coun- Councilmember Godfrey said he cil. Councilmember Horrocks said felt he was misunderstood during the whole thing had been blown out the March 16, 1989, RDA meeting of proportion and the investiga- and said he had written out his tion was needed to set the record views in a letter to Council Chair straight. Stoler. Mr. Godfrey then read the text of the letter ( attachment #1 ) . 89-71 PROCEOINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI14, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 1989 Roger Cutler, City Attorney, Mrs. Bittner said she was said the Council should check with concerned about the maintenance Bill Oswald, RDA' s attorney, to budget for the units, stating that see if the call for an emergency many people had complained about meeting was appropriate. Mr. the upkeep on subsidized housing Cutler said he was concerned about units. Mr. Nelson passed out a discussing a non-agenda item and pro forma budget sheet for the that the Council should take the program (attachment #2 ) and said time to follow all of the open the maintenance budget was the meeting procedures. Mr. Stoler same as mandated by federal pro- said he would call the special grams. meeting within the next 72 hours and would make sure that all the Mr. Stoler asked if there were requirements were met. any other programs providing single family units. Mr. Horrocks Mrs. Bittner said the Council asked how this program fit into needed to provide a forum to the big picture of housing subsi- discuss complaints from the archi- dies. Mr. Nelson said that while tectural community regarding the there were other programs designed contract process for proposed to help singles, elderly and arena sites. Mrs. Bittner asked handicapped, this was the only that this be put on the agenda for program for families in single the special meeting of the RDA units. He said the program com- Board of Directors. bined housing with job guidance and required the families to Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive develop a plan for moving out of Director, reviewed the agenda for subsidized housing. He said the the meeting. program included job skill train- ing, counseling and coordinated Mr. Arlo Nelson, Executive other services geared to making Director of the Housing Authority, the families self-sufficient. briefed the Council on the Transi- tional Housing Interlocal Agree- Mr. Lee King gave an update on ment ( agenda item E3 ) . Mr. Nelson Olympic Committee activity and said the Housing Authority planned said that RSVPs were needed for on using revenues generated by the Deer Valley reception as soon payments paid in lieu of taxes, to as possible. house sixteen families in single unit renovated houses in Salt Lake The meeting adjourned at 6:00 City. He said if the Council p.m. approved the appropriation, the Housing Authority would submit an application to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for matching funds to run the program. He said the average purchase price for each house was approximately $37, 000 and the dedication of the houses to the program counted as Salt Lake' s portion of the match- ing funds. Mr. Nelson said the Housing Authority would be adding nine units, on which they held options, and would have 16 total units in the program. 89-72 f iiiOUNCIL MINUTES ' f MARCH 21, 1989 ' ATTACHMENT #1 THOMAS M. GODFREY "= COUNCILMAN, DISTRICT #5 i ••'1 • 1233 SOUTH 700 EAST • SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84105 • 484-7558 j • Y f.ItC � S'.' ' f r` © ,'(ratyrglo °'.rt I:O•NN OFFICE ;OF;.THE,-CITY.;000NCIL 211CITY.&-COUNTY BUILDING : SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111• . 535-7800 March 21, 1989 W. M. "Willie" Staler Council Member District 7 Salt Lake City -Council • • Dear Willie: • = Recent newspaper articles about the RDA bonding contract and about your - .request for an investigation have led me to write this letter. I feel there is some confusion as to what motivated me to make certain statements at last • Thursday's RDA meeting, and some explanation may help diffuse, what I believe is, your overreaction to the situation. • As you will recall, I spoke strongly against recognizing a five year old • • contract. I did so because I believe that it reflects bad political judgement. I was concerned about a rumor which stated that this issue had been discussed with at least one Council Member and a principal of the bank, ' . and that the agency might steer the contract to Zions. I felt that anything that would put any cloud over the agency or cause it embarrassment needed to • be cleared up. For me, then and now, the cleanest way to clear up the situation would'have been to rebid the bond contract. From the negative media attention the Council has received, I think. my perception of bad political judgement has been.confirmed. I also felt the decision.reflected bad business judgement. I feel that, after five years with no written contract, it would have been in the best . interests of the City and the RDA to rebid it. ' I am sure that the price bid • five years ago was much higher than today's bid. By not rebidding the contract, I think we give the impression of favoring a particular firm. The : bottom line for me was that to properly take care of the City and other businesses in our community we needed to rebid the contract. - I would also remind you that at no time did I refer to specific people when I stated that there was a rumor. If you will also recall, you and • Florence strongly denied any dealings with the principals; however, two hours later you both volunteered having had some contact with.the principals. I • 89-72A 1 / . RRR+�� 411 COUNCIL MINUTES t,/'r, CH 21, 1989 cannot emphasize enough that I do question your political and business judgement on this issue, but not your morals or ethics. As to your request for an investigation by the agency, I have some problems. First, I believe the situation has gotten out of hand and that an investigation will not get to the bottom of a rumor, especially since so many people seem to be aware of it. Secondly since I am convinced no improper or illegal deal was made, I feel that the issue is moot. Further discussion would be ineffective and detrimental to the real business of the City and will take up too much time. I consider the issue closed and will decline further press interviews or ' inquiries concerning the matter. • Sincerely, / oy-✓ Tom Godfrey Council Member District 5 TG:ccr • 89-72B - TRANSITIONAL HOUSING GRANT .' •`-•: OPERATIONS PRO FORMA'�'�,. '•'" � '+ ; .. TRANSITIONAL P F 1 -. -,, :- 06 DE _ urn,;' N.�z •ro P" N COST RnTI G^wit 0 c i • ;Line Item _ , • .„,-: ?UM' Units •' Year 1 ., YEar .2.�:�;� �� Year '3�; ' Year 4. Year' 5 - - Total r. •. int. Salaries` B. 62 - 16' 1, 655. 0.4 1, 7.04. 69 . 1, 755 B3 1, 808. 50 1, 862. 75 8, B , Ma 7B6. 1 Maint Materials- -, - 6. 67 ib ' 1, 280. 64 1, 319. 05''• 1, 358}62_ , 1, 399. 37 1, 441. 35 6, 799. 03 *MainL L L "- '"m-" """" " 10. 32 2 040. 88 r.,=;'• 2, 102' 10,�;;,•,. 2, 165. 16,.. 2, 230. 11,1, 10, 519. 69 .. , ,.. Con..rac�s=?',. :�-.=<:- _ ]6 •` �:�' 1, 981. 44• �, �r Other Maintenance:r:� ,,,:; _, 3. 95 16 �';;.4_;.,-.: 758. 40 "�: -. 781. 15 ::• : ' 804: 58t;- :,•` 828. 71•-': 853. 57`' . =. 4, 026. 41 .... Total Maintenancer" . 5, 675. 52 5, 845, 77"`'' 6, 021' 13"'''-• 6, 201. 74 6, 387. 78 • 30, 131, 94 .r _ ' 'Sr- .".b':1T.'`' - . _ ..,1. _ i '•S�4 Act L ,:'-- F� - El �,.r i � O' 4 20 6,�b5 15 6 858 9 c i y� :_.__ - • 31: 4' �1-0 •�6, 094. OB -b, 276.-9 b, 65,_ - 9. 2 32, 354, 25 Gas • •- . :.y _.__:. ..: ,. _.. ,_ 12 m4. 2• : 16`." 2, 465. 28 2, 539. 23 =;,-. 2, 615'.40 •.: 2, 693. 86 - 2, 774. 67 ',""",: 13, 088, 44 ' Water/Sewer 17. 69 16 3, 396. 48 ' - 3, 498. 37'"-- - 3, 603:32 3, 711. 41 3, 822. 75 18, 032. 33 -- , Other 3. 21 16 616. 32 634. 80 653. 84 673. 45 693. 65 3, 272. 06 Total Ut i l i t:es -- ' .. . 12, 572. 16 12, 949. 30 13, 337 6-,,f,,-_ 13, 737. 87. 14, 149, 99 . 66, 747. 08 Reserve for Replace 25. 00 16` 4, 800. 00 • 4.944. 00 - 5, 092 � 5, 245. 08 5, 402. 43; 25, 483. 63 - -� Furnish ines .. - 53- _1 •- - 16 10, 216. 32 10, 522. 80- __ 10, 8384-48 --' 11, 163. 63 ' 11, 498. 53, . '- 54, 239. 76 -- Total Capital Exp • 15, 015. 32 15, 466.-80.' . 15, 930 80" 16, 408. 71 `," 16, 900. 96 79, 723. 59- HA Admin. Salaries ' 15. 25 16 2, 928. 00 3, 015. 84 _ 3, 10651 3, 199. 49 3, 295. 47 , 15. 545. 11 co- HA Admin. Other • 15. 39 16 2, 954. 68 3, 043. 52 3, 134;82 3, 22B. 86 3, 325. 72 15, 687. 80 Housing1/40 Asst. Salary 11. 11 16 2, 133. 12 2, 197. 11 2, 263.02 2, 330. 91 2, 400. 83 ' 11, 324. 99 I Accouning & Computer 17. 05 • 16 3, 273. 60 3, 371. BO 3, 472:i 95 3, 577. 13 3, 684. 44 17, 379. 92, ry Insurance 7. 32 • 16 1, 405. 44 1, 447. 60 1, 491 :02'. 1, 535. 75 - 1, 581. 82 7, 461. 63 n ----Total HA Admin. 12, 695. 04 13, 075. 87 - 13, 468 .12 13, 872. 14 ' 14, 288. 28 - . 67, 399. 45 • Support Serv. Admin 88-3. 50 16 16, 992. 00 17, 501. 76 18, 026. 81 18, 567. 61 19, 124. 63 90, 212. 81 - Resident Supervisor 130. 21 ` 16 25, 000. 32 25, 750. 32 26, 522. 82 • 27, 318. 50 28, 13B. 05 132, 730. 01 Total Support 41, ?92. 32 43, 252. OB 44, 549. 63 45, 886. 11 47, 262. 68 222, 942.p2 TOTAL COST S7, 951. 36 90, 589. B2 93, 307: 44 96, 106. 57 98, 989. 69 466, 944. 88 • • OPERATING REVENUE :. ,.Xet an-t�Ren4 75. 00 . 16 '14, 400.-00,, 14, 832. 00 15, 276. 96 15, 735. 26 16, 207. 31 76, 451. 53 :-dt3t end. 2='9_ 04 16 -: 3,4975- 5E1 43, 975. 68 43, 975: 68 43, 975. 68 43, 975. 68 219, 878. 40 • itaAtraii 73. 60 16 1'4' -3-1-. 0 14, 555. 13 ' 14, 991: 78 15, 441. 53 15, 904. 77 75, 024. 41 Sa l`.t t_+ ; unc s 8O 44 16 31:5,e4.44.=4% 17, 227. 01 19, 063. 02 20, 954. 10 22, 901. 93 95, 590. 54 TOTAL REVEN:J_ 87, 951. 36 90, 589. 82 93, 307. 44 96, 106. 57 98, 989. 69 466, 944. 88 OPERATING VARIANCE 0. 00 0. 00 - O. 00 O. 00 - O. 00 O. 00 . 403 cc \ J , I 6 12,-&i-a . . . - i r A— 7 —.: - k—r9 tf7/11) 6/1(7,5 41- -r Y �� F _ � cip PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 1989 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in regular session on Tuesday, March 21, 1989, at 6:00 p.m. in Suite 300, City Hall, 324 South State Street. The following Council Members were present: Florence Bittner Sydney Fonnesbeck Tom Godfrey Wayne Horrocks Alan Hardman Willie Stoler Councilmember Kirk was absent. Mayor Palmer DePaulis, Roger Cutler City Attorney, Kathryn Marshall, City Recorder, and Lynda Domino, Chief Deputy Recorder, were present. Councilmember Stoler presided at the meeting and Councilmember Horrocks conducted the meeting. OPENING CEREMONIES and proclaiming Tuesday, March 21, 1989, to be Salt Lake City Day at #1. The invocation was given Disneyland. by Reverend Carol West, Mount Tabor Lutheran Church. Councilmember Horrocks read a joint resolution of the City Coun- #2. The Council led the cil and Mayor commending Disney- Pledge of Allegiance. land for their commitment to the family and expressing appreciation #3. Councilmember Godfrey and gratitude for their joint moved and Councilmember Hardman effort with Coca-Cola and Delta seconded to approve the minutes of Airlines to bring happiness to the Salt Lake City Council for the children of all ages, especially regular meeting held Tuesday, the children of Salt Lake City, March 7, 1989, which motion car- Utah. ried, all members present voted aye. Councilmember Godfrey moved (M 89-1 ) and Councilmember Fonnesbeck sec- onded to adopt Resolution 43 of #4a. The City Council and 1989, which motion carried, all Mayor Palmer DePaulis presented a members present voted aye except resolution of appreciation honor- Councilmember Bittner who was ing Disneyland for their work with absent for the vote. children in Salt Lake City. (R 89-1) Fred Rawlins, representing #4b. The City Council and Delta Airlines (Disneyland' s major Mayor Palmer DePaulis presented carrier) , along with representa- the 1989 "Reading is FUNdamental" tives from Disneyland and several awards. Mayor DePaulis along with of the Disney characters were the Disney characters presented present. The Disneyland represen- the awards to the children from tatives presented Salt Lake City various Salt Lake City schools. with a proclamation acknowledging Salt Lake City' s support for Disneyland in Southern California 89-73 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 1989 COMMENTS Mr. Miller needed to get the best deal and the public needed to be #1. Several children from aware of their total investment. the Jackson Elementary 5th Grade Extended Learning Program pre- He suggested that several is- sented the Council with infor- sues needed to be considered such mation about the deteriorated con- as land costs, infrastructure dition of sidewalks in the Euclid costs, shared parking revenue, the area. light rail system, and how this would help the Central Business They said after conducting District. He pointed out that Mr. two surveys of the area they found Miller' s investment was $45 mil- that in some areas the sidewalks lion and the public' s was $20 were so bad people could possibly million plus. He asked how the fall and get hurt so they walked citizens could keep abreast of the in the street, in places the comparative data being collected sidewalks were not even visible, on both locations by the Redevel- and at some points there were opment Agency and the criteria loose rocks and pebbles on the used to compare that data. sidewalks. The children passed around pictures showing the condi- Councilmember Horrocks said tion of the sidewalks. that every member on the City Council was cognizant of the needs These children asked the of the city and citizenry. He Council for their help to improve said they were also cognizant that the Euclid area. the tax base was shrinking. He said there would be a lot of plan- #2. J. Maurice Clayton, 2427 ning and public input and said the Emerson Avenue, said he repre- Council appreciated Mr. Puriri ' s sented the Citizens Golf Committee concerns. Councilmember Horrocks and he distributed copies of a re- asked Dick Turpin, RDA, to explain port which identified and ad- the procedure regarding the site dressed issues which he said were selection. discriminatory, unfair, ill-con- ceived and detrimental to the Mr. Turpin outlined his city. recommended selection criteria: 1 ) Mr. Miller' s choice of sites; He asked the Mayor and 2) land availability and cost; 3 ) Council to acquaint themselves parking availability and cost; 4) with the data and then provide a site development costs; 5 ) impact forum or meeting with the Citizen of the arena on downtown trans- Golf Committee in order to eval- portation systems; 6 ) consistency uate and take action upon the of the location with existing city information in the report. He plans. asked that a meeting be arranged no later than the week of April He said all of this informa- 10, 1989 . tion was currently being gathered by consultants or staff. He said #3. Ra Puriri, 258 No. Main, the Salt Lake City Planning De- commented about the proposed partment would comment on consis- sports arena. He said this deci- tency with city plans, the Trans- sion process was important and was portation Department would comment a singular opportunity to gather on the impact on the transporta- support from the public. He said tion systems and the remaining 89-74 PROCAPINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 1989 information would be addressed by #1. RE: Approving the ap- consultants. pointment of Paul Osborn to the Community Development Advisory Councilmember Hardman asked Committee. if there would be a public hearing (I 89-2) once the information was gathered. Mr. Turpin said there would be a #2. RE: Approving the ap- public meeting but there was no pointment of Karen Wikstrom to the legal requirement for a formal Housing Advisory and Appeals public hearing. He said the RDA Board. could take public comment at their (I 89-6) regular meeting. #3. RE: Adopting Resolution Councilmember Hardman said he 42 of 1989 authorizing the exe- was concerned about perceptions cution of an Interlocal Cooper- and asked how soon the information ation Agreement approving a con- would be available to the public. tract amendment between Salt Lake Mr. Turpin said the information City and the Redevelopment Agency gathered to date would be avail- designating the Agency as the able the Friday prior to the RDA' s Local Urban Homestead Agency. April 6th meeting (March 31 ) . (C 89-115) Councilmember Bittner said #4. RE: Approving the because of concerns about the site appointment of Dan Bethel to the selection process she suggested Planning Commission. that the RDA open a public comment (I 89-5) process, perhaps with a newspaper ad indicating that the RDA would #5. RE: Adopting Resolution accept written comments or tele- 37 of 1989 authorizing the execu- phone calls so they could become tion of an Interlocal Cooperation part of the record and considered Agreement between Salt Lake City at the beginning of the process. Corporation and Utah Department of She wanted people to have the Transportation to include protect- opportunity to give input before ing and adjusting the City' s the decision was made. culinary water facilities in connection with improvements con- Councilmember Horrocks re- templated by UDOT from I-215 to iterated that the RDA meeting was Knudsen' s Corner to Wasatch Boule- always public. Mr. Turpin agreed yard. that placing an ad in the news- (C 89-104) paper was a good idea and indi- cated that he would follow through #6. RE: Adopting Resolution as soon as possible. 38 of 1989 authorizing the execu- (G 89-8) tion of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County CONSENT AGENDA providing for the exchange of fire protection services within initial Councilmember Bittner moved action areas as established by the and Councilmember Hardman seconded Fire Chief of each jurisdiction. to approve the consent agenda, (C 89-103) which motion carried, all members present voted aye. #7. RE: Set a date for a public hearing to be held Tuesday, 89-75 PROCE-INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 1989 April 4, 1989, at 6:20 p.m. to #2. RE: A resolution autho- obtain public comment concerning rizing the execution of an Petition No. 400-662 submitted as Interlocal Cooperation Agreement a legislative action to rezone between Salt Lake City Corporation property located between 500 and and the Housing Authority of Salt 600 East and Wilmington and Lake City for renewal of low-rent Stringham Avenues from "C-1" to housing program of the Housing "R-3A" classification. Authority of Salt Lake City. (P 88-346) ACTION: Councilmember God- #8. RE: Set a date for a frey moved and Councilmember Sto- public hearing to be held Tuesday, ler seconded to adopt Resolution April 18, 1989, at 6:20 p.m. , to 40 of 1989, which motion carried, obtain public comment concerning all members present voted aye. Petition No. 400-705 submitted by (C 89-106) Scott McNeil of McNeil Engineering requesting Salt Lake City to #3. RE: A resolution author- rezone property located on the izing the execution of an southeast corner of 700 North and Interlocal Cooperation Agreement Redwood Road from "R-2A" to "B-3" between Salt Lake City Corporation classification. and the Housing Authority of Salt (P 89-92) Lake City establishing the funding program for the Transitional Housing Program of the Housing NEW COUNCIL BUSINESS Authority of Salt Lake City. #1. RE: A resolution declar- ACTION: Councilmember God- ing the intention of Salt Lake frey moved and Councilmember Hard- city to construct improvements on man seconded to adopt Resolution or adjoining California Avenue and 41 of 1989, which motion carried, all other miscellaneous work all members present voted aye. necessary to complete the improve- (C 89-105) ments; to create Salt Lake City, Utah California Avenue Special Improvement District No. 38-808; UNFINISHED BUSINESS to defray the cost and expenses of a portion of said Improvement #1. RE: An ordinance recog- District by special assessments to nizing the adoption of amendment be levied against the property 15 to the Master Annexation Policy benefited by such improvements; to declarations; extending the limits provide Notice of Intention to of Salt Lake City to include the authorize such improvements and to City Creek Annexation, zoning the set Tuesday, May 9, 1989, at 6:20 same Preservation "P-1" by amend- p.m. for protests against such ing the use district map as adopt- improvements or the creation of ed by Section 21 . 14.020 of the said District; to authorize adver- Salt Lake City Code; and amending tisement of construction bids and the Salt Lake City Council Dis- related matters. trict Boundary Map. ACTION: Councilmember God- ACTION: Councilmember Bitt- frey moved and Councilmember Sto- ner moved and Councilmember Fon- ler seconded to adopt Resolution nesbeck seconded to adopt Ordi- 39 of 1989, which motion carried, nance 11 of 1989, which motion all members present voted aye. (Q 89-2) 89-76 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 1989 carried, all members present voted citizen input on general housing aye. and community development needs for consideration by Community DISCUSSION: Councilmember Development Block Grant staff and Hardman asked LeRoy Hooton, direc- the Mayor prior to submission of tor of public utilities, if this the Mayor' s annual Community maintained and preserved the Development Block Grant recommen- multiple use aspect of City Creek. dations to the City Council. Mr. Hooton said this was correct and said that the same activities ACTION: Councilmember God- that were permitted in the past frey moved and Councilmember Sto- would continue to be permitted in ler seconded to close the public the future under the annexation. hearing, which motion carried, all (P 88-395) members present voted aye. DISCUSSION: Stephanie Loker, PUBLIC HEARINGS capital planning and programming, said this was a required HUD #1 RE: A public hearing hearing related to general com- scheduled for 6:20 p.m. to obtain munity development and housing comment concerning and consider needs. She said the purpose of adopting an ordinance amending the hearing was to get input about Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 39 of the problems and opportunities 1988 adopting the budget of Salt existing in the city which Com- lake City, Utah, for the Fiscal munity Development Block Grant Year beginning July 1, 1988, and funds could be used to solve. ending June 30, 1989. She said they had about 96 ACTION: Councilmember project proposals totalling more Godfrey moved and Councilmember than $9 million and this year' s Stoler seconded to close the pub- HUD allocation to Salt Lake was lic hearing, which motion carried, $3, 947, 000. She said the capital all members present voted aye. planning staff came up with $200, 000 in slippage from closed Councilmember Bittner moved projects which would be added to and Councilmember Hardman seconded this amount. to adopt Ordinance 10 of 1989 amending Ordinance 39 of 1988 She thanked the Community adopting the budget of Salt Lake Development Advisory Committee City, Utah, for the Fiscal Year (CDAC) for all the work they did beginning July 1, 1988, and ending in relation to the project re- June 30, 1989, which motion car- quests and their recommendations Tied, all members present voted to the Mayor. She said city staff aye. also reviewed the projects and made recommendations to the Mayor. DISCUSSION: No one from city staff reported on this item and She said staff would be there were no comments from the meeting with the Mayor in the next public. two weeks and then he would (B 88-5) present his recommendations to the Council at either the April llth or 18th meeting. She said the #2. RE: A public hearing Council would then give their scheduled for 6:30 p.m. to obtain 89-77 PROCAINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI , UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 1989 preliminary recommendation regard- ing the 15th Year CD money on May Mary Lee Allen, 364 E. 700 2nd and hopefully the Council So. , spoke on behalf of Housing would make their final decision Outreach Rental Program. She said on May 16th. they dealt a lot with emergency housing and were having more The following people spoke: difficulty finding suitable hous- ing since units were closed for Dr. Stephen Ratcliffe, 300 being substandard. She said last No. 1300 W. , said he was a family year they served 2, 300 people and physician and medical director of half were from Salt Lake. She Salt Lake Community Health Cen- asked the Council to help them ters. He said they were asking find suitable housing. for funds to assist in building a new center to replace the North- Max Smith, 357 Pierpont, said west Community Health Center. He he was on the R/UDAT Housing Sub- said they served the medically committee and asked the Council to indigent of Salt Lake City and consider improving the old ware- were serving about 16,000 patients houses in the Pierpont area and a year. He said the current using them for housing. He said facilities lacked laboratories and this would house people and create a pharmacy and a new center would neighborhoods. He asked the Coun- be a full-service center. He also cil to fund housing to the great- said they could receive a $1 . 5 est extent possible. million loan contingent upon them obtaining 25% funding for the new Patrick Poulin, 210 Rio center and the CDBG funds would be Grande St. , executive director of a significant portion. the Traveler' s Aid Society, said the number of people seeking Mike McKendrick, 328 W. 700 services at the homeless shelter No. , said the area of 700 North had more than doubled. He said from 300 to 400 West needed curb they were better able to serve and gutter and street improve- them but the number of homeless ments. He said none of the resi- was increasing. He encouraged the dents had the financial means to Council to assist with funding for pay for the improvements, the shelter so they could provide services to help get people into Erlinda Davis, 358 W. 500 housing. He also encouraged the No. , asked if $20,000 could be Council to look at the city' s used to clean up the area north of housing problems and fund trans- the dog pound on Beck Street. She itional housing-type programs. said this area would be more visually appealing to people Councilmember Horrocks asked coming into the city. about the resource center. Mr. Poulin said they provided emer- Lorille Miller, 548 N. Colum- gency shelter which included beds, bus St. , asked that money be used showers, a laundry, a medical to maintain the urban forest and clinic, job service, food-stamp also said the area by West High outreach, counseling services, looked desolate and needed some community education programs, trees. Councilmember Fonnesbeck housing references, and on-site suggested that Ms. Miller also employment projects. He said St. approach the school board about Vincent DePaul provided lunches landscaping. and the Salvation Army was going 89-78 PROCAMINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 1989 to start serving dinner seven funds so programs could work to- nights a week. gether. He said along with a planning process there needed to Kathy Sheaffer, 1385 Indiana be follow through for subsequent Ave. , Neighborhood Housing Ser- years. He referred to block re- vices, said she echoed the previ- design projects and indicated that ous comments about housing and they may take more than one year encouraged the Council to put as to complete so there needed to be much money as possible into hous- commitment to longer-term pro- ing because there is a need. jects. Stephen Hemingway, 1336 S. B. T. Price, 1028 W. Euclid 200 East, said the South Central Ave. , indicated that funds needed Community was having problems with to be used to help landlords who street gangs. He said the commu- were providing low-income housing. nity council suggested two ways to eliminate this problem. One was Jim Jensen, 567 W. 300 No. , to provide something for these director of the Salt Lake Boys and people to do and the other idea Girls Clubs, said last year when was to eliminate areas of congre- the Salt Lake Boys and Girls Clubs gation. He said they submitted an received funding the Council application for a South Central requested that they increase the Community Center and also suggest- staff and program hours for the ed opening Edison Street and high risk boys and girls, which making it a thoroughfare. they had done. He said there was a 30% decrease in juvenile arrest Kim Anderson, 768 N. Redwood rates within the Jackson and Rd. , chairman of the Community Guadalupe police area. He asked Development Advisory Committee, the Council to consider funding said the Mayor and City Council again this year because of the in- would see all the projects which creased street-gang activity. He had been submitted whether CDAC said they would like to be able to approved them or not. He said increase program activities so the this year CDAC focused on main- youth would have an alternative. taining, improving, and/or creat- He also said they would also like ing vital neighborhoods; preserv- to help with anti-graffiti pro- ing existing low/moderate-income grams. housing stock; and providing amenities to improve marketability Roger Borgenicht, 20 So. 1200 of neighborhoods. He said CDAC E. , said there was a loss of was suggesting that more funds be single-room occupancy units, a spent specifically in neighbor- loss of low and moderate income hoods instead of general city-wide units, and a loss of apartment projects, which they felt should units in the east downtown neigh- be funded with city-wide funds. borhood. He said he would like He said CDAC recommendations would the Council to take a proactive be more neighborhood oriented stand to prevent the growing towards the lower income people. homelessness that occurs when the community loses these units. He Ron Love, 1073 E. 600 So. , also referred to the blight that East Central Community Council, vacant and boarded up homes said the CDBG funds should be part brought to neighborhoods. of a plan and needed to fit in with the expenditure of other 89-79 PROCEIINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIO, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 1989 John Anderson, 629 Lake St. , said it was difficult for land- lords to provide and maintain low- income housing and he asked the Council to consider using CDBG money for loans to repair low- income buildings. He said banks wouldn' t loan money to repair buildings in "undesirable" loca- tions and also said that bad tenants should be held responsible for their damages. He thought funding for landlords to repair low-income housing units should be < a priority. He said he ap- proached the RDA two years ago about a loan for a new roof on an apartment building but they wanted him to completely bring the build- ing up to code. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said there was a change in the RDA' s requirement to completely bring a building up to code. She said the RDA couldn't loan money unless the owner was willing to repair all life-safety problems but there were some exceptions to all the code requirements. She suggested that Mr. Anderson check again with the RDA. (T 89-7) The meeting a ' urned at 7: 50 p.m. CO IL CHAIRPERSON fil'4440a0 171/ CI Y rECI' .ER 89-80 //S// SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER SUITE 300, CITY HALL 324 SOUTH STATE STREET Tuesday, March 21, 1989 6:00 p.m. A. BRIEFING SESSION: 5:00 - 5:55 p.m. , Suite 300 City Hall, 324 South State. 1. Report of the Executive Director. 2. The City Council will interview Dan Bethel prior to consideration of his proposed appointment to the Planning Commission. B. OPENING CEREMONIES: l ie ��„ � 1. Invocation. , 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Approval of the Minutes. 4a. The City Council and Mayor Palmer DePaulis will adopt a resolution of appreciation honoring Disneyland for their work with children in Salt Lake City. 4b. The City Council and Mayor Palmer DePaulis will present the 1989 Reading is FUNdemental awards. C. COMMENTS: 1. Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. 2. Citizen Comments to the Council. _ nnai foam it \1mI k _W S D. CONSENT: m In u?s We Vieux) a l lead -two' 1. Community Development Advisory Committe _:=_Lpointment. Consider approving the appointment of Pau Osborn to the Community Development Advisory Committee. ( I 89-5) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. 2. Housing Advisory and Appeals Board - Appointment. Consider approving the appointment of Karen Wikstrom to the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board. ( I 89-6) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. 3. Interlocal Cooperation Agreement - Urban Homestead. Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement approving a contract amendment between Salt Lake City and the Redevelopment Agency designating tie Agency as the Local Urban Homestead Agency. AU-01017- 6) 44. n1a or (C 89-115) 510 an Inirlaul STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt )P , hc'►Lin s a pI i c a.I1OY 1' 2q0 {Undo, r( ODA G 5 rA U 17) f (a ri,'ii ,l& 114 Paicazat, //s// D. CONSENT Co. d 4. Planning Commission - Appointment. Consider approving the appointment of Dan Bethel to the Planning Commission. ( I 89-5) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. 5. Interlocal Cooperation Agreement - Utah Department of Transportation. rl IVO(�� Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution of an Interlocal some_ Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah Department (,lam �� of Transportation to include protecting and adjusting the City's culinary • 5juk. ( 5111.)( l)n, water facilities in connection with improvements contemplated by UDOT from r C �1�P/J I-215 to Knudsen's Corner to Wasatch Boulevard. • (j Tu ��_ (C 89-104be ) tu fit C t‘i STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt. :fib CAS 6. Interlocal Cooperation Agreement - Salt Lake County_ vn v/lloC "Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake (�� ZX Cw n{1y County providing for the exchange of fire protection services within initial M 61,c0r-atn) action areas as established by the Fire Chief of each jurisdiction. (C 89-103) (DC °n °� it An „ 7 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt. ?e(` 1.)e- �j �i. Petition No. 400-662 - Legislative Action. Set a date for a public hearing to be held Tuesday, April 4, 1989, at 6: 20 p.m. to obtain public comment concerning Petition No. 400-662 submitted as a legislative action to rezone property located between 500 and 600 East and Wilmington and Stringham Avenues from "C-1" to "R-3A" classification. C( ' (P 88-346) • STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Set date. 8. Petition No. 400-705 - McNeil Engineering. Set a date for a public hearing to be held Tuesday, April 18, 1989, at 6: 20 \ p.m. , to obtain public comment concerning Petition No. 400-705 submitted by W`' Scott McNeil of McNeil Engineering requesting Salt Lake City to rezone property located on the southeast corner of 700 North and Redwood Road from \ ,nrlffl "R-2A" to "B-3" classification. ��V - STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Set date. //S// E. NEW COUNCIL BUSINESS: 1. Notice of Intention - SID No. 38-808, California Avenue. ,nna`/ Consider adopting a resolution declaring the intention of Salt Lake city to 1 construct improvements on or adjoining California Avenue and all other RleAV miscellaneous work necessary to complete the improvements; to create Salt cr)Lake City, Utah California Avenue Special Improvement District No. 38-808; 01) ( to defray the cost and expenses of a portion of said Improvement District by special assessments to be levied against the property benefited by such improvements; to provide Notice of Intention to authorize such improvements and to set Tuesday, May 9, 1989, at 6: 20 p.m. for protests against such improvements or the creation of said District; to authorize advertisement of construction bids and related matters. (Q 89-2) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt. ;! 2. Interlocal Cooperation Agreement - Housing Authority. ()L Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution of an Interlocal 1�1 l)-0 Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City for renewal of low-rent housing program of the YU�v Housing program of the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City. v\iot- rti'-/ -10 b' (C 89-106) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt. f °� Interlocal Cooperation Agreement - Housing Authority._ Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City establishing the funding program for the Transitional Housing Program of the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City. (C 89-105) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt. F. UNFINISHED COUNCIL BUSINESS: 1. City Creek Annexation. Consider adopting an ordinance recognizing the adoption of amendment 15 to the Master Annexation Policy declarations; extending the limits of Salt Lake City to include the City Creek Annexation, zoning the same Preservation "P- 1" by amending the use district map as adopted by Section 21. 14.020 of the Salt Lake City Code; and amending the Salt Lake City Council District Boundary Map. (P 88-395) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt. of -: it'( IIC ) t l i tie) , � 41()►� � e��s�cl 1� //s// G. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Fiscal Year 1988/89 - Amendment No. 4. 6: 20 p.m. Obtain public comment concerning and consider adopting 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. (B 88-5) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Close hearing and Adopt. 2. Community Development Block Grant Funds - Preliminary Heari---ng_ 6:30 p.m. -------- Obtain citizen input on general housing and community development needs( '' • consideration by Community Development Block Grant staff and the Mayor:; lt submission of the Mayor's annual Community Development Block Grant recommendations to the City Council. W (T 89-7) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Close Hearing. H. ADJOURNMENT. ** FINAL ACTION MAY BE TAKEN AID/OR ORDINANCES ADOPTED CONCERNING ANY ITEM ON THIS AGENDA //S// DATED: March 17, 1989 BY: _ CITY _CO — — — — STATE OF UTAH COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) ss. On the 17th day of March, 1989, I personally delivered a copy of the foregoing notice to the Mayor and City Council and posted copies of the same in conspicuous view, at the following times and locations within City Hall, 324 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah: 1. At 5:00 p.m. in the City Recorder's Office, 5th Floor; and 2. At 5:00 p.m. in the Newsroom, Room 336. Y)/I� F. CIT CORN' Subscribed and sworn to before me this 17th day of Marc 1989. 4. 2/4; • Notary q ublic residi g the State of Utah My Commission Expires: APPROVAL: EXECUT DIRE R Cam` A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAYI WHEREAS, Disneyland represents a commitment to family values, values which are shared by the Salt Lake City community; and WHEREAS, Disneyland has shown sensitivity to the children of Salt Lake City by giving them the opportunity to experience the joy and wonder of the Wonderful World of Disney; and WHEREAS, Today, March 21 , 1989, is Salt Lake City day at Disneyland; and WHEREAS, It is an honor and a pleasure to have Mickey and his friends visit Salt Lake City, and WHEREAS, We hope that our community can continue to share Disneyland's belief in the importance of family entertainment. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council and Mayor Palmer DePaulis that we commend Disneyland for their commitment to the family and express our appreciation and gratitude for their joint effort with Coca-Cola and Delta Airlines to bring happiness to children of all ages, especially the lucky children of Salt Lake City, Utah. DATED this 21st day of March, 1989. Mayor Palmer A. DePaulis W. M. "Willie" Stoler, Chair Florence B. Bittner L. Wayne Horrocks • Sydney R. Fonnesbeck Alan Hardman Tom Godfrey Roselyn N. Kirk ..... ... . I y r? . . ... i {�;if n{��p"1 T l' -4�•�t S. 0 �7i. a. t ,� �"'�'' �' f 11�..1�,ll.,+y4.. 1�s`• \t \5•,N a t':•} • $YY1'f ((..�.. /� �.i- 1�+►/ i 1 f � ) ��ge1r �'\ ��'R !d' ��f t.4- !t.• '✓ii e E tit a t•1%,e ,, 1i i aid, ,,1, 0 44..114m, t , u o, f i� �i, n, 4�.0. /.' ,1 1� s . �ti,� t 3 Zsl:3 �y!: �,,"as � ala•4�rf. � 'F...a ,„rri,'':' •j r,, h :7.1.;r4rd.: • 4•S „. 1. Y),. Y•., r, ix• w•'#- ,l�yM� .„1, ,,, •+ � /c � ,,•Il' fit,,. �'�•.,� 71/"�a,lA%�/i t4 x� � '�F}.. t. •�z`�I t •�.� ��i�',�'`��rv,/�Y rJ/�• •b ;4� r / _/ �f'`>t� / /y �c� ;: s„ i1 t F' 'S�,.o�Fr,.�tc:�l f�,. '� < i :1 All.{/'� �'�A'(!!((F <,n,.,r� 3•. J •sue'..4''...,' MMft VA 1. I.S- .. {{ `S,:i'. 3fJjyf,• 'i•fai 7 "�� f-,N.I�� ,r y,� iY `i ■ fi/,L��st7 t 'r'�� t Ai��y�!((ifFl �,`.�' ��a4'' tig � cam' .2`'�i.Y �. � Z ;,r. • + ., t "ilia i sike �, /„•; :..,. ter• y�Jf7i 7,> 71:.^y�i�,�q/ /�y.•�iiiI ,� w jam... \'t. �• L/0 r � « _,µ �.,.�•+t'• yX','• LG,. - 4:4 -4 if I �s�e land �4 1Tri .. , I.i44. �. , Jae!.i.,. /4 . T -.`^•+Yip S,:/ T:' �U f. •ii]��'h.•n! 7 a '• k , zs • alb. gfi �v• D$. ,Rim, NtritItTsiv • C t� '1 1Lt42LI O J . 4 : 70.0 : * ' :t «r -ar �. ./4 / . VI �_ ``"! �� 9 , WHEREAS Salt Lake City has shown great ; • f / , `/ I .•r. •�':, ;A ��/ ,/// • support for Disneyland in Southern California, • ,,. f ', , ' its traditional family values and its y, . /I /''. 1 ,�- y /,,,,,,� i cornmittme:it to family entertainment, and �ir 1 WHEREAS Disneyland is bounded onlyby _ a 'f' -.6k,„,,X1..., ��-�.- ' the tl imits of our imagination and exists �4k .. %f�I everywhere in the hearts of children of - .. yr ,tn,„ t 4r- • all ages, and u' -►�` Z 1,,w4 e't,G,1.. tom , •tj'''';�i� 1'` t--.. . WHEREAS during the next four days c-° jg 'syr, �i1�,��97 t Disneyland, Coca-Cola and Delta stir Lines t� ..m,,,..i. f: ,r•.t •""d,l ' , °j• (tom join together to share the magic of , .�: ; ,�,,,'-; K,+f i•-.,• „.3\trff,rA• 714 Disneyland end Southern California in j sp '' l ,'':` '` # ""��. ,© Salt Lake City, •... �'�..: gay /�, • '`�1 ' «.i.l' "' ,µ ,� :u THEREFORE, MTCKEy MOUSE, Mayor of ` s," K' 't ti ', t.', i '�1, rt•;: ` '7 ° Disne land, rotlaims Tuesday, March 21 , ,' ;:."-_ a � 4 '` r xrfr to b� Salt Lal e city bay at Disneyland. f f; ra r W'l e us�; ,—till i}r4 t s:5 •� t O, �ti • i A R 31rre . , Mk.(yMoux Mayo i►.`��\ y, {,{.c� {,� figt Pi. ) '',..% _ rf�. �ti, `/sue �- aar,fl u .� 'E4~�1•". _ • off'} �'S'. .11,ar;-r,f '1st- -..-- , '�61. r�' O,S1'- Rar • a ll 1 Fps!,s, ••Sl �. . S i All ^- `,.r,. : .r .t! 01 • • • SA LTA` 'll' Ie' Hilt OFFICE OF. THE CITY .COUNCIL SUITE 3.00,.CITY-HALL , ., 324 SOUTH STATE STREET..• SALT'LAKETCITY,:UTAH•841-1 f- 535.-7600 " • • January 19, 1989 MEMORANDUM • TO: MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FRCM: CINDY GUST-JENSON RE: BOARD APPOINTMENTS The Mayor has submitted two Board appointment recommendations for your review. Both of these are new appointments. We would like to place these on the agenda for first reading on February 7. Please let me know by Thursday, February 2 if you need more information, or if you have a concern about either. Recommendations include: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE Paul P. Osborn is being recommended for appointment to a term extending through July, 1990. He resides in District 6. He has a degree in Political Science, and is employed as a legal assistant. For some time now, there has been a need for a District 6 representative on CDAC. URBAN FORESTRY BOARD • Paulette Mounteer, from District 1, is being recommended for appointment to the Urban Forestry Board. She has been involved in community activities, and indicates she is concerned about the City's urban forest. She would replace Mary Pat Matheson, who was also from District 1. cc: Linda Hamilton Emilie Charles '‘) '. J'lriAl.:. GITY( G, ORTICIDION1 OFFICE OF =THE -CITY _COUNCIL SUITE 300.CITY HALL • 324 SOUTH STATE STREET ' SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 535-7600 February 2, 1989 • MEMORANDUM TO: MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CINDY GUST-JENSON RE• BOARD APPOINTMENTS • The Mayor has submitted five Board appointment recommendations for your review. Three of the five are new appointments. The two that are reappointments do conform to the ordinance you recently passed. If you are comfortable with them, we would like to place the names on the agenda for first reading on February 14. Please let me know by Friday, February 10 if you need more information, or if you have a concern about any of them. Recommendations include: PLANING AND ZONING COMMISSION Dan Bethel is recommended for appointment to fill an unexpired term through July 1, 1990. Mr. Bethel is an architect and resides in District 2. He has been active in the Westside Community Council, and indicates he is interested in zoning. HOUSING ADVISORY AND APPEALS BOARD Karen Wikstrom is recommended to fill an expired term extending through October 14, 1990. She is a resident of District 7 and is a financial consultant. She indicates that she considers housing to be one of the most pressing issues facing the City. She is a member of the Board of Trustees of ASSIST, and is Vice President of the Wallace Associates Consulting Group. e:,ra•�S. • SALT LAKE ARTS COUNCIL Myron Richardson is recommended for reappointment to a term extending through October, 1991- .He..resides.sn..District 3..- He .is an architect, and has ' - been involved in R/UDAT, ASSIST and other community-related activities. MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT • Frank C. Jackson is recommended for reappointment for a term extending through December, 1990. He is a resident of District 6 and is retired from the Utah Department of Health, Division of Environmental Health. While .at the Department of Health, he had responsibility for the statewide insect and rodent control activities delegated to that agency. SALT LAKE ARTS bESIGN BOARD Bonnie Sucec is recommended to fill an unexpired term extending through March 8, 1990. She is a self-employed artist, and resides in District 3. She has worked with the Utah Arts Council and the Utah Committee on Arts for the Handicapped. Ms. Sucec replaces District 3 resident Edith Robertson. The Board has five members. With this appointment, the Board would have three members from District 3, and one each from Districts 2 and 4. • cc: Linda Hamilton, Lee King, Christine Richman • Emilie Charles SALT BAKE STY( C 0 j I?n�RATI0N1 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ROSEMARY DAVIS Capital Planning and Programming otREc'roti 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 240 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 535-7902 March 13 , 1989 TO: Willie Stoler , Chair Salt Lake City Council RE: URBAN HOMESTEAD PROGRAM INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution on authorizing the Mayor to sign an Interlocal Agreement for a $125 , 000 grant from HUD for the Salt Lake City Urban Homestead Program. The agreement will be between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency which will administer the program. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: No funding action is required. If the application is successful, HUD will grant funds to the City and a program account will be set up after the application is approved. DISCUSSION: New funding limitations have reduced the initial City program to $125 , 000, or approximately 5 homes . These homes may be acquired from either FHA or the VA within designated Central City and Westside neighborhoods. However , since the intent of the program is to produce a demonstrated impact, it is proposed that a limited geographic area be initially targeted . The selection of the target area will be made by assessing the availability of suitable properties at the time the program is approved. As new funding is available, other neighborhoods will be targeted as part of a coordinated neighborhood improvement plan that includes upgrading community services and facilities. Both public and private funds will be used to rehabilitate the properties as needed. Because the RDA has staff and expertise and is the only qualified agency to administer the program in any neighborhood, they have been selected as the Local Urban Homestead Agency for the City and will acquire properties and match applicants with appropriate dwellings and improvement commitments. Program administrative cost will be absorbed into the current RDA operating budget. The resolution that you are being asked to consider will allow the city to contract with the Redevelopment Agency to administer this program. Willie Stoler , Chair March 13 , 1989 Urban Homestead Page 2 If you have any questions , please contact Joe Reno. Sincerely, CJV Rosemary Davis Director RD/Sh<ap> RESOLUTION NO. OF 1989 (Approving a Contract Amendment between Salt Lake City and the Redevelopment Agency) WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13, Utah Code Annotated, 1953 as amended, allows public entities to enter into agreements for joint and cooperative action; and WHEREAS, an agreement has been entered into by and between Salt Lake City Corporation (City) and the Redevelopment Agency (Agency) dated September 27, 1988; and WHEREAS, the City and the Agency desire to make certain amendments to that contract; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah; 1 . It does hereby approve the contract amendment to the September 27, 1988 contract as attached and incorporated with this Resolution and hereby authorizes Palmer A. DePaulis, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah 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 By CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER BRB:rc AGREEMENT AMENDMENT THIS AGREEMENT AMENDMENT, is made and entered into this day of , 1989, by and between SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a municipal corporation of the State of Utah, (the "City" ) , and the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, a municipal agency of the State of Utah, ( the "Agency" ) . WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, City and Agency have previously entered into a contract dated September 27, 1988 for the purpose of conducting authorized redevelopment activities within the City (the "Contract" ) ; and WHEREAS, City and Agency desire to amend the Contract to add an additional responsibility on behalf of the Agency; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and the following mutual promises and other good and valuable consideration, the parties agree to the following: TERMS 1. Paragraph 3 of the Contract is hereby amended to add an additional "Task 7" as follows: TASK 7. Agency is designated as the Local Urban Home- stead Agency, hereinafter "LUHA" , and shall administer the City' s LUHA Program in conformity with 24 CFR 590 and agrees to assume all responsibilities on behalf of the City ( as "Applicant" for the Urban Homestead Program) of Part 590. 7(c) (3 ) ( i ) through ( iv) . 2. Paragraph 6 of the Contract is hereby amended by adding a new Paragraph 6.B. ( 1 ) reading as follows: As additional compensation for Task 7 the City shall pay to Agency $125, 000 if, and when, received for the Urban Homestead Program which Agency shall spend for the authorized purposes of the Program as provided by the Program rules. 3 . Other than as specifically amended above all of the other terms of the Contract shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the Agency have executed this Agreement Amendment as of the day and year first written above. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION By MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY By MICHAEL CHITWOOD Executive Director ATTEST: Title: -2- STATE OF UTAH ) . ss. County of Salt Lake ) On , 1989, 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 Salt Lake ) On the day of , 1989, personally appeared before me MICHAEL CHITWOOD and who, being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the Executive Director and of the REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY, a municipal agency of the State of Utah, and that the foregoing instrument was signed in behalf of said Redevelopment Agency by authority of a resolution of its board of directors; and said persons acknowledged to me that said Redevelopment Agency executed the same. NOTARY PUBLIC, residing in Salt Lake County, Utah My Commission Expires: BRB: rc -3- • Dc- •• } 'AGr 1TYL%0RPrORATION1 OFFICE OF =THE CITY .COUNCIL • SUITE 300. CITY HALL •- 324 SOUTH STATE STREET SALT-LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 535-7600 February 2, 1989 MEMORANDUM TO: MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL • FROM: CINDY GUST-JENSON RE: BOARD APPOINTMENTS • • :The Mayor has submitted five Board appointment recommendations for your review. - Three of the five are new appointments. The two that are reappointments do conform to the ordinance you recently passed. If you are comfortable with them, we would like to place the names on the agenda for first reading on February 14. Please let me know by Friday, February 10 if you need more information, or if you have a concern about any of them. Recommendations include: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Dan Bethel is recommended for appointment to fill an unexpired term through' July 1, 1990. Mr. Bethel is an architect and resides in District 2. He has been active in the Westside Community Council, and indicates he is interested in zoning. HOUSING ADVISORY AND APPEALS BOARD • Karen Wikstrom is recommended to fill an' expired term extending through October 14, 1990. She is a resident of District 7 and is a financial consultant. She indicates that she considers housing to be one of the most pressing issues facing the City. She is a member of the Board of Trustees of ASSIST, and is Vice President of the Wallace Associates Consulting Group. r _ . yes.•s. r r • SALT LAKE ARTS COUNCIL Myron Richardson is recommended for reappointment to a term extending through October,- 199h - He--resides-4n•-Distr-ict-3. He- is an architect; and has been involved in R/UDAT, ASSIST and other community-related activities. MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT Frank C. Jackson is recommended for reappointment for a term extending through December, 1990. He is a resident of District 6 and is retired from the Utah Department of Health, Division of Environmental Health. While at the Department of Health, he had responsibility for the statewide insect and rodent control activities delegated to that agency. SALT LAKE ARTS DESIGN BOARD Bonnie Sucec is recommended to fill an unexpired term extending through March 8, 1990. She is a self-employed artist, and resides in District 3. She has worked with the Utah Arts Council and the Utah Committee on Arts for the Handicapped. Ms. Sucec replaces District 3 resident Edith Robertson. The Board has five members. With this appointment, the Board would have three members from.District 3, and one each from Districts 2 and 4. • cc: Linda Hamilton, Lee King, Christine Richman Emilie Charles If• i LEROY W. HOOTON, JR• 'I; • csel DIRECTOR Ili • i L - £"` WENDELL SUP E. EVENSEN, P.E. SI 7 T�A'i +"ISTI@ „Y t'�`Y'.Q T��µi is i a SUPERINTENDENT 1 l $ COL? p l _ i WATER SUPPLY & WATERWORKS '+A— A vQa v6 gt` itasl ae {irr .i(.I !i i!is" :i•i:.. E. ERI DoDEY DEPARTMENT;OF;.PUBLIC'UTILITIES SUPERINTENDENT Q IL, - WATER RECLAMATION ttWi41"€R,SUPPJ:Y:&VVPTERWORKS PALMER DEPAULIS JAMES M. LEWIS, C.P.A. y F WATER$RECiANIATION , 4,.`, MAYOR CHIEF FINANCE & ACCOUNTING OFFICER 153Q OUaT' ,=V�IE�ST=TEMP E^'- GEORGE JORGENSEN, P.E. SALT LAKE•„dir ,,UTAH"8441 15 CHIEF ENGINEER February 27, 1989 TO: Salt Lake City Council RE: Interlocal Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Utah Department of Transportation for relocating City's water facilities Project No. F-068(3) . Recommendation: That the Council approve the agreement and forward to the Mayor for execution in behalf of the City. Availability of Funds: To be done by UDOT's Contractor Discussion: Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities has a need to relocate the City's water facilities in connection with improvements contemplated by UDOT from I-215 at Knudsen's Corner to Wasatch Boulevard. 1. Please return four (4) agreements with to this office to be forwarded to UDOT for final execution. Submitted by: .7 ' 7 LEROY W�OOTON, R. Director Department of Public Uti sties /srb Attachments 67-16-3 File RESOLUTION NO. OF 1988 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 to include protecting and adjusting the City' s culinary water facilities in connection with improvements contemplated by UDOT from I-215 at Knudsen' s Corner to Wasatch Boulevard. 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 F-068(3) ; Salt ;e County SR-190 From 1-215 Interchange (Knudsen's Corner) to Wasatch Boulevard Near the Mouth of Big Cottonwood Canyon. Salt Lake City Corporation (Water Dept.) Authority No. 4242 W-0498 AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , 198 , by and between the UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Party of the First Part, hereinafter referred to as the "UDOT" and SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Utah, Party of the Second Part, hereinafter referred to as the "City", WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the UDOT is engaged in preparing plans, specifications and estimates of costs toward reconstructing that certain section of Federal-Aid highway, identified as F-068(3) , SR-190 from I-215 Interchange (Knudsen's Corner) to Wasatch Boulevard near the mouth of Big Cottonwood Canyon in Salt Lake County, Utah. Said reconstruction necessitates work consisting of protecting and relocating City's culinary water facilities as shown on UDOT plans, which by this reference are made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City for the UDOT to include in its construction plans, items of work for protecting and adjusting City's culinary water facilities in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Highway Administration's "Federal-Aid Highway Program Manual," Volume 6 , Chapter 6 , Section 3, Subsection 1. The City reserves the right to inspect said work and will perform the necessary operation of valves to accommodate said work; and WHEREAS, UDOT is willing and has included City's items of work in its construction plans; and WHEREAS, the City has reviewed and approved UDOT's plans for protecting and adjusting its culinary water facilities; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the "Federal-Aid Highway Program Manual", Volume 6 , Chapter 6 , Section 3, Subsection 1, the City has determined, with the concurrence of the UDOT, that expired service Life credit is not required as a result of said work.; and WHEREAS, the UDOT has determined by formal finding that payment for said work on public right-of-way is not in violation of the Laws of the State or any Legal contract with the City. THIS AGREEMENT is made to set out the terms and conditions whereunder said work shall be performed. - 1 - F-068(3) ; Sal �ake County SR-190 From I-215 Interchange (Knudsen's Corner) to Wasatch Boulevard Near the Mouth of Big Cottonwood Canyon. Salt Lake City Corporation (Water Dept.) Authority No. 4242 W-0498 • NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. The UDOT has, with its regular engineering forces, prepared plans, specifications and estimates and in conjunction with the above noted highway project will advertise for bids, will award a contract to the low bidder and will administer construction of the work covered by this agreement. 2. The City shall perform the necessary operation of valves to accommodate said work and, should it desire to do so, perform inspection of the work on City's facilities which will be performed by UDOT's Contractor. The City's engineer and/or inspector shall work with and through UDOT's Project Engineer and shall give no orders directly to UDOT's Contractor unless authorized in writing to do so. 3. The UDOT, through its Project Engineer, will notify the City at least twenty-four (24) hours in advance of performing any work covered by this agreement. 4. The cost of said work is shown in an estimate prepared by the UDOT, in the amount of $517,235.00. A copy of the details of said estimate is marked "Exhibit A", attached hereto and thereby made a part hereof. COST SUMMARY Estimated Cost of Work to be Accomplished by UDOT's Contractor. 72" Big Cottonwood Conduit $456,850.00 14" Ductile Iron Pipe 13,000.00 Subtotal $469,850.00 TOT. Eng. & Cont. 46,985.00 TOTAL $516,835.00 Lump Sum Cost for City's Engineering and Inspection $400.00 TOTAL LUMP SUM COST TO UDOT FOR. CITY'S FORCE ACCOUNT WORK IS $400.00. TOTAL ESTIMATED COST TO UDOT IS $517 ,235.00. 5 . All materials from City's existing facilities which are recovered by UDOT's highway Contractor while performing the work as herein described and not reused on this project shall become the property of said highway Contractor. - 2 - F-068(3) ; Salt 3ke County SR-190 From I-2., Interchange (Knudsen's Corner) to Wasatch Boulevard Near the Mouth of Big Cottonwood Canyon. Salt Lake City Corporation (Water Dept.) Authority No. 4242 W-0498 6. In the event there are changes in the scope of the work, extra work, or changes in the planned work covered by this agreement, reimbursement therefor shall be limited to costs covered by a modification to this agreement approved in writing by all parties hereto prior to the start of work on the changes or additions. 7. The City agrees that, upon completion of the construction of said water facilities, to accept said water facilities as a part of City's culinary water facilities and to maintain said water facilities at no cost to UDOT. UDOT agrees that City shall be the sole owner of said water facilities upon completion of the project. To the extent it may lawfully do so, City further agrees to relieve UDOT from any responsibility or liability that may result from the construction and continuing operation of City's culinary water facilities. 8. The UDOT will 'reimburse the City within sixty (60) days after receipt of billing in six (6) copies bearing the project number for the lump sum amount of $400.00, covering the cost incurred by the City for performing the work required under the terms of this agreement. Reimbursement will be made only for items complying fully with FHPM 6-6-3-1. Said billing covering said work shall be submitted by the City within one hundred twenty (120) days following the completion of the work to: Office of Construction, UDOT/DPS Complex, 4501 South 2700 West, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84119 Attention: Contracts, Estimates and Agreements Supervisor. All bills shall be reviewed by UDOT's Project Engineer for verification of the work performed. 9. Reimbursable costs for work performed under the provisions of this agreement shall be developed in accordance with Paragraphs 8 and 10 of FHPM 6-6-3-1. 10. It is understood that access for maintenance and servicing of the City's property located on right-of-way of said project will be permitted only by permit issued by the UDOT to the City, and that the City will obtain said permit and abide by conditions thereof for policing and other controls in conformance with UDOT's "REGULATIONS FOR THE ACCOMMODATION OF UTILITIES ON FEDERAL-AID AND NON-FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY RIGHTS-OF-WAY," a copy of which has been furnished to the City and any supplements or amendments thereto. - 3 - F-068(3) ; Salt " .e County SR-190 From I-215 Interchange (Knudsen's Corner) to Wasatch Boulevard Near the Mouth of Big Cottonwood Canyon. Salt Lake City Corporation (Water Dept.) Authority No. 4242 W-0498 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be executed by its duly authorized officers as of the day and year first above written. ATTEST: SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, A Municipal Corporation of the State of Utah. By Title Title (IMPRESS SEAL) ********************************** **************************************** ATTEST: UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION By Secretary Director RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: FUNDS AVAILABLE: Engineer for Preconstruction Budget Officer Date APPROVED: Engineering Coordinator APPROVED AS TO FORM: DAVID L. WILKINSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL Director of Finance By Assistant Attorney General - 4 - PAGE 1 OF 2 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE EX! IB IT 12-22-88 ' 6! 1 SR-210, 1-215 TO BIG COTTONWOOD CANYON J / F - 068(3) ( a 3 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION - MODIFICATIONS TO BIG COTTONWOOD CONDUIT DESCRIPTION ; BID UNIT ; UNIT ; ENGINEERING ;QUANTITY ; PRICE ESTIMATE METHOD A ;CONCRETE AA (AR) ; 0.64 ; CU YD $175.00 $112.00 ;BACKFILL, A-I MATERIAL ; 0.13 ; CU YO ; $3.00 ; $0.39 ;EXCAVATION 2.10 ; CU YO ; $5.00 ; $10.50 $122.89 ;METHOD °A' COST PER LINEAR FOOT USE $125.00 tttttst DESCRIPTION ; BID ; UNIT ; UNIT ; ENGINEERING ;QUANTITY ; PRICE ; ESTIMATE METHOD B ;CONCRETE AA (AE) ; 1.05 CU YD $185.00 ; $194.25 ;BACKFILL, A-I MATERIAL ; 9.70 ; CU YD $3.00 ; $29.10 ;EXCAVATION ; 10.74 ; CU TD $5.00 $53.70 $277.05 ;METHOD "B' COST PER LINEAR FOOT USE $275.00 ttttttt DESCRIPTION ; BID ; UNIT ; UNIT ENGINEERING ;QUANTITY ; ; PRICE ESTIMATE METHOD C CONCRETE A(AE) ; 2.00 ; CU YD ; $125.00 ; $250.00 RIDGED FOAM (3' HIN.) ; 18.00 LN FT ; $0.15 ; $13.50 EXCAVATION 5.40 ; CU YD ; $5.00 ; $27.00 $290.50 METHOD "C' COST PER LINEAR FOOT USE $100.00 ttttttt CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE EXHIBIT. f\ 11-11-88 - C.Y 3 SR-210, 1-215 TO BIG COTTONWOOD CANYON F - 068(3) SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION - RELOCATION OF 15' STEEL WATER LINE ITEM ; DESCRIPTION ; BID ; UNIT ; UNIT ; ENGINEERING NO. ; ;QUANTITY ; ; PRICE ESTIMATE ;14' DUCTILE IRON PIPE ; 260 ; LN FT ; $35.00 ; $9,100.00 ;14' TRANSITION COUPLINGS ; 2 ; EACH $750.00 ; $1,500.00 ;FITTINGS ; 3 ; EACH ; $500.00 $1,500.00 ;BEDDING ; 10 ; CU YD ; $9.00 $90.00 ;EXCAVATION 300 ; CU YD $2.70 ; $810.00 51420600S ,14 DUCTILE IRON PIPE CLASS 52,, 260 IAFT $50.00 $13,000.00 ,/ -. 1 , xxzzzzxzz= zxzzxxzzzz PAGE 2 OF 2 tmttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt cOilatI A t ITEM ; DESCRIPTION ; BID ; UNIT ; UNIT ; ENGINEERING t 4 }" t NO. ;QUANTITY ; PRICE ; ESTIMATE t ( 2 2 t TOTAL t S 7 / t51411980t :PIPE PROTECTION 'METHOD A" 175 LN FT $125.00 ; $21,875.00 t t51411981t ;PIPE PROTECTION 'METHOD B" 325 ; LN FT ; $275.00 ; $89,375.00 t t51411982t ;PIPE PROTECTION 'METHOD C' ; 1152 ; LN FT ; $300.00 ; $345,600.00 t t ;TOTAL PIPE PROTECTION BIG COTTONWOOD CONDUIT $456,850.00 t t tttttttitttttttt ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt#ttttttttttttttttttttitttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt f2Y- -.112j MIN CAMP CV FIRE DEPARTMENT PETER O. PEDERSON 315 EAST 200 SOUTH CHIEF OF FIRE DEPARTMENT SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 799-4101 February 23, 1989 Palmer A. DePaulis , Mayor Office of the Mayor 324 South State Street Fifth Floor Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear Mayor DePaulis : Attached are Resolutions and Interlocal Agreements between Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County to provide fire protection services within initial action areas detailed therein. This is a reissue of an existing agreement between Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County that has expired at the present time. n erely, Frank E. Florence Chief Deputy FEF:mc Attachments 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 of the Utah Code Annotated 1953 as amended allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, the attached agreement has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1. That it does hereby approve the attached agreement generally described as follows: An interlocal cooperation agreement providing for the exchange of fire protection services within initial action areas as established by the Fire Chief of each jurisdiction. 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 this day of , 1989 . SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: A? .` • 'i: M v.li1 L�l'��;t;:� attorney's Office Date 2' 2F " CITY RECORDER FMN: cc RESOLUTION NO. (�U DATE � � / //' � A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE COUNTY AND SALT LAKE 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 ; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Salt Lake County, Utah: 1. It does hereby approve the attached agreement generally described as follows : An Interlocal Cooperation Agreement providing for the exchange of fire protection services within initial action areas , as established by the fire chiefs of each jurisdiction. 2 . The Interlocal Cooperation Agreement attached hereto is hereby accepted and approved by the Salt Lake County Board of Commissioners and the Chairman is hereby authorized to execute said agreement for and on behalf of Salt Lake County and to act in accordance with its tems . APPROVED and ADOPTED this / day of January, 1989 . BOARD )OF COUNTY COMMI SIONERS ATTEST : OF S-AL AKE COUNTY L OIL }Z N �/,� ��F By Salt'Lasee CounY Cler Chairman R633+ APPROVED AS TO REAM Sam WneditPsuLs____ogios AY tt[ Gar+lrWxN�y 14 INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT (For Exchange of Fire Protection Services) -74 j2-74-) THIS AGREEMENT dated this Ada of January, 1989 , by and between SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a municipal corporation of the State of Utah, hereinafter referred to as "City" and SALT LAKE COUNTY, a body politic of the State of Utah, hereinafter referred to as "County" . • RECITALS : A. The parties to this Agreement both provide and maintain separate fire departments and fire fighting apparatus in order to provide fire protection services within their respective jurisdictions . B . It is in the best interest of the parties to provide for the most expeditious fire protection services in responding to calls for such services in the parties ' respective jurisdictions . C. Each party desires to provide a reasonable and reciprocal exchange of fire services on a day-to-day basis to the other upon the terms and conditions set forth herein. D. This Agreement is authorized pursuant to the provisions of the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Section 11-13-1, et seq . , Utah Code Annotated 1953 , as amended . NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth herein, the parties agree as follows : 1. The parties agree to assist each other in rendering fire protection services within certain designated areas of the other party' s territorial jurisdiction. Said designated areas shall be established through a Memorandum of Understanding as agreed upon and executed by the respective fire chiefs of the parties . Such areas shall be known as "initial action areas" . 2 . Details as to amounts and types of assistance to be dispatched, methods of dispatching and communications , training programs and procedures , methods of requesting aid, and the names of persons authorized to send and receive such requests, together with lists of equipment and personnel which will be utilized, shall be developed by the respective fire chiefs of the parties . Such memorandum may be amended from time to time as necessary during the term of this agreement. 3 . It is mutually understood and agreed that this Agreement does not relieve either party from the necessity and obligation of using its own resources for furnishing fire services within any part of its own jurisdiction, and that the aiding party' s response to a request for aid shall be dependent upon the existing conditions within its own jurisdiction and the status of its resources at the time the request for assistance is received as determined by the aiding party' s fire chief or authorized representative . In no event shall the requested party be held liable for any failure to respond to a -2- call for assistance in the other party' s initial action area . 4 . This Agreement shall not be construed as, or deemed to be an Agreement for, the benefit of anyone not a party hereto and anyone who is not a party hereto shall not have a right of action hereunder for any cause whatsoever. 5 . No party furnishing aid pursuant to this Agreement shall be entitled to compensation for services rendered to the requesting agency, it being understood that the respective covenants contained in this Agreement shall constitute the sole consideration for such services . 6 . It is mutually understood and agreed that the party requesting assistance is not required to indemnify the party furnishing assistance as to liability . for damage imposed by law upon the assisting party by reason of any act or omission of the assisting party' s employees occurring in the performance of the services . The requesting party shall, nevertheless , be responsible for the acts of the employees of the responding party performed at the scene of the incident and performed at the specific direction of any employee of the requesting party. 7 . This Agreement shall remain operative and effective for five years from the date first written above. It is further agreed that either party may terminate this Agreement at any time by giving written notice to the other paty at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of terminaton. 8 . It is mutually understood that this Agreement shall in no way affect or have any bearing on the parties ' existing -3- • Uniform Mutual Assistance Agreement for Emergency Fire Protection Service. 9 . Each agency participating in this Agreement shall cause the legislative body of that agency to duly pass a resolution authorizing that agency entering into this Agreement, and that a copy of said resolution shall be attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed on the day and year first above written and is effective and operative as to each of the parties as herein provided . SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION By Mayor ATTEST: Salt Lake City Recorder SALT LAKE COUNTY 171/7 By Chairman Board of County Commissioners ATTEST: 7 Salt Lake Coun'y Clerk R633+ APPROVED AS TO FORM Sail Lake City Attorneys Office Date 2-2 /NMROVQo AS To PORIII w.gym. Car ar 14 —4— STATE OF UTAH ) : ss County of Salt Lake ) On the day of , 1989 , personally appeared before me PALMER DePAULIS and KATHRYN MARSHALL, who being by me duly sworn, did say 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, State of Utah My Commission Expires : -5- STATE OF UTAH ) : ss County of Salt Lake ) On the day of , 1989 , personally appeared before me D. MICHAEL STEWART, who being by me duly sworn, did say that he is the Chairman of the Board of the Salt Lake County Commissioners and that the within and foregoing instrument was signed in behalf of SALT LAKE COUNTY by authority of the Board of County Commissioners at a regular meeting held on the day of , 1989 , and that the said D. MICHAEL STEWART duly acknowledged that SALT LAKE COUNTY executed the same and that the seal affixed is the seal of said County. NOTARY PUBLIC, residing in Salt Lake County, State of Utah My Commission Expires : R633+ -6- • MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING THIS MEMORANDUM QF UNDERSTANDING, made and entered into 7 /// this 4-;.«d day of` ��_.+J,,. , 1989 , by and between the Fire Department of SALT - LAKE CITY CORPORATION, hereinafter "City" , and the Fire Department of SALT LAKE COUNTY, hereinafter "County" . WHEREAS, Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County have entered into an agreement dated the day of , 1989 , wherein the parties have agreed to render fire protection services in certain designated portions of the other party' s territorial jurisdiction; and, WHEREAS, by said Agreement, it is incumbent upon the fire chiefs of each party to delineate the type of fire protection services with which the parties shall respond and the areas in which the parties shall respond for calls for aid and assistance . NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows : 1. City agrees to provide an initial action response of one engine company, upon request by County, within an initial action area located within Salt Lake County to the north of the City' s boundary. City will also respond with one engine company within the initial action areas located within Salt Lake County in Emigration Canyon. Each of the above-referenced initial action areas generally described above are specifically defined and set forth on Exhibit "A" , which is attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. 2 . County agrees to provide an initial action response of one engine company upon request by City within the initial action area located in Salt Lake City bounded by I-80 on the north, 1800 East on the west, and extending both southward and eastward to the City' s limits . The County shall also respond with one engine company to that area in Salt Lake City bounded by 1000 East on the west, 1800 East on the east, 2600 South on the north and extending southward to the City' s limits . Each of the above-referenced initial action areas generally described above are specifically defined and set forth on Exhibit "B" , which is attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. 3 . Upon receipt by County of an alarm within the initial action area of Salt Lake County, County, as the jurisdictional department, shall dispatch its nearest available and appropri- ate fire personnel or equipment as necessary in response to that alarm. County shall then also notify the City' s fire department which will, in turn, either dispatch the agreed upon personnel and fire fighting apparatus in response to said request for assistance or notify the County that it is unable to render the requested assistance . -2- 4 . Upon receipt by the City of an alarm within the City' s initial action area of the City, the City, as the jurisdictional department, shall dispatch its nearest available and appropriate fire or rescue pesonnel or equipment as necessary in response to that alarm. The City shall then also notify County' s fire department which will, in turn, either dispatch the agreed-upon personnel and fire fighting apparatus in response to said request for assistance or notify the City that it is unable to render the requested assistance. 5 . In those instances where the aiding department arrives before the jurisdictional department, the aiding department will take the necessary action dictated by the situation. However, it is assumed that the jurisdictional department shall arrive shortly after the arrival of the aiding department, therefore, supervision of and responsibility for the fire scene shall be immediately assumed by the jurisdic- tional department upon its arrival at the scene . The aiding department personnel shall be under the direction of the officer in charge of the jurisdictional fire department. It is further agreed that the aiding department will be released from the scene as soon as practical by the jurisdictional fire department . 6 . This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into pursuant to the provisions of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County, referenced above, and is subject to the terms and provisions therein. -3- 7 . This Memorandum may be revised or amended at any time with the mutual written consent of the fire chiefs of the respective parties . It is specificially agreed that substan- tial reductions of fire protection resources by either agency shall be cause for reconsideration of this Agreement . DATED this 22 day o , 1989 . PETER 0. PEDERSON, Chief Salt Lake City Fire Department ,/9 LARRY C✓1HINMAN, Chief Salt Lae County Fire Department • R638+ AppRovito AS TO PCSSA !aM LakA,CouritT Ano.wqes Omer pow,caunrcor./cr Coca 14 -4- EXHIBIT "A" INCLUDES ALL STRUCTURE FIRES IN SALT LAKE COUNTY NORTH OF THE CITY BOUNDARY. • SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATE LIMITS DAVI5 G'0.2031 u0-I� t (AMNCplzPOr2liirl) 5/1ZT LR GOUIJriI 4 ��P v w , - 3500 NORTH v P / Br' — 2700 NORTH� //K n — 2100 NORTH r. �jP • � — 1300 NORTH all 'i":H trAtlf{R471Dni Ci7401 7 �i 146.:�, �,' — 700 NORTH { 'ilii,�lif_ 1.1t4 — EASE LINE �:�:.� }}--ii�.l ,_ i-:"at — 700 SOUTH I 1 S p lY'�_._ +S__- �r�' to .1379 a ° Iri' 1 � !`�rli — 1300 SOUTH Goa M5iiklafy • =11.1- !' r II u:� J!i'it� nAi "+LA... r. /-r — 2100 SOUTH Tit,. .-„,..- !rt,'m�tl,�� — 2700 SOUTH el U nil II' — 3500 SOUTH e�+ vze CiCi4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i �j` �c 11 — 4100 SOUTH- F F F F vF� F F F-. F E-. F F F F F F F F F 0 0 0 M W W W W vJ " v1 vl 2 ' m m ra m Er We= f= Er 3 S Z W W W W W o a o 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 Ka o 0 0 0 a 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r--. 0 0 0 0 0 CO• C N eM to CO C N .4. V cA 0 N N C7 Z. Z i- e7 0 i'- to N cv —, o a CO m r CO u7 ,Y ,14 L7 N -+ r.4 -. N N C7 --1 - .-- .4 • • • as- — - __ O Z F; 10 TM EAST w . �I. mD 12 7( � I . -• I. r0N A Z MCCLELLAND I 7 I I TPI I'I EAST / i 0 CI cuz. • x i • 0 `_� v Z I I 0 / u D r < v`'' • N n LOCI A D L 2 O L •, BCV[ wEvERLY KB . ` i- _ CN AOvnCK _ Cr1A OM , _ xx Y < I< OEAROOwN 9T., OEARI I-., N ' •--- I I I C 7, ' W H FI MOR= I4 ST; '^t 1-3I. FILM I V Pi OLEN- MARE 2 ST. F' A. oLEai rt. W . MART- FORD 9T / MART• II.,�11 D • L' IMPER- 'AL.. IC 7T. PI —— IMPERL I W4-/ •i oRANOVIEW fD 1�1 CIR IT TM! t• =eN 0N T OR (] • • I10� D K E Nw1 f 'r •M6/_BUURNE ELL ! i • I . Ili .. G D f I • V • Ii r WELLNOTON I ST, •• o Z Z 0 10 TFI EAST ST! . v F a A / 0 n x • IPweaT srON I ' l • l I. b I < 4 J . 'i ST R 201i .G�� •1 1 / • _-. - . La. • . ,. r c z > / � l I 1. <to/ • D m. . .1 ;r . .1'• /' • I1 o • 0 •z I 1 • • • • tip i...� 1.: • 1.'Y ;`; 'ate'` 4 � +y, , K " '�« ^:tr;q.. . v r' �_`i6.6iiicrt ;`, �'�' l-.ti %`�i(I>"iT"v. f" pi %N I r. y+ r:"4: f; c:F �'G y I!,'..:', 71 t `-j rt•- suit r .` 'r ;4a 1T @.0Rp() 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 March 7, 1989 RE: Petition No. 400-662-88 Legislative Action. Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing on April 4, 1989 at 6:30 p.m. to discuss Petition No. 400-662-88 submitted as a legislative Action to rezone property located between 500 and 600 East and Wilmington and Stringham Avenues from "C-1" to "R-3A" classification. Availability of Funds: Not applicable Discussion and Background: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this petition and after a series of discussions recommended that the petition be denied. A motion was also passed to consider amending the implementation procedures of the Sugar House Master Plan relating to this particular area, in order to better guide the transition from commercial to residential use. It was felt the intentions of the railroad are a critical issue in the development of this site and those intentions need to be studied when examining this section of the Sugar House Master Plan. A copy of the minutes from both meetings is attached. The Sugar House Committee Council by Diana Smoot, Chair, has requested an appeal to this decision, therefore, the a public hearing needs to be held and that the property be rezoned to "R-3A" classfication. Legislative Action: The City Attorney's Office has prepared the necessary ordinance and is ready for your action. Submitted by: C CRAIG E. PON Director if/ SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. 1989 ( Rezoning property located between 500 and 600 East and Wilmington and Stringham Avenues from "C-1" to "R-3A" pursuant to Petition No. 400-662-88 ) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21. 14.020 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE RELATING TO ZONING AND FIXING OF BOUNDARIES OF USE DISTRICTS. WHEREAS, in response to the rezoning petition initiated by Willie M. Stoler, No. 400-662-88, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, has held public hearings before its own body and before the Planning Commission, and has taken into consideration citizen testimony, filing and demographic details of the area and the Master Plan as part of its deliberation. Pursuant to these deliberations, the Council has concluded that the proposed change of zoning for the property located between 500 and 600 East and Wilmington and Stringham Avenues is appropriate for the development of the community in that area; THEREFORE, The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, hereby adopts the following amendments to the Use District provisions of Title 21 . Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That the Use District Map, as adopted by Section 21. 14.020 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries of Use Districts, be, and the same hereby is AMENDED to read as follows: Sec. 21. 14.020. Boundaries of Districts - Use District Map Adopted. That the following-described parcel of real property in Salt Lake City, Utah, presently zoned Commercial "C-1" is hereby rezoned Residential "R-3A" and the Use District Map is amended accordingly: Commencing at a point of the east line of 500 East Street, said point being 125 feet north of the northeast corner of Stringham Avenue and 500 East Street and running thence north along the east line of 500 East Street 433. 1 feet, more or less, to the southwest corner of Lot 17 of Wilmington Subdivision in Lot 8, Block 43, 10-Acre Plat A, Big Field Survey; thence east along the north line of the Reserve of Wilmington Subdivision 726 feet to the northeast corner of said Reserve, said point being on the west l line of 600 East Street; thence south along the west f:,,(t/%t - ' 0.!, line of 600 East Street 433 . 1 feet, more or less, to a point 125 feet north of the northwest corner of Stringham Avenue and 600 East Street; thence west along a line parallel to the north line of Stringham Avenue 726 feet, said line being 125 feet north of the north line of Stringham Avenue, to the point of beginning. 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 BRB:pp -2- f ti,/ ,,-- -zz , '"'- --/- ?e-: --itzc2-7- 2--er-/--- -/-7 /2E7 -'-/' d> 1- 2- -,,,' ---- -1/(z,- ti:. - /-7_';" ,/c7%.- X-(% ,- 'c./"j--/--/-- 21 -'--i--Z?;::--C_____,:/"___,;(;- 16 ' --'4-" er z)7t:-- ---/-rXe_;-f -7/ ,',--'--ty-;- --6 '-- -----/,A,- .-/-K- --).:-- ;./ __-,-1----7-K,-,L,/ /----, z ,z__—,. (/ / ./-7, ,--e ,, - _e'' (!' l -' ''/LY'',/ _--/'' ee.Z ./ //z-Z:',Z- ‘, 5.-'4•,< - ---e," =-:* ,.. _., ,--__.sJ�� y` �lC��/� izei,,,,e , `/ ` / / '' ai ' , �- /- ..LE zi----4 Oj L__.1)/e _: .64 /10, e-/(// ,, ..z,94- 7Xi-Z7i2Z- __ --Z.-- i-t' ('-'-- (:e-k--(1 /.- / / , / , 7 ("i /.- -:---/, ,,_,7'zz , ,/, /z_-/K ,)i ,,_,??V- --ty al,f( L._7 _,.,,,z' ' Zz/4-- -.4Z__ / -:? =4 - -e-<--L<00( 1'.7, 2?i/,,/,-:-?' /17/;e/,e/./ ,,e_ / / -r _ /.1 7.-2/-_,_ A'''7 '' 7"e 2.''' ' :'4-- 7/Z-''. L' J j t. 7 ' ////;':7/V 274: 1 71 "L') '? X- /i ,,4•2"/nib, j,,/,. �,e, ,%�, . ,,_/ -, / _ :__ 71- , ,,/ ,, -- /;7';" ?/-(:-- j--,<7A'----'71 e/- ' _Xi':c7_,e7_-x _ I/ / 7 �� j21J / X /�Z i. ALLEN C. JOHNSON MEMBERS: PLANNING DIRECTOR CINDY CROMER SANDRA MARLER SALT�LAIE CITY CORPORATION THOLAVONEMLIDDLE-GAMONAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES A ELSA EX OFFICIO MEMBERS: RA L RICH AR P P.. NEISON MAYOR OF SALT LAKE CITY Planning and Zoning Commission GEORGE NICOLATUS CITY ENGINEER 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 200 JOHN M. SCHUMANN CI ]Y TRAFFIC ENGINEER SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 F. KEITH STEPAN %'ITY BUILDING OFFICIAL 535-7757 PETER VANALSTYNE KATHY WACKER February 24, 1989 Mr. Craig Peterson, Director Development Services 324 So. State, Suite 201 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Re: Petition 400-662 - Rezoning property between 500-600 East Streets and Stringham and Wilmington Avenues from Commercial "C-1" to Residential "R-5". Dear Craig: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 8, 1988 concerning the rezoning request of Petition No. 400-662, submitted by Council Member Willie M. Stoler. The Planning Commission action was to deny the petition, however the minutes were not approved and the Planning Conuuission held the petition for reconsideration on the February 9th meeting. The Salt Lake City Planning Commission at it's February 9, 1989 meeting voted to recommend to the City Council to deny Petition No. 400-662. A motion was also passed to consider amending the implementation procedures of the Sugar House Master Plan relating to this particular area, in order to better guide the transition from commercial to residential use. It was felt the intentions of the railroad are a critical issue in the development of this site and those intentions need to be studied when examining this section of the Sugar House Master Plan. If you have any questions, please contact either myself or Everett L. Joyce. Sincerere y, All: C. J.hnson, AICP Planning Director attachments ACJ:elj cc: John Schuman, Planning Commission Chairman Council Member W. M. "Willie" Stoler, District Seven file SALT LAKE CT'T'Y PLANTING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF m e Petition 400-662 by Willie M. Stoler OVERVIEW The applicant, Willie M. Stoler, is requesting Salt Lake City rezone property located between 500-600 East Street and between Stringham and Wilmington Avenue from Commercial "C-1" to a Residential "R-5" zoning classification. Existing zoning surrounding this subject parcel consist of Residential "R-2" properties to the north and south and Commercial "C-1" properties to the east. Property located west of 500 East Street lie outside Salt Lake City's juristictional boundary, however, it is zoned Business "C" in South Salt Lake. Ni - \ \1 1 y_V \N\N‘` '1�\‘ � : �� `�?` ` 'L' 0 N. SOUTH STREET ` n , I, oru....wolmair.r.mor��IOMN WLTH\ N ` ` 6�L H `��,}.' a a% • '' EL E ` • ` '5015001 • I •I' • ` �� WIL`MINGTON , • ��• 1 �i'1��.' . ( 1 WILMINGTON Jv \� `P..: • `\ t\" 9 ; �\ 3 m,, IIii' � r 4 tu w• _ 9 Q _ - _ / -� PARKWAY BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS Petition No. 400-277 of 1985 was filed to implement the recommendations of the Sugar House Conununity Master Plan by the Sugar House Community Council. A portion of that request included the rezoning of residential and commercial property located between 2100 South and 2700 South between 500 East and 1100 East. The purpose of that proposal was to conform the zoning classifications with the Master Plan policies. The request also included the rezoning of the subject property from Commercial "C-3" to Residential "R-5". On October 10, 1985, the Planning Commission supported this request. However, the City Council did not accept the recommendation of the Planning Conunission and ultimately rezoned the subject property from Commercial "C-3" to Commercial "C-1" (Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 81 of 1986) . Existing Land Use The subject property is located in an area of multiple land uses ranging from single family residential to warehouse and commercial activity. The existing land uses along Stringham and Wilmington Avenue consists primarily of single family detached homes with clusters of multiple-family residential scattered throughout the area. Existing land uses along 500 and 600 East Streets are residential. Land use in the petitioned area developed into warehouse, office and commercial activity due to immediate access to the Denver & Rio Grande railroad line. Today this railroad line is a spur that terminates at Granite Furniture Warehouse. Existing Land Use Chart Address Property Owner Land Use 1) 2225 S. 500 E. Christiansen Investment Co. Commercial/Warehousing 2) 2233 S. 500 E. Paul V. Wells Pallet Manufacturing 3) 2253 S. 500 E. Boyd K. & Peggy Henrie Commercial Laundry 4) 2262 S. 600 E. Louis R. Racine, et al Boat Warehousing Some of these properties are nonconforming because of the 1985 rezoning from "C-3" to "C-1". If this petition is approved all of the properties will be nonconforming and will be allowed to operate under the provisions of Section 21.90 of Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. Transportation access to these commercial properties is along 500 East and 600 East Strccts. 600 East Street is a residential local street and 500 East Street is a residential collector strcct. Both streets have a right-of-way of 66 fact. These streets are not designed to carry commercial oriented traffic. In 1986 the State of Utah Division of Environmental Health conducted an investigation of hazardous waste materials found on the site at 2225 South 500 East, known as "Wasatch Plaza". The study concluded that the materials had not migrated off-site and mitigations measures were undertaken to correct the on-site problems. Master Plan Considerations The 1986 Sugar House Master Plan identifies the petitioned area as a location desirable for new medium-density housing opportunities. Objectives for housing redevelopment opportunities include housing type diversity and densities, the introduction of public-assisted housing, and to encourage underground parking structures and on-site open space amenities. Specific site redevelopment guidelines as proposed in the Master Plan include the following: Site Characteristics 1) Master Plan designation is medium-density residential 2) Density potential: 8-20 dwelling units per net acre 3) Parcel size: 7.2 acres 4) Potential units: 40-100 units 5) Accessibility: from 500 and 600 East 6) Adjacent land use: low and medium-density residential and neighborhood business center Mitigation of Development Constraints 1) Potential redevelopment program 2) Removal of D&RGW Railroad siding after it is abandoned by existing commercial users 3) Assembly of land parcels 4) Relocation of commercial and industrial businesses 5) Demolition of commercial and industrial structures 6) Rezoning parcel for appropriate residential land use Possible Residential Development 1) Residential planned unit development consisting of townhouses, low-rise garden apartments, or cluster housing 2) Provisions for a future bicycle path and pedestrian trail through the site 'BOO ID u• IGN The staff recommends approval of Petition 400-662 requesting rezoning from Commercial "C-1" to Residential "R-5". The staff supports the conservation and preservation of the existing residential neighborhood and supports medium- density housing redevelopment opportunities as outlined in the Sugar House Master Plan for the petitioned area. This recommendation is supported by the Master Plan which include specific site redevelopment guidelines as outlined above. Gary R. Heintz October 14, 1988 PC MINUTES December 8, 1988 Page 8 council to get together with O.C. Tanner and the property owners as well as the Planning Staff, to try and resolve this matter before the hearing date. Mr. Ellison accepted that suggestion as part of his motion. Ms. Liddle- Gamonal accepted it as part of her second; all voted "Aye." In an unrelated motion, Mr. Ellison moved that the Planning Staff provide a staff report for the January 12, 1989 Planning Commission meeting addressing the necessity of updating the 1974 People's Freeway master plan with respect to developments which have occurred on Main Street in this area, as well as suggesting future land uses to determine whether or not a formal amendment to this master plan is appropriate. Mr. Ellison also requested a recommendation with respect to down zoning of the property consistent with the 1974 master plan, in his motion. Mr. Neilson seconded the motion; all voted "Aye." INFORMAL HEARING - Petition No. 400-662 by Willie M. Stoler requesting Salt Lake City to rezone property located between 500 East and 600 East Streets between the rear of the properties fronting along Stringham and Wilmington Avenues from a Commercial "C-1" to a Residential "R-5" zoning district. • Mr. Wright stated that a similar rezoning petition was heard in 1985 as a larger rezoning package, at the time of the completion of the Sugar House Master Plan. The Planning Commission's recommendation at that time was to support a zoning change on this parcel from Commercial "C-3" to Residential "R-5. " This is, in effect, a resubmittal of that request. The action of the City Council on this matter back in 1985, was to change the zoning on this parcel from a Commercial "C-3" to a Commercial "C-1" zoning. Therefore, many of the properties on this site are in a nonconforming status at this time due to that earlier rezoning. Mr. Heintz presented the staff report recommending approval of this petition. The Planning Staff supports the conservation and preservation of the existing residential neighborhood and supports medium-density housing redevelopment opportunities as outlined in the Sugar House Master Plan for the petitioned area. Mr. Heintz stated that in 1986 the State of Utah, Division of Environmental Health had conducted an investigation of hazardous waste materials on the site. The study concluded that hazardous waste materials were present in the ground at the site, but they had not migrated off-site and mitigation measures were undertaken to correct the on-site problems. Mr. Schumann asked if the petitioner wished to speak. Mr. Stoler, the petitioner was not present so Mr. Schumann then opened the hearing to the public for comment. Mr. Brent Wall, an attorney representing Mr. Neil Christiansen, a property owner in the area in question, stated that they are opposed to this petition and requested that it be denied. Mr. Wall stated that this area is clearly not residential property and that his client stands to lose a considerable amount of money with a rezoning. Mr. Wall expressed concern regarding a condemnation, by the city, of these properties. Mr. Neil Christiansen, owner of the property located at 2225 South 500 East, stated that he is opposed to this petition and requested that it be denied. i PC MINUTES December 8, 1988 Page 9 Mr. Christiansen stated that he has gone to considerable extremes and expense to maintain a good relationship with the neighborhood. Mr. Christiansen said he felt that if Planning Commission members were prospective purchasers of the businesses in this area, they would be concerned about the zoning history of this area going from "C-3" to "C-1" and now a request to "R-5." Mr. Scott Leo, an attorney representing Mr. Paul Wells, a property owner in the neighborhood, stated that they are opposed to this petition and requested that it be denied. Mr. Lee stated that a rezoning to "R-5" would knock out about 75-800 of Mr. Wells' land value. Mr. Lee stated that Mr. Wells would not be able to sell this property for a reasonable amount due to the nonconforming status restrictions and the loss of property value if the rezoning occurs. Mr. Johnson stated that the existing businesses are already nonconforming and that the rezoning would not prevent the continuation of the businesses that are currently in operation on this location. Mr. Johnson also informed Mr. Wall that the city had no hidden agenda to acquire these properties through a condemnation. Mr. Brian Cannon, an attorney representing Boats, Inc. , on the southeast corner of the properties in question, stated that he feels all that will happen with a rezoning of this area is the granting of lip service to the master plan for the area. Mr. Cannon requested that this petition be denied because his clients are concerned about their ability to sell their property in the future should the rezoning occur. Mr. Wells the property owner at 2233 South 500 East had his real estate agent address the Planning Commission. She stated that Mr. Wells would never have purchased this property had he been aware of the master plan intentions for this area. She added that Mr. Wells stands to lose a considerable amount of money if the rezoning occurs, because the land will be worth far less than what he currently owes the bank for it. Mr. Wells stated that he has spoken with the railroad people and they have no intention of going out of business as long as Granite Furniture has a use for their services. Mr. Gene Davis, 865 Parkway Avenue, a representative of the Sugar House Community Council stated that a unanimous vote took place at the last council mooting to support the Sugar House Master Plan. Mr. Davis said they are in favor of this petition being approved. Mr. Kurt Ovard, 2281 South 600 East, stated that he and his wife are in favor of denying this petition because they appreciate the businesses in the area and are concerned about rental properties being constructed in place of the businesses, since the existing renters in the area do not keep up the properties. Mr. Brent Wall said it is a strong likelihood that if the rezoning to an "R-5" takes place, an inverse condemnation action may well originate from the property owners because of the inability to make these properties economically viable. -Mrs. Ovard, 2281 South 600 East, stated that she is in favor of the petition being denied because she is concerned about an increase in crime in the area if the rezoning is approved and additional rental units are constructed. /// PC MINUTES December 8, 1988 Page 10 Mr. Schumann closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion. Mr. Wright addressed the issue of the& hazardous waste investigation and stated that an intense investigation took place and that there were findings of contamination of the soil on-site. The conclusions were that the contamination had not travelled off-site but that on-site workers and neighborhood children may be exposed to this contamination. There is a plan to remove the hot spots of contaminated soil and replace them with "clean" soil. Mr. Nicolatus asked what caused this rezoning issue to be brought before them at this time and if there is a developer in the background with plans for residential development of this area. Mr. Johnson stated that the Planning Staff is responding to the petition request and is not aware of a developer in the background. Mr. Wright stated that this is a legislative action from the City Council sponsored by Councilmember Stoler. Mr. Wright added that it has been put on the City Council Agenda as a consent item to refer this issue to the Planning Commission. Mr. Johnson added that if the Planning Commission's response is to deny the petition, City Council will probably still hold their hearing on this matter. A discussion followed wherein the Planning Commission and Planning Staff reviewed the Sugar House Master Plan in regard to the properties in question. Mr. Nicolatus said he felt this issue would be better handled at the time when a developer had actual plans for the area rather than to place restrictions on the area without development plans. Ms. Cromer said she regretted that the property owners had to go to the expense of hiring attorneys to represent them on this matter and moved to deny Petition No. 400-662 for. the following reasons: 1) there does not appear to be any closure of the railroad in the foreseeable future, 2) this parcel has multiple owners and Ms. Cromer stated the only way she can sec amassing it for residential development is by condemnation, which she doesn't foci the rental market warrants, and she sees this action as taking the value of the owners property, and 3) the contamination that currently exists on-site should preclude this parcel from becoming residential property as a protection to children who might live on this site in the future. Ms. Liddle-Gamonal seconded the motion. Mr. Ellison stated that he disagrees with Ms. Cromer on the issue of taking and Mr. Cannon's comment of giving lip service to the Sugar House Master Plan. Mr. Ellison stated that the Master Plan for the Sugar House area was not the result of a single meeting, but rather, a result of five years' worth of data collection, research reports, goals and policies. Mr. Ellison stated that under the established law, if rezoning occurs pursuant to a master plan, it is considered valid and not a taking; otherwise it becomes spot zoning. Mr. Ellison added that these same businesses can continue on these properties indefinitely, even with a rezoning. He added that the real issue here is the desire for long range residential use. Otherwise, the master plan needs to be amended to correct the long range residential use statements pertaining to this parcel. / PC MINUTES December 8, 1988 Page 11 Ms. Cromer stated that she feels the time frame suggested in the Master Plan is not synchronized with the existing economic conditions. Mr. Ellison expressed his concern about changing the master plan if that is not the intention. Mr. Schumann said he feels one of the critical issues is the future use of the railroad in this area. Mr. Wright stated that the Planning Staff had contacted the railroad and the railroad's intent is to service Granite Furniture. Mr. Nicolatus said he feels the Planning Commission is not abandoning, bisecting, or deleting a portion of the Sugar House Master Plan, but he feels the time to rezone for residential use is not now. Ms. Cromer amended her motion to include the statement that the Planning Commission is not abandoning, bisecting or deleting a portion of the Sugar House Master Plan but that the time for rezoning for residential use is not now. Ms. Liddle-Gamonal accepted the amendment to her second. Mr. Nicolatus requested that Ms. Cromer state in her motion that the Planning Commission is still supporting the Sugar House Master Plan. In a restatement of the motion, Ms. Cromer moved to deny Petition No. 400-662 for the following reasons: 1) there does not seem to be any closure of the railroad system in the foreseeable future, 2) the parcels in question are multiply owned and it seems the only way to amass the entire area is through condemnation, which is not warranted at this time, and 3) the contamination is a concern when considering the property for residential use with children who will be constantly exposed. Ms. Cromer stated she continues to support the Sugar House Master Plan and the EVENTUAL use of the parcel for residential uses, but this does not appear to be the time frame for changing the zoning. Mr. Ellison requested that Ms. Cromer change the wording "condemnation" to "redevelopment." Ms. Cromer agreed. Ms. Liddle-Gamonal seconded the motion. Mr. Neilson stated that he is going to vote in favor of the motion to deny the petition but he does not support the master plan with respect to this particular site. Mr. Becker stated that he is concerned about the setting of a precedent of denying a petition that is completely consistent with the master plan, even though the timing may be terrible, without having reconsidered the master plan. He stated that he feels the first step should be to table the matter at hand and reconsider the master plan. All voted "Aye" to Ms. Cromer's motion to deny with the exception of Mr. Ellison who was opposed. Mr. Schumann requested that the Planning Staff reevaluate the Sugar House Master Plan to see if the portion of that plan dealing with the parcel of land pertaining to Petition No. 400-662 needs to be opened up for reconsideration by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Mr. Ellison requested that the Planning Staff look at ways to conceptualize the implementation of that master plan around a site like this one in more detail, in order for the Planning Commission to sec how everything would go together and determine an appropriate time frame for implementation. PC MINUTES February 9, 1989 Page 5 ratify the actions of the Historical Landmark Committee giving conceptual approval to the developer; 2) to table the matter and hold it until the developer makes a presentation to the Planning Commission, possibly through an informal hearing; and 3) to go ahead and let the conceptual approval stand, wait for the final approval of the Historical Landmark Committee and then either ratify or not ratify their actions. Mr. Johnson stated that if they choose to not ratify the actions of the Historical Landmark Committee, the developer may then appeal the case to the Board of Adjustment. He added that the down side of waiting until final approval comes before them, is that the developer will have spent a lot more money on the project by that time. Mr. Schumann suggested that they could ratify the Historical Landmark Committee's actions subject to an informal hearing. Mr. Schumann then asked if the developer had met with the neighborhood. Councilmember Hardman responded in the negative. Ms. Cromer said she had spoken with many of the neighbors in the area and the opposition to the office tower is overwhelming. Ms. Cromer moved to direct the developer and the architect on the project to . meet with the community councils and that an informal hearing take place after those mcctings. Mr. Neilson seconded the motion. Mr. Howa asked if by voting on the motion they were endorsing the Historical Landmark Committee's actions on conceptual approval of the case. Mr. Schumann responded in the negative. Ms. Cromer stated that they were simply holding the matter until the developer has met with the neighborhood. All voted "Aye" on the motion. Reconsider action on Petition NO. 400-662 by Willie M. Stoler, requesting property located between 500 and 600 East Streets and Stringham and Wilmington Avenues be rezoned from a Commercial "C-1" to a Residential "R-5" zoning district. Mr. Schumann stated that this matter had come before the Planning Commission previously and that City Council had requested this matter be reheard. Mr. Johnson stated that the petitioner is requesting the Planning Commission also consider rezoning the area in question from a Commercial "C-1" to a Residential "R-3A" or a Residential "R-2A" zone as well as the Residential "R-5" zone request in the original petition. Mr. Schumann asked how these two additional zoning options would affect the businesses in operation in the area. Mr. Johnson said they are all nonconforming uses and as such, would be allowed to continue as they are now. He said they would also be allowed to sell their businesses to similar uses allowed in that zoning. Mr. Johnson added that the businesses would not, however, be allowed to expand. Mr. Johnson further explained that if a disaster were to occur, they might not be allowed to rebuild, or if the business should become vacant for a period of one year, they would not be allowed to continue those uses as they had before. Mr. Wright stated that this matter had come before the Planning Commission in an informal hearing on December 8, 1988 where a motion for denial was passed. At the January 12, 1989 Planning Commission meeting, there was a motion and a vote to reconsider this action, proposed by a Planning Commission member who had voted in favor of the motion at the December meeting. PC MINUTES February 9, 1989 Page 6 Councilmember Stoler, the petitioner, said he had did not wish to speak to the issue since he had not been present at the previous mooting. Mr. Schumann asked the Planning Commission if they were desirous of opening the discussion to the public since this was not an informal hearing. The Planning Commission agreed and the discussion was opened for public comment. Mr. Johnson read a letter from Kurt and Charlotte Ovard, 2281 South 600 East, expressing their concern that this matter was once again coming before the Planning Commission without having been resolved. They requested the Planning Commission deny the petition. Their letter is filed with the minutes. Mr. Alma Edwards, 554 Wilmington Avenue, said he is in favor of this petition and requested the Planning Commission vote in favor of it. Mr. Edwards added that the businesses in this area have degraded their living conditions due to noises, smells and chemical compounds filling the air. Mr. Harold Luker, 550 Wilmington Avenue, said he is in favor of this petition for the same reasons given by Mr. Edwards. Mr. Schumann pointed out that even if the rezoning is granted, the businesses in the area may still continue to operate as they are currently operating. Mr. Rawlins Young, SLACC Chairman, stated that he believes the rezoning is what the Sugar House Master Plan calls for. He also stated he feels the Planning Commission should vote in favor of this petition because of the public monies invested in this area. Ms. Diana Smoot, 2592 Elizabeth Street, Chairperson of the SugarHouse Community Council, said she is in favor of this petition because she feels it will upgrade the quality of the neighborhood and it is consistent with the master plan. Mr. Brian Cannon, attorney for Louis Racine, one of the property owners of the area in question, stated that if this rezoning occurs, he will advise his client to consider an action for condemnation because of the loss in property value. Mr. Neil Christianson, 901 East 7800 South, one of the property owners, stated that he is willing to remedy any complaints the neighbors encounter. He said he is opposed to this petition because of the loss in property value he will experience if this rezoning is approved. Mr. Scott Leo, attorney for Mr. Paul Wells, one of the property owners, stated that he is opposed to this petition and feels denying the petition is not inconsistent with the master plan. He referred the Planning Commission to Page Four of the SugarHouse Master Plan where it states that the railroad should be removed after it has been abandoned. Mr. Lce pointed out that there is no information available at this time to indicate abandonment of the railroad. Mr. Paul Wells, one of the property owners stated that he has spoken to the railroad and they have no intention of withdrawing the railroad spur in that area at this time. PC MINUTES February 9, 1989 Page 7 Mr. Johnson informed the Planning Commission that Utah Transit Authority had expressed interest in the rail in this area in connection with the possibility of the future light rail system. Mr. Schumann closed the discussion to the public and opened it up for Planning Commission discussion. Mr. Nicolatus said he fails to see why this matter is an issue, at this point in time, since there is no developer in the background. Mr. Becker moved to approve Petition No. 400-662 for rezoning from Commercial "C-1" to Residential "R-5." Mr. Ellison seconded the motion. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the Planning Commission had the option of rezoning to "R-5," "R-3A" or "R-2A." Mr. Becker said his preference was R-5." Mr. Ellison agreed. Mr. Neilson said he does not believe down zoning, by itself, is an adequate strategy to implement the master plan, given the use of the railroad. Mr. Ellison said he felt the reasoning behind the down zoning was to discourage further commercial development in the area. Mr. Becker, Mr. Ellison and Mr. Howa voted "Aye;" Mr. Neilson, Mr. Nicolatus and Ms. Cromer voted "Nay;" Mr. Schumann, as chairperson, voted "Nay," causing the motion to fail. Mr. Ellison moved to consider amending the implementation procedures of the Sugar House Master Plan relating to this particular area, in order to better guide the transition from commercial to residential use. Ms. Cromer seconded the motion. Mr. Schumann said he felt the intentions of the railroad are a critical issue in the development of this site and those intentions need to be studied when examining this section of the SugarHouse Master Plan. Mr. Ellison accepted this as part of his motion; Ms. Cromer accepted it as part of the second. All voted "Aye." Mr. Ellison moved to table this petition until the Master Plan has been reviewed and possibly amended. Ms. Cromer seconded the motion. Mr. Ellison and Ms. Cromer voted "Aye;" Mr. Becker, Mr. Nicolatus, Mr. Neilson and Mr. Howe voted "Nay." Mr. Howe said he felt the matter needs to be dealt with now, without further delay. Mr. Nicolatus moved that a recommendation be sent to the City Council to deny Petition No. 440-662. Mr. Howa seconded the motion. Mr. Nicolatus, Mr. Howa and Mr. Neilson voted "Aye;" Mr. Ellison, Mr. Becker and Ms. Cromer voted "Nay." Mr. Schumann as the Chairperson, voted "Aye." The motion passes. Ms. Cromer said she felt there seemed to be a number of enforcement issues which cannot be handled through down zoning and suggested the appropriate bodies address the violations. Ms. Cromer moved to have enforcement actions implemented, where appropriate, by the Board of Health, the City Business Licensing Division and any other relevant agencies, for the area between 500 and 600 East Streets and Stringham and Wilmington Avenues. Mr. Neilson seconded the motion. All voted "Aye" with the exception of Mr. Ellison who abstained. • LEGISLATIVE ACTION_ l�" DATE: September 29, 1988 s j i r .>r SPONSOR: Council Member W. M. "Willie" Staler, District Seven DESCRIPTION OE ACTTON: An ordinance rezoning the property located between 500-600 Eat Streets and between Stringham and Wilmington Avenues from a Commercial "C-1' to a Residential "R-5" classification. • REFERRED TO: ( 1 ) City Attorney Roger Cutler for preparation of ordinance. ( 2) Planning and Zoning Commission for recommendation. r • • :i ALLEN C. JOHNSON J MEMBERS: PLANNING DIRECTOR - ' SANDRA MARLER SAL + LAKE° GITYf G�:RPO . IION= CINDY CROMER � � O � !j � THOMAS A. ELLISON SECRETARY ..�•� ®®®..� '..+md'+. '+0'�.�+.�'.c .v m�� LAVONE LIDOLE•GAMONAL DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES RICHARD HOWA EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS: RALPH P. NEILSON MAYOR OF SALT LAKE CITY Planning and Zoning Commission GEORGE NICOLATUS CITY ENGINEER 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 200 JOHN M. SCHUMANN CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER SALT_LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 F. KEITH STEPAN CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL - - - PETER VANALSTYNE 535-7757 KATHY WACKER September 23, 1988 Linda Hamilton, Executive Director Salt Lake City Council Salt Lake City, Utah Dear Linda; Councilman Willie Stoler requested information concerning the rezoning of property in the Sugar House Community, specifically the Commercially zoned area between 500-600 East Streets and Wilmington and Stringham Avenues. _Attached is some specific information that should be submitted with a rezoning petition from him. Mr. Stoler wants to sponsor the rezoning as a legislative request from the City Council to the Planning & Zoning Commission. My understanding is that the Council's policy concerning this type of issue is to place the request on the Council's Consent Agenda for approval by a majority of the Council. Mr. Stoler asked that I convey this request to you. If you have any questions, please call me. Respectfully submitted; ,J William T. Wright AICP Acting Deputy Director Long Range Planning & Urban Design Attachments cc: Craig E. Peterson Dg SALTS DAM CAI PORATIO N 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 March 15, 1989 RE: Petition No. 400-705 - Rezoning 700 North and Redwood Road Recolrurrendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing on April 4, 1.989 at 6:20 p.m. to discuss Petition No. 400-705 submitted.by Scott McNeil of McNeil Engineering requesting Salt Lake City to rezone property located on the southeast corner of 700 North and Redwood Road from "R-2A" to "B-3" classification. Availability of Funds: Not applicable Background and Discussion: The Planning Commission has reviewed this request and voted to recommend approval of the request to rezone the four acres located on the southeast corner of 700 North from Redwood Road east to the Jordan River Parkway with the following conditions: ].. The final site place (including landscaping, lighting, signage and traffic circulation) for this property meet the criteria identified in the Northwest Community Master Plan Update and the standards of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance with final site plan approval from the Planning Director. 2. The rezoning to become effective upon the approval of a building permit within one year from the date of approval by the City Council. Iislative Document: The City Attorney's Office is preparing the ordinance and will be submitted prior to the public hearing. • Submitted by: CRAIG E PhTFtSON Director' lf/ ALLEN C. JOHNSON MEMBERS: PLANNING DIRECTOR CINDY CROMER SANDRA MARLER SALT LAKE.CITY CORPORATION THOLAVONE LI DDLE-G MONAL SECRETARY - --._ DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AL HaRD HOWA EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS: RALPH P. NEILSON MAYOR OF SALT LAKE CITY Planning and Zoning Commission GEORGE NICOLATUS CITY ENGINEER 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 200 JOHN M. SCHUMANN CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 F. KEITH STEPAN CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL 535-7757 PETER VANALSTYNE KATHY WACKER March 14, 1989 Craig Peterson, Director Development Services 324 S. State, Suite 201 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Re: Petition 400-705 - Rezoning 700 North and Redwood Road Dear Craig: Attached please find Petition 400-705 from Mr. Scott McNeil of McNeil Engineering requesting Salt Lake City to rezone property located on the southeast corner of 700 North and Redwood Road from R-2A to B-3. At their regular meeting March 9, 1989, the Planning Colluuission voted to recommend approval of this request to the City Council to rezone from Residential R-2A to Business B-3 the four acres located on the southeast corner of 700 North from Redwood Road east to the Jordan River Parkway with the following stipulations: - the final site plan (including landscaping, lighting, signage and traffic circulation) for this property meet the criteria identified in the Northwest Community Master Plan Update and the standards of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance with final site plan approval from the Planning Director; - the rezoning to become effective upon the approval of a building permit within one year from the date of approval by the City Council. A copy of the planning staff report and supporting documentation is also attached for your reference. If you have any questions, please contact Janice Jardine or myself. Sincerely, Allen C. J hnson, AICP Planing irector enc . CC: John Schuman, Chairman; Scott McNeil , Petitioner; file Sidwell Parcel Identification Nudger. # 0 8 - 2 7 - 4 5 3 - 0 0 1, 002, 003, 004, 005, 008, 009, 010, 011, 012 Legal description of property covered in the application: eginning at a point on the east boundary line of Redwood Road, said point being North 0°15'08" ast 123.75 feet and North 89°59'34" West 41.25 feet from the South Quarter Corner of Section 7, Township 1 North, Range 1 West, Salt Lake Base and Meridian, and running thence North 015'08" East 120.80 feet to the south boundary line of 700 North Street; thence South 87°37 '10" ast 207.95 feet; thence South 89°59'34" East 119.29 feet to a point of curvature; thence putheasterly along the arc of a 635.58 foot radius curve to the right 282.87 feet to a point f tangency; thence South 64°29'34" East 79.84 feet; thence South 0°15'08" West 156. 15 feet; hence North 89°59'34" West 673.20 feet to the East boundary line of Redwood Road; thence North 015'08" East 140.25 feet to the point of beginning. Contains 3.66 acres. Desired Zoning Text Change: N/A Names and mailing addresses of all abutting and/or affected property owner: 1. Hardy Enterprises, Inc. address%Bob Hardy, Pres, 2787 N Hwy 89, Layton 84041 2. LaNell H. & Mary E. Case address 1651 W 700 N. SLC UT 84116 3 Myrtle C Millard, Callister etaladdress 2592 S 50 W, Bountiful UT 84010 4. Alan T & Kelly B Parsons address 225 - 6th Ave, SLC UT 84103 5. Leslie M Petersen address 2543 E 9800 S, Sandy UT 84093 6. Willard J & Mildred Harmon address PO Box 668, Washington UT 84780 7. T & M Maintenance address%Andersen Thayne 1220 E 1100 S. Clearfield 84014 8. Carla G & Mark E Daniels address 1654 W 700 N, SLC UT 84116 9Morton R & Virginia H Henderson address 225 N 200 W, SLC UT 84103 10. Carl R & Bonnie J Callister address 1632 W 700 N, SLC UT 84116 11. Richard K & Ruth L Lineberryaddress 1616 W 700 N, SLC UT 84116 12. Omer R & Norma R Hovey address 1494 S 1000 W, SLC UT 84104 13Donald S & Iona N Whitehead Jrsaddress 814 N Redwood Rd, SLC UT 84116 14. Univac SLC Employees Cr Unioaddress 1715 W 700 N. SLC UT 84116 15Rowland H & Margarette C Merriladdress 2729 E 2880 S, SLC UT 84109 16. Corp of the Pres Bishop LDS Church 50 E S Temple, 12th Floor, SLC UT 84150-0001 Use additional sheet of paper for more names and addresses. 17. McNeil Real Estate Fund XIV PO Box 105, Norcross, GA 30091 ATTACH ALL INFORMATION REQUIRED AS OUTLINED ON THE FRCP OF THIS FORM. SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 324 SOUTH STATE STREET Suite #200 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 Ph: 535-7757 JUSTIFICATION FOR ZONE CHANGE SE CORNER OF 700 NORTH & REDWOOD RD. 1. 700 North and Redwood Road has become a business location by virtue of the opening of I-215. 2. 700 North widening to five lanes has and is occurring to create a cross-community boulevard connection between I-15 and I-215 interchanges . Traffic counts on 700 North have greatly increased in recent weeks . 3 . Redwood Road widening to six lanes is finally now a reality, thus making 700 North and Redwood a central hub from a traffic standpoint . 4 . The 4 acres at the southeast corner of the intersection of 700 North and Redwood are surrounded by permanent land uses that are agreeable to and not damaged by the proposed zone change . The adjoining lands will be enhanced by quality development. 5. Current residential zoning on the site has been detrimental, causing existing land uses to continue to deteriorate and run down. All residents have or will soon be vacating this site . A zone change to business use will reverse the downward trend in property taxes and begin to increase the tax base . 6 . There are few locations where area residents can obtain retail services near their homes . There are also no restaurants . 7. More business and retail opportunities at this location will provide needed noon hour services for employees of UNYSIS, McDonnell Douglas, and the State of Utah, thereby helping to assure the long term satisfaction of these major employers . 8 . Business zoning has already been given on two of the corners at this intersection. 9 . In the future planning work done by the City Planning Staff, a "critical mass" B-3 land use scheme is contemplated for this location as opposed to allowing strip commercial along all of Redwood Road north of North Temple . 10. The applicant and his family have lived in this neighborhood for 40 years and he has 15 years of real estate investment experience . He is committed to converting the property to a quality use that will be of benefit and convenience to the residents and also economically viable for the long term. ..—. 1 1 ----..2.-- 2--1.---_ . _.Fr.c".•- 4-----:,---- -4 CC tO. 7,-- =_,-,,, - =.----I- t2j ,r.tutpr,644,c• 117 471..71. 9 fa---=----=-----.,--- . ... - , --.--''r-'--EL-------_.= - • a ". -, ., ,•......"- - JIM\ MB — (----% 1.104 ..,etn — i ..--..—.....--. I i .._. i i 7.--- SALT LAKE CITY 1 k. p 2 8 >- cc- cc LLI 11. CO . . .— V) `-... t 1 I . t I t. 2 ?• • • INTERNATIONAL ] AIRPORT (II i , 1 • . i--4 a !..._ . 6 „a . ; 6 rdorlr, • C • 1 E IT......1: tem 1 r. a LIU -_PI .... .. \ II76(ii\l,,, . I , , V No .,., _._ 11111111 1113111113 111 ,; 14,, R'VEPSIDEL"a __ _ _ ! 1_63o, _ rallilliff — 1 • PARK __ I , ti4111111M III 0 2f., . iii ii • %.- I 6 . 2 i .04 111,0 al * I 3 .1,..m, " El 1 I . li. ...\ - ... In 0. r 3.0 hlo•IK • as o i 06 . F C ,L-- 'N'N". -___;" —• *.=. al .--...- .1.--..'''...„,_.,....,.,._ U m 1 12 '0... 2 ..,....Cle Z NI IP SI IN \NJ M tiii M NOR T H I . 8 ii. f ...."--_ I $00•00„/1 I .......,•. Not ik —Tc,Arit- isi,..,...............„\:- _ •••• -Tamp i a S.' ••1 .1%,I Poe w a g00111.1°11°#1ie Is' I \ er i I --............•••••-___... ........_...611010111d mallibilkh, i .....millgre - radligg ". ..• -- \.---t. ....'•••••44.-....., \ -.044111111111111111.111111111".- ..q.E.i i i quarr44.000...- rAlli ---4ft"...111. ---luiri!r--- r : . • z . _ . g ______......._.....--4. • 11111.11 .11 IN I SHE R "f) 1 0 all PARK 411°IIII SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING OMISSION STAFF REPORT PETITION NO. 400-705 - MCNEIL ENGINEERING - REQUESTING REZONING FROM RESIDENTIAL R-2A TO BUSINESS B-3 AT 700 NC PTH AND REEWOOD ROAD OVERVIEW This is a request from Mr. Scott McNeil of McNeil Engineering and Mr. Elliott Christensen requesting Salt Lake City to rezone property located on the southeast corner of 700 North and Redwood Road from Residential R-2A to Business B-3. A church abuts the property on the south, the Jordan River Parkway on the east, 700 North on the north and Redwood Road on the west. nUnJ �nJ n n n `' . - n B0Q 00 NORTH n n ^ m Mfg.: Al lin p o • VOETJ _ 7� A n n o °° o �) LEADVILLE AVE _ 7.. No , O 'i AMI ~ ^ME 1_ p,�� A r) ° O_ O ••' RIVERSIDE PARKLi(1 IIIN sJ .. -�o7nanJc • .1-� o 0 0CameLAN! a �� n n S JEFF- C fl O CIp fr LL n a ni rQ 600 NOR H • •C n a Alp'— .. °O °~�� ¢d�..1III..,. .c I o 7,1 • • 40.CKI N IA m _O O cn. _.7'\ 6 - e _'Y ri . SCHOOL i n to El 1-1 1ACKGRCUN / In the past there have been similar rezoning requests to change the residential zoning to commercial zoning which have been denied. However, the previous requests were to rezone only the lot on the corner. This proposal includes several properties which run from Redwood Road east to the Jordan River Parkway and deals with the development of the entire site on a comprehensive basis. Surrounding land uses are comprised of: - residential to the north across 700 North and east of Redwood Road with Residential R-2A zoning; - commercial and residential on the west side of Redwood Road and south of 700 North with Residential R-2A and Business B-3 on the corner; - a commercial shopping center on the northwest corner of Redwood Road and 700 North with Business B-3 zoning; - the Residential R-2A zoning on the east side of Redwood Road extends south from 700 North to within 250 feet of 500 North. ANALYSIS The proposed use for the site is a strip commercial development with a full service restaurant, two fast food restaurants, a convenience/gas store, and ten small retail/commercial spaces in one building. MASTER PLAN AND ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The Northwest Community Master Plan Update identifies this general location for expansion of commercial zoning to provide services on a conanunity scale. The following urban design criteria are identified in the master plan to be considered when evaluating commercial rezoning requests. 1. Documented need for the proposed business project and documented community and neighborhood support. The petitioner states, "There are few locations where area residents can obtain retail services near their homes. There are also no restaurants." Residents attending Community Council meetings have expressed the need for restaurants and services as proposed by the petitioner. There are only three restaurants, an Arctic Circle, Pizza Hut and Domino's Pizza, to service an approximate population of 25,000 for an area roughly the same as the Northwest Community excluding North Temple which is not neighborhood/community oriented. The petitioners have attended several meetings of the North Redwood Community Council with several different renderings and proposed uses for the site. The Community Council has voted to support the rezoning request and the site plan on a conceptual basis, however, their approval is based on the development of the entire site as presented to them in their meetings. These Community Council meetings have been attended by many of the affected property owners north of 700 North. 2. Project located on a street that can accommodate the additional traffic and removal of excessive curb cuts or curb cuts that do not meet traffic engineering safety design standards. According to the Major Street Plan and Official Map 700 North is designated as a minor arterial. Redwood Road is a State Highway and functions as a major arterial. Traffic counts as of November, 1988 are approximately 6,000 (ACII') westerly on 700 North and approximately 10,000 (AOI') northerly on Redwood Road. The City Transportation Engineer must approve all curb cuts and the Utah Department of Transportation must also approve any curb cuts on Redwood Road. 3. The site must provide adequate parking and open space including street trees. The site plan submitted provides required parking, however, staff has not yet received or reviewed a landscaping plan. 4. No exceptions should be granted to required landscaped setbacks, buffers or parking. The site plan submitted meets the required standard for setbacks, buffers and parking. 5. Signage should be limited to a pedestrian scale. A signage plan has not yet been submitted. 6. Commercial expansion should be new construction only, not conversion of residential structures to commercial uses. The proposed use for the site is a strip commercial development with a full service restaurant, two fast food restaurants, a convenience/gas store, and ten small retail/commercial spaces in one building. All existing structures will be demolished. 7. Projects must not negatively impact neighboring residential properties. Hours of operation and facilities for deliveries should not impact surrounding residents. Hours of operation have been discussed with the Community Council but none have been established. Residential properties which will be impacted are the homes to the north across 700 North and the church abutting the proposed project to the south. Deliveries should not impact surrounding residents based on the location of the buildings as shown on the site plan. DSS t to ION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of this request to rezone from Residential R-2A to Business B-3 the four acres located on the southeast corner of 700 North from Redwood Road east to the Jordan River Parkway with the following stipulations: - the final site plan (including landscaping, lighting, signage and traffic circulation) for this property meet the criteria identified in the Northwest Community Master Plan Update and the standards of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance with final site plan approval from the Planning Director; - the rezoning to become effective upon the approval of a building permit within one year from the date of approval by the City Council. February, 1989 Janice M. Jardine March 6 , 1989 Janice Jardine Planning & Zoning 325 South State Salt Lake City UT 84111 Dear Janice : In the December meeting of the North Redwood Community Council , we were presented with the proposed strip mall plan for the south-east corner of Redwood Road and 7th North . At that meeting those in attendance voted 20 in favor with 4 abstentions of the total proposal . Another vote reflected community opposition to just the construction of a corner gas station on that site. Building any kind of service station as a stand-alone unit, and especially with a car wash was and is unacceptable according to the vote rendered by the community members present. In our February meeting of the North Redwood Community Council , Elliot Christensen presented an update on the project with proposed tenants. The plan again received community support from the project. The vote was 17 in favor and 1 abstention. On March 1st, the Community Council again met and again Mr . Christensen presented a project update. During this meeting Mr. Christensen was asked about hours of operation , signage, traffic flow and other concerns. The community discussed the engineering firms designs and colors for the proposed project. We , the North Redwood Community Council , would like the City to be aware of our concern that the project be a whole project and not pieced together . We do not want the gas station to be only business on that corner. We feel the community can be better served by construction and completion of the entire project as outlined by Mr . Christensen ' s presentations before the Community Council . Sincerely, Tawnia J . Paver Secretary North Redwood Community Council 1 • E i SALT'rra's41 GITV C;ORPORATIONf DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PALMER DEPAULIS ! City Engineering Division • MAX G. PETERSON, P.E. MAYOR `444 SOUTH STATE STREET .'`` CITY ENGINEER SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 535-7871 TO: SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL DATE: FEBRUARY 23 , 1989 REFERENCE: Notice of Intention - Special Improvement District for California Avenue/Pioneer Road to 3400 West. RECOMMENDATION: City Council adopt the Notice of Intention to create the District , authorize the advertising of the Notice of Intention in accordance with the attached schedule, and authorize the advertising for constructing the project. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS : FY 89/90 CIP from Class "C" and property owner assessments through the Special Improvement District . DISCUSSION : This 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 . Two lanes of pavement on the south side of California Avenue will be constructed this spring by the abutting property owner , Rex Dahlberg. The combined projects 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 July 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, a draft of a letter to abutting property owners, a draft Notice of Intention, and a schedule of events for hearings and meetings on this project . The City ' s cost for this project which would be allocated in the 1989/90 Capital Improvement budget is $250 , 000 . CONTACT PERSON: Daniel C. Noziska , 535-7819 NO SUBMITTED BY: Joseph R. Anderson, Director of Public Works JRA:,DN: kg Attachments cc : Max G. Peterson Daniel C. Noziska/Vault 314/24 INFORMATION SHEET CALIFORNIA AVENUE SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 38-808 DISCUSSION: The California Ave./Pioneer Road to 3400 West (Gladiola ) project involves the construction of 2 lanes of concrete pavement on the north side of the street, turn lanes, intersections , curb, gutter , and drainage improvements . Two lanes of pavement on the south side of California Avenue will be constructed this spring by the abutting property owner , Rex Dahlberg. The combined projects 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 July 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) and property owner assessments through the Special Improvement District. PRELIMINARY ESTIMATED COSTS: Property Owner Portion $569 , 812 City ' s Portion 250 , 000 Total Estimated Cost $819 , 812 ( 100o Commercial ) CALIFORNIA AVENUE _- _---- _ , ! PIONEER ROAD TO 3400 WEST r PROJECT NO. 38-808 I '\�. !,. I I. ISk 'y ressollik' a _ ‘..,,: I . / I:I: Y I = I ml l m„ , W I il"�yf I 4. hi • I, I 1 M1• �1, • __ .--- -- 90 i I �.UT.H I-= ;it —NORTH — — N. ,. ‹,, ,,,, , . l ,.. _. ___ -8 ---- - . _, s I 45 ~ N QIREQTORS- ROW r t. N. _ i 4:1- IX ;' 0 Li, ; z ` in 0 INDUSTRIAL I'll' CAUFORNIA AVENUE a CO I � �+Zc M"'t�r� J : 1i W ,( I I 3 , 11 1 �F ', 'I ; vr M I it _ �r- \\ 1-215 " I 4 -. `.` . uI j1 .�= '� NI ,I CENTER .� _ ' \\\\ `1\,\� In �� _ yy l� f...�Nil ' , • , , ________,.,./.. , 1,'_ 21 .0 SOUTH 1 --r I T I ��r" �� /le L j _ . SALT' 'I G ORRO NJON .DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS_ PALMER DEPAULIS 'City Engineering Division • MAX G. PETERSON, P.E. MAYOR '444 SOUTH STATE STREET CITY ENGINEER SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 535-7871 FEBRUARY 23 , 1989 RE: CALIFORNIA AVENUE S. I .D. PROJECT NO. 38-808 Dear Property Owner : We wish to inform you the referenced project which includes your property, is proposed for construction. This project will consist of the construction of two west bound lanes , intersections , traffic signals , turn lanes , curbs , gutters and drainage facilities . Included in this packet is a Notice of Intention describing the project and schedule with the estimated cost per unit to be assessed property owners . Your total assessment for the project can be estimated by multiplying the number of lineal feet of proposed improvements abutting your property by the appropriate rate. The purpose of the Notice of Intention is to allow you to review the estimated costs for this project and to present you with the opportunity to protest the project if in disagreement with it . If the construction bids received agree with project estimates, construction should begin late this summer , with completion scheduled for fall . The Notice of Intention describes how a Special Improvement District is created and operates . The following emphasis the important points in the Notice of Intention. 1) Once the project is completed , Salt Lake City intends to levy the assessments to be paid by property owners . Property owners will be given the option of paying the assessment in full without interest within fifteen (15) days after the ordinance levying the assessment become effective, or paying the assessment in the (10) annual installments with interest on the unpaid balance at the rate or rates fixed by the City Council . • 2) All nonconforming improvements which have been built or installed by abutting property owners within the area to be improved, must be removed by the property owners at their expense prior to the commencement of the project . If these improvements are not removed by the property owners , they will be removed and disposed of by the contractor as directed by the Engineer . 3 ) As the owner of record of the property, you have the right to file a written protests against the creation of the California Avenue Special Improvement District No. 38-808 or to make any other objections relating thereto. Protests shall describe or otherwise identify the property being protested . Protests shall be filed with the City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Utah at 324 South State Street , on or before 5 : 00 PM on the 8th day of May 1989 . Thereafter , at 6 : 00 PM on the 9th day of May 1989 , the City Council will meet in public meeting at the City Council Chambers to consider all protests so filed and hear all objections related to the proposed Improvement District. The protest rate shall be determined by totaling the proposed assessable lineal footage for the property owners filing written protest and dividing it by the total assessable lineal footage of all property owners within the district . "Informal Public Meetings" are scheduled to review this project with interested abutting property owners according to the following schedule: May 4 , 1989 - 2: 00 PM to 3 : 00 PM and 5 : 00 PM to 7 : 00 PM Salt Lake City Engineering Office 444 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah Members of the Engineering Division staff will be present at the meetings with copies of the assessment plats for the projects . They will be available to answer any specific questions property owners have relative to assessment costs and proposed work . Please note attendance at this meeting does not take the place of written protests . Those wishing to protest must follow the procedures outlined in the Notice of Intention. If you have any questions concerning this project, and are unable to attend the meeting, please feel free to contact me at 535- 7819 . Sincerely, • Daniel C. Noziska P.E. Project Manager DCN: kg attachements cc: Vault NOTICE OF INTENTION PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on the 21st day of March 1989 , the Mayor and City Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah ( the "City" ) , adopted a resolution declaring its intention to create a special improvement district to be known as Salt Lake City, Utah, California Avenue Special Improvement District No. 38-808 (the "District" ) . It is the intention of the City Council to make improvements within the District and to levy special taxes as provided in Chapter 16 , Title 10 , Utah Code Annotated, ( 1953 ) , as amended, on the real estate lying within the District for the benefit of which such taxes are to be expended in the making of such improvements . DESCRIPTION OF DISTRICT The District will be constructed within the following described area and boundaries and upon the street named in the section entitled "Street for Improvement" . Block 300 and Block 400 Bara Industrial Park on Sidewell map No. 15-09-300 and Sidewell No. 15-08-400 . Boundaries : The North side of California Avenue from the West side of Pioneer Road and California Avenue Intersection to the West side of 3400 West Street and California Avenue Intersection. The South side of California Avenue from the West side of 3400 West Street and California Avenue intersection to a point 193 feet east of the South East curb return. STREET FOR IMPROVEMENT AND BASIS FOR ASSESSMENT Along California Avenue the abutting property owners will be assessed for improvements built at the herein below estimated rates per front foot of abutting property; for designated widths of roadway measured out from the drainage easement to the center of the roadway; for concrete street, curb and gutter , asphalt shoulder and drainage facilities where they do not now exist and for the abutters portion of certain miscellaneous costs of the project: A map of the District and rates for assessments are available for review in the City Recorder ' s Office. Also available in the City Recorder ' s Office is a list of all property owners affected and rate schedule for each. Those property owners within the District whose property does not abut the newly constructed improvements will not be assessed. All other necessary work shall be done to complete the whole project in a proper and workmanlike manner according to plans , profiles and specifications of file in the office of the Salt Lake City Engineer . All non-conforming improvements such as driveways, curbs and gutters , culverts, walks, fences , etc. , which have been built or installed by abutting property owners within the area to be improved, must be removed by the property owners at their expense prior to the commencement of the project. If these improvements are not removed by the property owners , they will be removed by the contractor and disposed of by him as directed by the Engineer . No fine grading or installing of sprinkling systems will be done under this improvement project. ESTIMATED COST OF IMPROVEMENT The total cost of improvements in said proposed Special Improvement District as estimated by the City Engineer is $819 , 812 of which it is anticipated the City will pay approximately $250 , 000 . The remainder of approximately $569, 812 shall be paid by a special tax to be levied against the property abutting upon the street to be improved or specifically benefited by such improvements . The commitment of the city to pay its portion of the costs of improvements is subject to the availability of funds and compliance with budget approval . The estimated costs include an allowance for contingencies and an allowance of approximately fifteen percent ( 15%) for administrative costs , engineering, legal and other costs in connection with the issuance of bonds . The property owners ' portion of the total estimated costs of the improvements may be financed during the construction period by the use of interim warrants . The interest on the warrants will be included in the costs to be assessed to the property owners. The estimated cost to be assessed against the properties within the District shall be as follows : Front Feet Rate of Abutting Estimated Estimated No. Improvements Property Cost/Foot Cost 1 . Curb , gutter , 24 ' Pavement, asphalt shoulder , turn lanes , street drainage and misc. work. 3706 $138 . 00 $511 , 428 . 00 2 . Rate No. 1 plus back of curb drainage ditch. 328 178 . 00 58 , 384 . 00 Total estimated Abutter ' s portion $569 , 812 . 00 Total estimated City ' s portion 250, 000 . 00 Total estimated Project Cost $819, 812 . 00 The estimated cost of the City' s portion consists of the cost of traffic signalization, paving of all intersections, turn arounds , median improvements , intersection drainage facilities and miscellaneous costs of the project. ASSESSMENT AND LEVY OF TAXES It is the intention of the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah to levy assessments as provided by the laws of Utah on all parcels and lots of real property within the zones of the District. The purpose of the assessment and levy is to pay those costs of the subject improvements which the City will not assume and pay . The method of assessment shall be front foot as set forth herein. The assessments may be paid by property owners in ten (10) equal annual installments with interest on the unpaid balance at a rate or rates fixed by the City Treasurer , or the whole or any part of the assessment may be paid without interest within fifteen ( 15) days after the ordinance levying the assessment becomes effective. The assessments shall be levied according to the benefits to be derived by each property within the District. Other payment provisions and enforcement remedies shall be in accordance with Chapter 16 of Title 10 of Utah Code Annotated, ( 1953 ) , as amended . A map of the proposed District and copies of the preliminary design plans of the proposed improvements and other related information are on file in the office of the City Engineer who will make such information available to all interested persons . TIME FOR FILING PROTESTS Any person who is the owner of record of property to be assessed in the District described in this Notice of Intention shall have the right to file in writing a protest against the creation of the District or to make any other objections relating hereto. Protests shall describe or otherwise identify the property record by the person or persons making the protest. Protests shall be filed with the City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Utah , on or before 5 : 00 p .m. on the 8th day of May 1989 . Thereafter 6 : 00 p. m. on the 9th day of May 1989 , the City Council will meet in public meeting at the City Council Chambers to consider all protests so filed and hear all objections relating to the proposed District. The protest rate shall be determined by totaling the front footage of abutting property owners filing a protest and dividing it by the total front footage of all abutting property owners within the proposed district. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH /s/ Kathryn Marshall City Recorder Published in the Deseret News. Section 5 . The City Engineer is hereby authorized to prepare a notice which calls for bids for the construction of improvements contemplated to be made as Project No. 38-808 ,. and the City Recorder is hereby authorized to publish the Notice to Contractors calling for bids at least one time in the Deseret News , a newspaper of general circulation in Salt Lake City, at least fifteen ( 15) days before the date specified in the notice for the receipt of bids . Councilmember seconded the motion to adopt the foregoing resolution. The motion and resolution were unanimously adopted on the following recorded vote: Those voting AYE: Chairperson Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember Those voting NAY: None After the conduct of other business not pertinent to the above the meeting was , on motion duly made and seconded, adjourned . Chairman ATTEST: City Recorder ( S E A L ) TENTATIVE CALENDAR OF EVENTS SALT LAKE CITY SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 38-808 CALIFORNIA AVENUE/PIONEER ROAD 3400 W• MONDAY, MARCH 6, 1989 ENGINEERING SENDS MUNICIPAL COUNCIL (THE "COUNCIL" ACTION LETTER TO ADOPT NOTICE OF INTENT TUESDAY, MARCH 14, 1989 LEGAL DOCUMENTS TO ADVERTISE NOTICE OF INTENTION TRANSMITTED FROM BALLARD, SPAHR, ANDREWS & INGERSOL ("BOND COUNCIL") TO SALT LAKE CITY (THE "CITY") AND EHRLICH BOBER (THE "FINANCIAL ADVISOR") • TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 1989 COUNCIL ADOPTS NOTICE OF INTENTION FRIDAY, APRIL 7, 1989 FIRST PUBLICATION OF NOTICE OF INTENTION FRIDAY, APRIL 14, 1989 DEADLINE FOR MAILING NOTICE OF INTENTION FRIDAY, APRIL 14, 1989 SECOND PUBLICATION OF NOTICE OF INTENTION FRIDAY, APRIL 21, 1989 THIRD PUBLICATION OF NOTICE OF INTENTION FRIDAY, APRIL 28, 1989 FOURTH PUBLICATION OF NOTICE OF INTENTION THURSDAY, MAY 4, 1989 INFORMAL INFORMATION MEETING MONDAY, MAY 8, 1989 DEADLINE FOR WRITTEN PROTESTS TUESDAY, MAY 9, 1989 PROTEST HEARING FRIDAY, MAY 12, 1989 COUNCIL SENT ACTION LETTER TO CREATE DISTRICT TUESDAY, MAY 16, 1989 LEGAL DOCUMENTS CREATING THE DISTRICT TRANS- MITTED FROM BOND COUNSEL TO THE CITY AND THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR• TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 1989 COUNCIL ADOPTS RESOLUTION CREATING DISTRICT TUESDAY, JULY 11, 1989 CONSTRUCTION BIDS OPENED TUESDAY, JULY 11, 1989 COUNCIL ADOPTS A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST BIDDER• MONDAY, AUGUST 8, 1989 CONSTRUCTION BEGINS OCTOBER 1989 CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE FEBRUARY 13,14,15, 1989 BOARD OF EQUALIZATION • TRANSITIONAL HOUSING GRANT OPERATIONS PRO FORMA TRANSITIONAL.PF1 �\�� 06 DEC 1988 08:39AM OPERATING COST Line Item PUM Cost Units Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Maint. Salaries 8.62 16 1,655.04 1,704.69 1,755.83 1,808. 50 1,862.75 8,7136.81 Maint Materials 6.67 16 1,280.64 1,319.05 1,358.62 1,399.37 1,441.35 6,799. 03 Maine. Contracts 10.32 16 1,981.44 2,040.88 2, 102. 10 2, 165. 16 2,230. 11 10,519. 69 Other Maintenance 3.95 16 758. 40 781. 15 804.5B 828.71 853.57 4,026.41 Total Maintenance 5,675. 52 5,845.77 6,021. 13 6,201.74 6,387.78 30, 131.94 Electricity 31. 74 16 6,094.08 6,276. 90 6,465.20 6,659. 15 6,858.92 32,354.25 Gas 12. 84 16 2.465.28 2,539.23 2,615.40 2,693.86 2,774.67 13,088.44 Water/Sewer 17. 69 16 3,396.48 3,498.37 3,603.32 3,711.41 3,822.75 18,032.33 Other 3.21 16 616.32 634.80 653.134 673.45 693.65 3,272.06 Total Utilities 12,572. 16 12,949.30 13,337.76 13,737.87 14, 149.99 66,747. OB Reserve for Replace 25. 00 16 4,800.00 4,944.00 5,092.32 5,245.08 5,402.43 25,483.83 Furnish ines 53.21 16 10,216.32 10,522.BO 10,83B.48 11,163.63 11,498. 53 54,239.76 Total Capital Exp 15,016.32 15,466.80 15,930.130 16,408.71 16,900.96 79,723. 59 HA Admin. Salaries 15. 25 16 2,928.00 3,015.84 3, 106.31 3, 199.49 3,295.47 15,545. 11 HA Admin. Other 15. 39 16 2,954.88 3,043. 52 3, 134.82 3,228.86 3,325.72 15,687.BO Housing Asst. Salary 11. 11 16 2, 133. 12 2, 197. 11 2,263.02 2,330.91 2,400.83 11,324.99 Accounting & Computer 17.05 16 3,273.60 3,371.80 3,472.95 3,577. 13 3,684.44 17,379.92 Insurance 7.32 16 1,405.44 1,447.60 1,491.02 1,535.75 1,581.82 7,461.63 Total HA Admin. 12,695.04 13,075.87 13,468. 12 13,872. 14 14,288.28 67,399.45 Support Serv. Adair. 83. 50 16 16,992.00 17,501.76 18,026.81 18,567.61 19, 124.63 90,212.81 Resident Supervisor 130. 21 16 25,000.32 25,750.32 26,522.132 27,318.50 28, 138.05 132,730.01 Total Support 41,992.32 43,252.08 44, 549.63 45,886. 11 47,262.68 222,942.82 TOTAL COST 87,951.36 90,589.82 93,307.44 96, 106. 57 98,989.69 466,944. 88 OPERATING REVENUE .Tettant.Renh 75. 00 •6 4140400-.- 14,832.00 15,276. 96 15,735.26 16,207.31 76,451. 53 HUD-ranfr 229.04 16 443 ,375 43,975.68 43,975.68 43,975.68 43,975.68 219,878.40 VOA rrondts 73.60 16 44r'131 1,0 14,555. 13 14,991.78 15,441. 53 15,904.77 75,024.41 Sa 1 t _a k_@C i. ,y ,Funds 80 44 16 A5r.444.>4ea 17,227.01 19,063.02 20,954. 10 22,901.93 95,590. 54 TOTAL REVENUE 87,951.36 90, 589.82 93,307. 44 96, 106. 57 98,989.69 466,944. 88 -OPERATING VARIANCE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.00 STAFF RECOMMENDATION INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENTS HOUSING AUTHORITY MARCH 17, 1988 STAFF RECOMMENDATION BY: Cindy Gust-Jenson ACTION REQUESTED BY COUNCIL: Adopt two resolutions authorizing Interlocal Cooperation Agreements between Salt Lake City and the Housing Authority. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The first agreement replaces agreements signed in 1971 and 1979 it maintains the provision requiring that the Housing Authority make annual payments to the City in lieu of taxation. The agreement has been approved by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The second agreement establishes that the City will transfer such payments in lieu of taxation back to the Housing Authority for use in funding the Transitional Housing Program. During the budget opening on this same City Council agenda the Council will be asked to approve appropriation of the payment in lieu of taxation funds from the general fund to the Housing Authority. The Council will need to delay adoption of these resolutions until after the decision on the funding is made during the budget opening. STAFF ANALYSIS: The .transitional housing program would involve cooperation from the Housing Authority, Volunteers of America and Salt Lake City. Volunteers of America has a grant to be used over a five-year program. According to the terms of the grant, the program being 'established is required to continue for at least five years beyond that time, for a total of 10 years. Salt Lake City's contribution is proposed to be $252, 219 the amount currently owed to the City by the Housing Authority for payment in lieu of taxation. The City would also appropriate (transfer) on an annual basis the Housing Authority's annual payment in lieu of taxat10 for the continued operation of the program. The lump-sum transfer of $267181that the City would make right away would combine with funds from the Housing Authority and the Volunteers of America grant to purchase and rehab 16 homes and operate the program. The annual transfer of payment in lieu of taxation funds would be used to maintain the homes and operate the program. The Housing Authority is required to report to the City on the expenditure of the funds. The City will have no obligation to the program if it does not receive payment from the Housing Authority. In addition, the agreement holds the City harmless for all claims made in relation to this agreement. I have had an opportunity to speak with each member of the Council on this issue and have found the major item of concern to be one of ensuring that the transitional housing proposed to be acquired is maintained adequately. I have made the Housing Authority aware of this concern, and Arlo Nelson has indicated that he is very aware of this, and that adequate funds will be allocated for maintenance. The units proposed are single-family sites scattered throughout the City. They will be maintained as the other individual units throughout the City are. (The Housing Authority has had some difficulty in the past with large multifamily units, and they are working to resolve that problem. On individual single-family units, such as the transitional housing units would be, they indicate they receive very few complaints. ) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Suspend the rules and adopt the resolutions on first reading. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move we suspend the rules and adopt on first reading the resolution authorizing the execution of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between the Housing Authority and Salt Lake City, replacing the 1971 and 1979 agreements. I move we suspend the rules and adopt on first reading the resolution authorizing the execution of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between the Housing Authority and Salt Lake City, relating to the Transitional Housing Program. HOUSING AUTHORITY of Salt Lake City Scu:h West Temple.Suite 204 Salt Lake City Utah 841 t 5 February 14, 1989 (8011 483-540; Peter Stever'-. Craig E Peterson !Jrtn^o,,,np,r'nPark e' Mr. Willie Stoler, Chairman Salt Lake City Council S,L; ; 324 South State Street, Third Floor Salt Lake City, UT 84111 4,io n Netson AICP Dear Mr. Stoler: I respectfully request the City Council's approval and execution of the attached Cooperation Agreement. This Agreement is essentially the same as the Coopera- tion Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City which is currently in place. The only notable changes are deletion of outdated language because of new Federal provisions and an increase in the number of housing units the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City is allowed to operate from 1000 to 1500. These changes have been reviewed and approved by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Enclosed is a copy of a letter received from Francis Lively, attorney, granting authority for the City and Housing Authority to sign the agreements cancelling the 1971 and 1979 Agreements. Please call me at 483-5407 if you have questions or need more information about this Agreement. Sincerely, Arlo R. N son Executive Director ARN:CS:ls Attachment RESOLUTION NO. OF 1989 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SALT LAKE CITY WHEREAS, Title 11 Chapter 13 of the Utah Code Annotated 1953 as amended allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, the attached agreement has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1. That it does hereby approve the attached agreement generally described as follows: Renewal of low-rent housing program of the Housing Authority of Salt Lake 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 this day of , 1989 . SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER SWA.cc JRN 18 '89 14:46 HUD DENVER roc rv�r U.S.Departm. .of Housing and Urban Development ;. �t,i* t Denver Regional Office.Region Vil1 s Executive Tower 1405 Curtis Street Denver.Colorado 80202-2349 January 18, 1989 William 0. Oswald American Plaza I1 , Suite 500 57 West 200 South Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Dear Mr. Oswald: This is in response to your letter of December 20, 1988, in which you requested approval by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) of a proposed Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City. It is our opinion that the form of Cooperation Agreement attached hereto complies with the HUD guide form of cooperation agreement (a copy of which is enclosed for your information)rand is, therefore, approved for execution by the parties thereto. Once it is executed, plcaac forward a Qupj ur Llie aysc mclL Lu Lliia lerrli.m. 2r wee uan low LIT TurL.hur us*l*tenet, plvouc call me a'e (303) 844-4148_ ♦ y 3-y yours, • rances Cox Lively/( Attorney-Advisor • Enclosure • 47- e"°Y1"Ai L41 COOPERATION AGREEMENT This Agreement entered into this day of January, 1989 , between the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City (hereinafter called the "Local Authority" ) and Salt Lake City Corporation (herein called the "Municipality" ) , WITNESSETH: NOW, THEREFORE , in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Whenever used in this Agreement: (a) The term "Project" shall mean any low-rent housing facility previously or hereafter developed or acquired by the Local Authority with financial assistance of the United States of America acting through the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (herein called the "Government" or his successor) . (b) The term "Taxing Body" shall mean the State of Utah or any political subdivision or taxing unit thereof in which a Project is situated and which would have authority to assess or levy real or personal property taxes or to certify such taxes to a taxing body or public officer to be levied for its use and benefit with respect to a Project if it were not exempt from taxation under the provisions of the Utah State Constitution and statutes . (c ) The term "Shelter Rent" shall mean the total of all charges to all tenants of a Project for dwelling rents and non-dwelling rents (excluding all other income of such Project ) , less the cost to the Local Authority of all dwelling and non-dwelling utilities. 2. The Local Authority shall endeavor: (a) To secure a contract or contracts with the Government for loans and annual contributions covering one or more Projects comprising approximately 1, 500 units of low-rent housing ; and (b ) To develop or acquire and administer such Project or Projects, each of which shall be located within the incorporated area of the Municipality. The obligations of the parties hereto shall apply to each such Project. 3 . (a) Under the Constitution and statutes of the State of Utah, all Projects are exempt from all taxes and assesments , including real and personal property taxes and special assessments , levied or imposed by any Taxing Body. With respect to any Project, so long as either ( i ) such Project is owned by the Local Authority, a public body, or governmental agency and is used for low-rent housing purposes or ( ii ) any contract between the Local Authority and the Government for loans or annual contributions, or both, in connection with such Project remains in force and effect, or (iii ) any bonds or other indebtedness issued in connection with such Project or any monies due to the Government in connection with such Project remain unpaid, whichever period is the longest, the Municipality agrees that it will not levy or impose any taxes and special assesments, including but not limited to real or personal property taxes and special assessments, upon such Project or upon the Local Authority with respect thereto. During such period , the Local Authority shall make annual payments (herein called "Payments in Lieu of Taxes" ) in lieu of such taxes and special assessments and in payment for the public services and facilities furnished from time to time without other cost or charge for or with respect to such project. (b) Each such annual Payment in Lieu of Taxes shall be made at the time when real property taxes on such project would be paid if it were subject to taxation, and shall be in an amount equal to either (1 ) ten percent ( 10% ) of the Shelter Rent actually collected but in no event to exceed ten percent ( 10% ) of the Shelter Rent charged by the Local Authority in respect to such Project during the 12 months ' period ending October 31 before such payment is made , or ( ii ) the amount permitted to be paid by applicable State law in effect on the date such payment is made whichever amount is the lower. (c ) No payment for any year shall be made to the Municipality in excess of the amount of the real property taxes which would have been paid to the Municipality for such year if the Project were not exempt from taxation. (d ) Upon failure of the Local Authority to make any required Payment in Lieu of Taxes , no lien against any Project or assets of the Local Authority shall attach, nor shall any interest or penalties accrue or attach on account thereof . 4 . During the period commencing with the date of the acquisition of any part of the site or sites of any - 2 - Project and continuing so long as either ( i ) such Project is owned by a public body or governmental agency and is used for low-rent housing purposes, or ( ii ) any contract between the Local Authority and the Government for loans or annual contributions, or both, connection with such Project remains in force and effect, or ( iii ) any bonds issued in connection with such Project or any monies due to the Government in connection with such Project remain unpaid, which ever period is the longest, the Municipality without cost or charge to the Local Authority or the tenants of such Project (other than the Payments in Lieu of Taxes ) shall : (a ) Furnish or cause to be furnished to the Local Authority and the tenants of such Project public services and facilities of the same character and to the same extent as are furnished from time to time without cost or charge to other dwellings and inhabitants in the Municipality. (b) Vacate such streets , roads and alleys within the area of such Project as may be necessary in the development thereof, and convey without charge to the Local Authority such interest as the Municipality may have in such vacated areas ; and, insofar as it is lawfully able to do so without cost or expense to the Local Authority or to the Municipality, cause to be removed from such vacated areas, insofar as it may be necessary, all public or private utility lines and equipment. (c) Insofar as the Municipality may lawfully do so, ( i ) grant such deviations from the building code of the Municipality as are reasonable and necessary to promote economy and efficiency in the development and administration of such Project, and at the same time safeguard health and safety, and ( ii ) make such changes in any zoning of the site and surrounding territory of such Project as are reasonable and necessary for the development and protection of such Project and the surrounding territory. (d) Accept grants of easements necessary for development of such Project. (e) Cooperate with the Local Authority by such other lawful action or ways as the Municipality and the Local Authority may find necessary in connection with the development and administration of such Project. - 3 - 5. In respect to any project the Municipality further agrees that within a reasonable time after receipt of a written request therefor from the Local Authority: (a ) It will accept the dedication of all interior streets , roads , alleys, and adjacent sidewalks within the area of such Project , together with all storm and sanitary sewer mains in such dedicated areas , after the Local Authority, at its own expense, has completed the grading, improvement, paving , and installation thereof in accordance with specifications acceptable to the Municipality. (b) It will accept necessary dedications of land for, and will grade, improve , pave , and provide sidewalks for , all streets bounding such Project or necessary to provide adequate access thereto ( in consideration whereof the Local Authority shall pay to the Municipality such amount as would be assessed against the Project site for such work if such site were privately owned. ) (c) It will provide , or cause to be provided, water mains and storm and sanitary sewer mains , leading to such Project and serving the bounding streets thereof ( in consideration whereof the Local Authority shall pay to the Municipality such amount as would be assessed against the Project site for such work if such site were privately owned. ) 6. If by reason of the Municipality 's failure or refusal to furnish or cause to be furnished any public services or facilities which it has agreed hereunder to furnish or to cause to be furnished to the Local Authority or to the tenants of any Project, the Local Authority incurs any expense to obtain such services or facilities then the Local Authority may deduct the amount of such expense from any Payments in Lieu of Taxes due or to become due to the Municipality in respect to any Project or any other low-rent housing projects owned or operated by the Local Authority. 7. All Cooperation Agreements heretofore entered into between the Municipality and the Local Authority are herewith terminated and no provisions contained in any previous Cooperation Agreements shall be construed to apply to any Project covered by this Agreement. The Cooperation Agreements bearing the dates of March 16 , 1971 and January 9 , 1979 are superseded and this Agreement shall constitute the sole Agreement between the parties. - 4 - 8. No member of the governing body of the Municipality or any other public official of the Municipality who exercises any responsibilities or functions with respect to any Project during his tenure or for one year thereafter shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in any Project or any property included or planned to be included in any Project, or any contracts in connection with such Projects or property. If any such governing body member or such public official of the Municipality involuntarily acquires or had acquired prior to the beginning of his tenure any such interest , he shall immediately disclose such interest to the Local Authority. 9. So long as any contract between the Local Authority and the Government for loans ( including preliminary loans ) or annual contributions, or both, in connection with any Project remains in force and effect, or so long as any bonds issued in connection with any Project or any monies due to the Government in connection with any Project remain unpaid, this Agreement shall not be abrogated, changed or modified without the consent of the Municipality, the Local Authority and the Government. The privileges and obligations of the Municipality hereunder shall remain in full force and effect with respect to each Project so long as the beneficial title to such Project is held by the Local Authority or by any other public body or governmental agency, including the Government, authorized by law to engage in the development or administration of low-rent housing projects. If at any time the beneficial title to, or possession of, any Project is held by such other public body or governmental agency, including the Government, the provisions hereof shall inure to the benefit of and may be enforced by, such other public body or governmental agency, including the Government. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Municipality and the Local Authority have respectfully signed this Agreement and caused their seals to be affixed and attested as of the day and year first above written. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION By Palmer DePaulis (SEAL) Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Marshal Salt Lake City Recorder - 5 - HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SALT LAKE CITY By Craig E. Peterson Vice-Chairman Board of Commissioners BY ��Arlo N67-\,..66„ oq Executiie Director (SEAL) ATTEST: ` �\ Lisa I. Stocking Secretary STATE OF UTAH : ss. COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) On the day of January, 1989 , personally appeared before me Palmer DePaulis the Mayor of Salt Lake City and Kathryn Marshal , the Salt Lake City Recorder, who being by me duly sworn did say that the within and foregoing instrument was signed in behalf of said Corporation by authority of a resolution of its board of directors and that they duly acknowledged to me that said Corporation executed the same and that the seal affixed is the seal of the Corporation . Notary Public My Commission Expires : Residing at: - \S'VED DS TO FORM 6 -IA LEGAL COUNSEL STATE OF UTAH ) : ss. COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) On the 114/ day of January, 1989 , personally appeared before me Craig E. Peterson, the Vice-Chairman of the Board of the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City, Arlo Nelson, the Executive Director of the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City , and Lisa Stocking, the Secretary of the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City, who being by me duly sworn did say that the within and foregoing instrument was signed in behalf of said Corporation by authority of a resolution of its board of directors and that they duly acknowledged to me that said Corporation executed the same and that the seal affixed is the- eal_ o the C• .. oration. Gi. rig otary Publicy �� / , / /A�_ My Commission Expires: Residing at: �tiK/� L�Ce w14/YI 103 -14 1 10/�9 cca 1ARy 0 A co 6413 ,�My G� c BR Ion 5: /sr,�vF-25.9 A (1) rhi, n 7 SLir a e ,E, 'ARK 70 - 7 - HOUSING AUTHORITY of Salt Lake City 180C South West Temple.Suite 20t Salt Lake City.Utah 84115 (8011480-5407 February 14 , 1989 Peter Slevecs ^a- Craig E Peterso^ vice CAA'•ra^ Norich oa,e' a�yL Mr. Willie Stoler, Chairman s��,z o�e Salt Lake City Council 324 South State Street, Third Floor %t•l.R Nelec- Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Dear Mr. Stoler: I respectfully request the City Council's approval and execution of the attached Cooperation Agreement. This Agreement establishes funding for the Transitional Housing Program of the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City. Transitional Housing is a program which places families with children from homeless shelters and other homeless resource agencies in units owned by the Housing Authority. They are allowed to live in the units for up to 18 months while receiving job training and education, health screening, home management education and other social services they may need to make the transition from homelessness to a more permanent living situation. The City will not need to allocate General Fund revenue to this program but will return to the Housing Authority funds received pursuant to provisions of 55-18-15 UCA. You will note that the City has no obligation unless it first receives payment from the Housing Authority. Please call me at 483-5407 if you have questions or need more information about this Agreement. Sincerely, . 1M. rlo R. a son Executi e irector ARN: CS: ls Attachment RESOLUTION NO. OF 1989 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SALT LAKE CITY WHEREAS, Title 11 Chapter 13 of the Utah Code Annotated 1953 as amended allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, the attached agreement has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1. That it does hereby approve the attached agreement generally described as follows: Establishes the funding program for the Transitional Housing Program of the Housing Authority of Salt Lake 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 this day of , 1989. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER SWA.cc COOPERATION AGREEMENT This Agreement entered into this day of January , 1989 , between the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City (hereinafter called the "Local Authority" ) and Salt Lake City Corporation (herein called the "Municipality" ) , WITNESSETH : WHEREAS, the Local Authority was organized pursuant to the provisions of Section 55-18-1 , et seq. to accomplish the objectives concerning housing conditions as described in the legislative policy and purposes of Title 55, Chapter 18 ; and WHEREAS, the Municipality has established a Housing Authority to provide low-cost housing for medium and low income persons and desires to cooperate with the Local Authority to provide additional housing units for the operation of a Transitional Housing Program for homeless persons or families to alleviate a growing problem in the community resulting from the effects of poverty; and WHEREAS, Title 11 , Chapter 13 , Utah Code Annotated 1953 , as amended, authorizes contracts between public agencies for the performance of governmental services which promote the general welfare and which each public agency is authorized by law to perform; and WHEREAS, the Local Authority and the Municipality as separate political subdivisions desire to enter into this Cooperation Agreement to establish, operate and finance a Transitional Housing Program; and WHEREAS, the Local Authority is a municipal corporation within the provisions of Article 13 , Section 2 of the Constitution of the State of Utah and all of the property of the Local Authority is exempt from all taxes on its public property used for essential public, governmental and charitable purposes, but Section 55-18-15, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended , specifically allows a Local Authority to make payments to any public body such as a Municipality which are consistent with the purposes of Housing Authority Act. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto agree as follows : 1 . Whenever used in this Agreement : (a ) The term "Project" shall mean any low-rent housing facility hereafter developed or acquired by the Local Authority with financial assistance of the United States of America acting through the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (herein called the "Government" or his successor , ) excluding, however, any low-rent housing facility covered by any contract for loans and annual contributions entered into between the Local Authority and the Government, or its predecessor agencies , prior to the date of this Agreement which is not intended to be covered by this Agreement . (b) The term "Transitional Housing Program" or "Program" shall mean temporary subsidized housing in units owned or leased by the Local Authority located within the incorporated area of the Municipality for homeless persons or families for a time period not to exceed eighteen ( 18 ) months of continuous occupancy. The Program may include the offering of other assistance including, but not limited to, counseling, training, and referral to other federal , state , local or private community sponsored social service agencies for homeless persons . 2. - The Local Authority shall endeavor: ( a) To develop or acquire a number of low-rent housing units as the Local Authority shall acquire with grants or other financial assistance for use in a Transitional Housing Program as designated under the provisions of this Agreement. (b) To administer a Transitional Housing Program, each unit of which shall be located within the incorporated area of the Municipality. The obligations of the parties hereto shall apply to each such Project. 3. (a ) Under the Constitution and statutes of the State of Utah, all property owned by the Local Authority and all housing units are exempt from all taxes, including real and personal property taxes , levied or imposed by any Taxing Body. With respect to any Project or Transitional Housing Program so long as either ( i ) such Project or Transitional Housing Program is owned by the Local Authority, a public body, or governmental agency and is used for low-rent housing purposes or ( ii ) any contract between the Local Authority and the Government for loans or annual contributions , or both, in connection with such Project or Transitional Housing Program remains in force and effect , or ( iii ) any bonds or other indebtedness issued in connection with such Project or Transitional Housing Program or any monies due to the Government in - 2 - connection with such Project or Transitional Housing Program remain unpaid, whichever period is the longest, the Municipality agrees that it will not levy or impose any taxes, including but not limited to real or personal property taxes , upon such Project or Transitional Housing Program or upon the Local Authority with respect thereto. (b) Upon failure of the Local Authority to make any required payment pursuant to paragraph 4 hereof , the Municipality shall have no obligation or responsibility to make any transfer payment pursuant to paragraph 5 hereof. If the Local Authority fails to make the payment, no lien against any Project or Transitional Housing Program or assets of the Local Authority shall attach, nor shall any interest or penalties accrue or attached on account thereof. 4. In consideration of the mutual benefits derived by the parties in furtherance of the purposes of Chapter 18 , Title 55 , Utah Code Annotated or its successor , the Local Authority agrees to make payments to the Municipality as permitted and authorized under the provisions of Section 55-18-15, Utah Code Annotated 1953 , as amended. The payment by the Local Authority shall be made to the Municipality on or before November 30th, as more fully described in that certain Cooperation Agreement between the parties dated January , 1989 , a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "A" arid—incorporated herein by reference. Such payment shall be in an amount equal to either ( i ) ten percent ( 10% ) of the amount of Shelter Rent actually collected by the Local Authority in respect to such Project or Transitional Housing Program during the 12 month period ending October 31 before such payment is made, or ( ii ) the amount permitted to be paid by applicable State law in effect on the date such payment is made whichever amount is the lower. 5. During the period of this Agreement, the Municipality covenants and agrees to pay the Local Authority a transfer payment in an amount of money equal to all payments made by the Local Authority to the Municipality under the Cooperation Agreement attached as Exhibit "A" . The payments made by the Local Authority to the Municipality as described in paragraph 4 and the Cooperation Agreement attached as Exhibit "A" , and the transfer payment made by - the Municipality to the Local Authority as described in paragraph 5 , shall , to the extent possible, be made simultaneously with the exchange of checks. The Local Authority shall give the Municipality ten ( 10 ) days advance written notice of the amount of the payment to be made on or before November - 3 - 30th each year, and the Municipality shall issue its transfer payment check and exchange its transfer payment check for the payment check of the Local Authority on November 30th, or the last business working day prior to said date if November 30th is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. The Local Authority shall be obligated upon receipt of the payments to spend such payments for the development, acquisition, operation and administration of a Transitional Housing Program, including , but not limited to, the purchase of public officials liability insurance for the Local Authority, its commissioners , executive director, and staff, including their agents and employees in such amounts as the Local Authority 's governing board shall determine is necessary in operating the Transitional Housing Program. The Local Authority shall consult with the Municipality in establishing the policies governing the Transitional Housing Program. 6. The Local Authority shall include in its annual report a summary of the Transitional Housing Program and the manner in which the payments were expended in furtherance of the Program. 7 . In furtherance of the Transitional Housing Program as herein described, the Municipality may: (a) Furnish or cause to be furnished to the Local Authority and the tenants of such Transitional Housing Program public services and facilities of the same character and to the same extent as are furnished from time to time without cost or charge to other dwellings and inhabitants in the Municipality. (b ) Vacate such streets , roads and alleys within the area of such Transitional Housing Program as may be necessary in the development thereof , and convey without charge to the Local Authority such interest as the Municipality may have in such vacated areas ; and, insofar as it is lawfully able to do so without cost or expense to the Local Authority or to the Municipality, cause to be removed from such vacated areas , insofar as it may be necessary, all public or private utility lines and equipment. (c ) Insofar as the Municipality may lawfully do so, ( i ) grant such deviations from the building code of the Municipality as are reasonable and necessary to promote economy and efficiency in the development and administration of such Transitional Housing Program and at the same time safeguard health and safety, and ( ii ) make such changes in any zoning of the site and surrounding - 4 - territory of such Transitional Housing Program as are reasonable and necessary for the development and protection of such Transitional Housing Program and the surrounding territory. (d ) Accept grants of easements necessary for development of such Transitional Housing Program. (e ) Cooperate with the Local Authority by such other lawful action or ways as the Municipality and the Local Authority may find necessary in connection with the development and administration of such Transitional Housing Program. 8. In respect to any Transitional Housing Program, the Municipality further agrees that within a reasonable time after receipt of a written request therefor from the Local Authority: (a) It may accept the dedication of all interior streets, roads , alleys, and adjacent sidewalks within the area of such Project, together with all storm and sanitary sewer mains in such dedicated areas, after the Local Authority, at its own expense , has completed the grading, improvement , paving , and installation thereof in accordance with specifications acceptable to the Municipality. (b) It may accept necessary dedications of land for, and may grade , improve , pave, and provide sidewalks for , all streets bounding such Transitional Housing Program or necessary to provide adequate access thereto ( in consideration whereof the Local Authority shall pay to the Municipality such amount as would be assessed against the Transitional Housing Program site for such work if such site were privately owned. ) (c) It may provide , or cause to be provided , water mains and storm and sanitary sewer mains, leading to such Transitional Housing Program and serving the bounding streets thereof ( in consideration whereof the Local Authority shall pay to the Municipality such amount as would be assessed against the Transitional Housing Program site for such work if such site were privately owned. ) 9 . The Cooperation Agreements between the Municipality and the Local Authority dated March 16 , 1971 and January 9 , 1979 , are terminated and no provisions contained in those Cooperation Agreements shall be construed to apply to any Project or to any Transitional Housing Program covered by this Agreement . - 5 - 10. No employee of the Municipality or any other public official of the Municipality who exercises any responsibilities or functions with respect to any Transitional Housing Program during his tenure or for one year thereafter shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in any Transitional Housing Program or any property included or planned to be included in any Transitional Housing Program, or any contracts in connection with such Transitional Housing Program or property. If any such employee or such public official of the Municipality involuntarily acquires or had acquired prior to the beginning of his tenure any such interest, he shall immediately disclose such interest to the Local Authority. 11. The Local Authority agrees to indemnify, save harmless and defend the City, its agents and employees from all claims , damages, demands , actions costs and charges, including attorney 's fees , arising out of or by reason of any act or failure to act pursuant to the terms of this Agreement and the termination of the Cooperation Agreements pursuant to paragraph 9 hereof. 12. The City 's responsibility to perform any obligation hereunder except the obligation of the Municipality to pay the Local Authority as described in paragraph 5, all of the monies received from the Local Authority as described in paragraph 4 , shall be subject to the appropriation and availability of funds necessary to fulfill any such obligation. If such funds are not appropriated or available , the City shall have no obligation or liability to the Authority under this Agreement or any other cause whatsoever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Municipality and the Local Authority have respectfully signed this Agreement and caused their seals to be affixed and attested as of the day and year first above written. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION By Palmer DePaulis Mayor (SEAL) ATTEST: Kathryn Marshal Salt Lake City Recorder - 6 - HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SALT LAKE CITY Craig E\Peterson Vice-Chairman Board of Commissioners /26 By h..,., Arlo N is n Executive Director (SEAL) ATTEST: Lisa I. Stocking Secretary STATE OF UTAH : ss. COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) On the day of January, 1989 , personally appeared before me Palmer DePaulis the Mayor of Salt Lake City and Kathryn Marshal , the Salt Lake City Recorder , who being by me duly sworn did say that the within and foregoing instrument was signed in behalf of said Corporation by authority of a resolution of its board of directors and that they duly acknowledged to me that said Corporation executed the same and that the seal affixed is the seal of the Corporation. Notary Public Residing at: My Commission Expires: N OVED AS lO FORM - 7 - STATE OF UTAH . ss. COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) On the O day of January, 1989 , personally appeared before me Craig E. Peterson, the Vice-Chairman of the Board of the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City, Arlo Nelson, the Executive Director of the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City, and Lisa Stocking , the Secretary of the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City, who being by me duly sworn did say that the within and foregoing instrument was signed in behalf of said Corporation by authority of a resolution of its board of directors and that they duly acknowledged to me that said Corporation executed the same and that the seal affixed is the seal of the Corporation. )6/17 .1 . COOKZI Notary Public Residing at: SST L4e CoUt."-Ri My Commission Expires: h,rN 2 ) qz 103D-12 1/10/89 cca n �0 3C emei lies Lp'm300E1 urogZgt )111V1O'V 3NIlSIifH3 L6'SZ-6 saJldz3 Vj uomtw) AN7 'Po - 8 - SALT FAIT CITY"CORPORATION' - 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 November 15, 1988 RE: Petition No. 400-537-88 submitted by Salt Lake City Corporation Recommendation: That the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting Petition No. 400-537-87 for the purpose of City Council Review. We further recommend that the City Council hold a public hearing on January 17, 1988 at 6:20 p.m: to discuss Petition No. 400-537 submitted by Salt • Lake City Corporation which requests that City Creek Canyon be annexed into Salt Lake City. -. • Availability of Funds: Not applicable . Discussion and Background: Salt Lake City, has initiated annexation of this area to assure that Salt Lake City will have more control over the • watershed, and direct control over any land use issues that may arise in • the canyon in future years. The Planning Commission has reviewed this petition and has recommended that the area be annexed and be zoned "P-1" Foothill Preservation Zone be applied to the entire area. Legislative Documents: The City Attorney's Office has prepared the necessary resolution and is ready for your action. Submitted by: • • /.7 ---(7T;\ CRAIG E. /Ert.J.ZSON Director. lf/ 4.• • • "L'''.ir‘16"- O&1 • • • . • • • SALT LAKE CITY' AMENDMENT TO MASTER ANNEXATION POLICY DECLARATION CITY CREEK AMENDMENT • Area 15 - City Creek • • . • • -.% • Prepared by Salt Lake City Planning Department .:* • - Introduction The following information is provided to satisfy requirements of the Utah Boundary Commission Act of 1979 as set forth in Section 10-2-401 through 10-2- 423 Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended. In harmony with the intent of the act, Salt Lake City prepared a Master Annexation Policy Declaration in 1979. The City Creek amendment was not included in the 1979 policy declaration. This report updates and amends the . Master Annexation Policy Declaration to include the proposed City Creek annexation area, as Area .15 - City Creek. City Creek Canyon has been preserved in its natural state as a watershed area for Salt Lake City through the years. The only structures in the canyon are the water treatment plant, a reservoir, and the watershed caretaker's home. Salt Lake City is a major property owner in the canyon. However, . since the canyon is not within the city's corporate boundaries, Salt Lake City doesn't have zoning and lard use control. Because such a large majority of the canyon is owned by Salt Lake City and the U.S. Forest Service, • :significant development in the canyon is rot likely in the foreseeable future. ti However, annexation will give the city direct land use control, and greater - control over any future proposals for the canyon that may be prompted by changes in ownership, Forest Service lard management policies, etc. In April 1986, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the City Creek Master Plan. This plan identifies the city's planning goals and policies regarding the area of proposed annexation. A major planning goal outlined in the City Creek Plan is to preserve City Creek Canyon in its natural state as a protected watershed area and for limited recreation. It recommends that the city pursue annexation of. City Creek Canyon as one of the means of implementing the plan. Annexation will enable the city to have more control in protecting the watershed and obtaining more direct control over any land use issues that may arise in the area in the future. 15.1 Area Considered for Annexation The attached map depicts the proposed annexation area. It includes unincorporated land contiguous to Salt Lake City's northeastern boundary within census tract 1101.01. The area consists of approximately 5,568 acres. f I • • 15.2 Land Use and Socio-Economic Characteristics The proposed annexation area is primarily alpine forest and woodlands in . public ownership. The two major land owners are the United States Forest Service and Salt Lake City Corporation. All of the property-considered for annexation lies within the watershed of City Creek and is within Salt Lake County. The one privately owned parcel is the Woodruff mining claim. This claim - lies within Sections 1 and 12 of T1N, R1E of the Salt Lake Base Meridian. 15.3 Assessed Property Value The County Assessor's records shwa no assessed property value for the annexation area. The publicly owned land is exempt from local taxing _ _ jurisdictions. The mining claim has a special Utah State property tax assessment of fifty dollars per acre. 15.4 Comparison of the Cost of Government Services The mining claim would not be affected by any change in local - . jurisdiction. The tax rate of fifty dollars per acre would remain the same. It is also the intent of the city to eventually obtain ownership of all properties within this annexation. The City Public Utilities Department is presently negotiating with Mr. Woodruff to purchase his mining claim. Due to the amount of publicly owned land, and the existing policies prohibiting development in this area, annexation will have minimal or no impact on the cost of government services. There are no government services • being provided to the mining claim. • • 15.5 Urban Services - . Urban services such as streets, water and sewer systems, and refuse . collection are not available to this area. Upon annexation into SaL. Lake City such services will not be made available. The City Creek drainage area must be protected from any development to protect the areas primary benefit to the citizens of Salt Lake as a watershed for culinary water resources. - ... . .... .. .a-c'.:-. .. .-s:':,.:-Sm3i s.-..�•-K:-e-�'.i�t'g:�;yx�e_:F:ix•1*arro;.n�es.eiaa�a • SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT REGARDING PETITION NO. 400-537 BY SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION REQUESTING THAT SALT LAKE CITY ANNEX A PORTION 'OF CITY CREEK CANYON This petition requests that the majority of City Creek Canyon be annexed into Salt Lake City. This portion of the canyon is presently in unincorporated Salt Lake County. Properties encompassed by this petition are owned by Salt Lake City Corporation, the U.S. Forest Service, and a patented mining claim owned by Mr. Russel Woodruff. The Forest Service and Mr. Woodruff have both provided letters concurring with this annexation proposal. The Salt Lake City Planning Commission and City Council adopted the City Creek :Amster Plan in 1986. . A major planning goal outlined in the City Creek Plan is to preserve City Creed: Canyon in its natural state as a protected watershed area and for limited recreation. It recommends annexation of City Creek Canyon as one of the means of implementing the plan. Annexation will enable the city to have more control in protecting the watershed, and more direct regulation over any land use issues that may,arise in the area in the future. Ci=y Creek Canyon has been preserved in its natural state as a watershed area for .Salt Lake City through -the years. The only structures in the canyon are • the water treatment plant, a reservoir, and the Watershed caretaker's home. Salt Lake City is a major property owner in the canyon. However, since the canyon is not within the city's corporate boundaries, Salt Lake City doesn' t have zoning and land use control. Eecause such a large majority of the canyon is owned by Salt Lake City and the U.S. Forest Service, significant • =vzlcpr.,ent in the canyon is not likely in'the foreseeable future. However, annexation will give the city direct land use control, and greater control oVer any future proposals for the canyon -that may be prompted. by changes in ow.nership, Forest Service land management policies, etc. This petition does not encompass all of the canyon*. Private property owners at the top of the canyon would not agree to support annexation so their properties were not included. The Public Utilities Department indicates that we are accomplishing their watershed objectives by annexing the large majority of the canyon as proposed. They envision eventually purchasing private erccerties in the upper canyon. These properties are also not accessible or developable, and therefore pose no threat to the 'watershie.d_ Other City departments reviewing this annexation proposal support the petition • as presented. Therefore, the planning staff recommends that this petition be approved as proposed. 7-15-87 EW *NOTE: A map identifying City Creek Canyon and the areas to be annexed will be presented at the Planning Commission briefing. Eecause of their .v size, it was not practical to reproduce maps for this packet. • • t'ar VERNON • .45 F. JORGENSEN MEMBERS: PLANNING O:RECTOR r THOMAS A. ELLISON MILDRED G. S\I DER Mir ? 'm. �, i �urr C '• I,t >i ALICE KASAI SECRETARY ....r-•--� o� J `..�raaw Y.a r...No.—Vil---. . LAVONE LI DOLE•GAMONAL EX.OFFICIO MEMBERS: DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES GEOR E NICOLATUS •A'r OR OF SALT LAKE Carr Planning and Zoning Commission WILLIAM PRICE CITY ENGINEER 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 200 JOHN-M. SCHUMANN :TY TRAFFIC ENG:NEER SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111 F. KEITH STEPAN C:—Y B UILDING OF=IC:AL 535-7757 PETER VANALSTYNE . KATHY WACICER I. J. WAGNER July 28, 1987 - • Mayor Palmer DePaulis BUILDING • _ Dear Mayor DePaulis: Returned herewith is Petition No: 400-537 by Salt Lake City Corporation - , req:.�esting that Salt Lake City annex the majority of City Creek Canyon. The . City is initiating annexation of this area to assure that the City will have more control over the watershed, and direct control over any land use issues that may arise in the canyon in future years. The City is initiating this petition as a major property owner in the canyon. The Planning Commission considered this petition at the July 23, 1987 Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission recommends annexing this area as proposed, with "P-1" Foothill Preservation Zoning being applied to the entire . area. . Respectfully, - f • ��.e'�--� \ %r' " Altr —� Vernon Jorgense"n Director VJ/BW:vs • . _._ ✓:_ >,.:_..- _ - - ,....«.. n _..._.....- .,�. _....,.,r -r- Me=.`;;;mesiii iriv. .c1;a iiac4;4ka:ght I tiii;n:.'.".a:< --- • Sn;'cR F. CUTLER SALT r e� 8 ��1�l�1,,� I ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS C.TY ATTORNEY �'�`�� V �,r �� il�.i11�O� iti\� RAY L. MONTGOM ERY CHERYL D. LUKE LAW DEPARTMENT GREG R. HAWKINS C:-r PROSECUTOR 324 SOUTH STATE FIFTH FLOOR LARRY V. SPEMDLOVE STEVEN W. ALLRED SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 BRUCE R. BAIRD (3O1) 525-7788 FRANK M. NAKAMURA ASSISTANT PROSECUTORS JCHN N. SPIKES May 11, 1987 DONALD L. GEORGE ARTHUR L KEESLER, JR. CECELIA M. ESPENOZA Brent B . Wilde Planner III Planning & Zoning Department 324 South State, Room 200 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re : City Creek Annexation Dear Brent: • I have reviewed the supporting documentation which you provided concerning the City, Creek Annexation . - While not a - standard annexation, I believe the requirements of . Section 10-2-1, et seq. , Utah Code Ann . , have been sufficiently ca-nolied wi th to allow the annexation to take place upon ccmpletion of the proper procedure , including approval of the amendment, public notice and hearings , etc . My only suggestion would be that the policy declaration amendment be strengthened slightly in stating the reasons why the property should be annexed . • With that minor addition I would agree that the matter should be submitted to the Mayor to institute the petition for annexation. If you have any questions, please call . • Sincerely, CE P. RD Assist nt City Attorney • BRB :rc47 I J • YT SALT' r ® �;c ciiyr RPO .'�. iI@-Nf(TN' LEROY W. HOOTON. JR. .., v.�v.. ` .✓ra y.vV Vwwr....wuVr.�wv OiRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES JOSEPH S. FENTON WATER SUPPLY & WATERWORKS PALMER DEPAULIS ,.•CaINTENOENT. WATER RECLAMATION WATER RECLAMATION MAYOR WENOELL E. EVENSEN. P.E. 1530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE SUPLRINTENOENT SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84115 .TER SUPPLY 6 WATCRWORRS June 22 , 1987 Doug Wheelwright Planning & Zoning 324 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 RE : PETITION NO . 400-537 , CITY CREEK ANNEXATION • Dear Brent: This department has been favorable to the annexation of City Creek Canyon for a long time . • We concur with you that this annexation is necessary to protect the watershed and preserve the canyon in its natural state . We warmly endorse the annexation of City Creek Canyon at this time . If we can be of any further assistance , please call dr . Vince Houtz at 483-6725 . Sincerely , • LER Y W . HOOT N , J Di rector siVH/co FR0MS:6 • SALT LAKE',CITY-CORPORATION FIRE DEPARTMENT • =57ER 0. PECERSCN 159 EAST 1sr SOUTH _F OF FIRE OEPAaTmENT SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 530-310! June 18, 1937 Brent Wilde Planning and Zoning Salt Lake City, Ut 84111 - Dear Brent: I have reviewed Petition No.400-537 requesting. annexation of City Creek Canyon. • The Salt Lake City Fire Department would not object-to this canyon being annexed into the city. As you are well aware it is difficult for us to provide fire and medical service into this area. If the canyon were to be developed this would have to be addressed. • If I can be of further assistance, please call me. Sincerely, Larry D. Coates Deputy Fire Marshal. LDC/jm rt 1 . • WM Mal env -11911 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING =A_MER CEPAULIS 333 SOUTH 200 EAST. SUITE 201 MAYOR SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111 JOSEFH R. ANDERSCN! PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR (801) 538-2142 June 17 , 1987 • Brent Wilde Planning and Zoning .. 324 South State , 2nd Floor Salt Lake City , Utah 84111 • Re : Petition No . 400-537 Annexation of City Creek Canyon Dear Brent : • The • present signage and markings for the City Creek Canyon Road is . • sufficient for, the restricted usage that is now employed . If , at anytime , the traffic usage does not continue to be restricted by the locked gate at the Canyon entrance , we would recommend a study be conducted by our office to determine the necessary regulatory and warning signs needed due to the anticipated increase in traffic volume . The ' P- 1 ' Foothill Preservation Zoning will help alleviate the possibility of any future increase in traffic volume and the likelihood of needing additional signage . • Please call me if you have any questions or concerns . Sincerely, •• /6-671,1 C, Gtit r ` John • G. Van Hqff , L. S . Traffic Engineer I • JGVH/sc • cc : Steve MeyerJY\- Rick Johnston Eric Thorpe • LeRoy Hooton Larry Coates Allen Johnson • • • FINANCE DEPARTMENT _ANCE R. BATEMAN. CPA Purchasing and Property Management Division PALMER DEPAULIS O:AECTOP. OF FINANCE 324 SOUTH STATE STREET MAYOR 5TH FLOOR - • SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111 PURCHASING (801 ) 535-7661 PROPERTY 535-7133 June 26, 1987 TO: Brent Wilde . Planning & Zoning FROM: Eric H. Thorpe5 . - Property Manager PETITION NO. 400-537, ANNEXATION OF CITY CREEK^CANYON • Property Management is in favor of both the annexation and proposed "P-1" zonirr Please contact me if you have any questions. EHT/jg cc: G. L. Failner .: - • • snit. r A\ OW/CORPO �I.ONf ' LEROY W. HOOTCN. JR. DIRE�-OR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES JOSEPH S. FENTON WATER SUPPLY & WATERWORKS PALMER DEPAULIS SvP[RiVTENDEN T, WATER RECLAMATION WATER RECLAMATION - MAYOR WENDELL E. EVENSEM. P.E. 1530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE SUPERINTEN•^,ENT SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84115 • - WATER SUPPLY a WATERWORKS November 3 , 1986 Mr. Brent Wilde 414 City and County Building Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Dear Mr . Wilde : Will you please process the enclosed map for the proposed • City Creek annexation to Salt Lake City. We are .also transmitting several other maps having information regarding i.his annexation 'that you may be retained or disposed of . If we .can be of any further assistance please contact Michelle Forsyth at 483-6770 . We appreciate your cooperation with our department on this project. Sincerely ( 4i A LEROY-W/ HOOTON, (JR Director• �. LWH: ETD:mf • 75: 45 • • �• I • DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS F-vo_MER DEPAUL S City Engineering Division MAX G. PETERSON. P.E. MAYOR 444 SOUTH STATE STREET CITY ENGINEER SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 535-7871 • TO : BRENT WILDE , PLANNING & ZONING FROM : RICHARD A. JOHNSTON , DEPUTY CITY ENGINEER. . DATE : DUNE 24 , 1987 `• SUBJECT : PETITION NO . 400-537 - ANNEXATION OF CITY CREEK CANYON ide have reviewed the above mentioned annexation and boundry . • .description , and agree with said description , as well as comments . from your office . • We also agree with the proposed P- 1 Foothill Preservation Zoning for this area . • -4,411 RAJ : LRR : po cc : Vault • • I " Fore` Wasatch-Cache Salt ' ' •e Ranger District United States . Servi National 6944 Sh 3000 East • Department of `` • Agriculture Forest Salt La a City, Ut. 84121 • •• Rearm. 5430 • Dale January 27, 1987 Salt Lake City Corporation Planning and Zoning Commission - 414 City and County Building Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Attention: Vernon Jorgensen Dear Mr. Jorgensen: Reference is made to your January 7, 1987 letter in regard to the City Creek annexation effort. I have since received. the map which was not attached to • your original letter. We have also reviewed the proposal with our lands staff at the Forest Supervisor's Office. -. After reviewing Salt Lake City's proposal=we can see no reason to object to this annexation. However, we prefer to not sign the petition or provide a letter- of support since there appears to ,be no effect on administration of National Forest lands, with or without annexation. Management objectives of both the City and the Forest Service have long been to preserve the canyon as a watershed with limited recreation. We do not envision any change in those objectives. This is true even if we pursue a land exchange. to con- solidate land jurisdictions. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments. We appreciate the opportunity to participate in this proposal. Sincerely, • • VC• Alct-"•/ • RICHARD P. KLINE District Forest Ranger re e...,...•t. n• 1114 • .f7\ UNITED STATES NATIONAL BANK OF OREGON A Subsidiary of U.S.Bancorp- TRUST GROUP 321 S.W. SIXTH AVENUE P.O. BOX 316B. PORTLAND. OREGON 97208 April 20, 1987 Mr . Brent B. Wilde Salt Lake City Planning Commission 324 S. State St. , Rm. 200 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Dear Mr. Wilde : 1333600 Woodruff Susan W. Emery and Russell K. Woodruff, Jr. , act as co-trustees under the Last Will and Testament of Russell K. Woodruff, deceased. Assets of the trust include four patented mining claims located in the Hot Springs Mining District/City Creek Canyon of Salt Lake County. The claims are described as follows : Henry Lode, Lot 38, Lawrence Lode, Lot 39, Eureka Lode, Lot 40, General Scott Lode, Lot 37 By letter dated May 16, 1986 and through subsequent telephone conversations you have advised the Salt Lake City corporation is in the process of annexing a portion of City Creek Canyon, including the lands covered by the mining claims mentioned above. This letter is written at the direction of Susan W. Emery and Russell • K. Woodruff, Jr ., co-trustees, to indicate their approval and acceptance of those annexation efforts . Very truly yours, • H . E. Fedler Vice President HEF:n11 :883 • c : Ms . Susan W. Emery P. 0. Box 818 Portland, OR 97207-0818 c: Mr. Russel K. Woodruff, Jr . 1824 N.E. 137th Avenue Portland, OR 97230 • * (4.1) .fi;: . VERNON F. JORGENSEN MEMBERS: PLANNING CIRECTCR • THOMAS A. ELLISON Sarum ;IIIY �I w I@Nr ALICE KASAI MILDRED G. SNIDER .�.....r.r. ��• , ....1.,` r,l.,.►r�`y�� w1.I LAVONE LI DDLE.GAMONAL SECRETARY RALPH P. NEILSON EX.OFFICIO MEMBERS: DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES GEORGE NICOLATUS 'AYOR OF_SALT LAKE CITY Planning and Zoning Commission WILLIAM PRICE CITY ENGINEER 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 200 • JOHN M. SCHUMANN CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111 F. KEITH STEPAN - CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL 535-7757 PETER VANALSTYNE KATHY WACKER I. J. WAGNER • May 18, 1987 The Honorable Palmer DePaulis • Mayor of Salt Lake City . 324 South State Street, Suite 500 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 • Dear Mayor -DePaulis: - I hereby respectfully request that the City initiate the- process of annexing • the majority of City Creek Canyon into Salt Lake City. Areas to be annexed _ are identified on the attached plat. . • The City Creek Canyon Master Plan recommends annexing City Creek Canyon so that the City will have more control over the watershed, and direct control over any land use issues that may arise in the canyon in future years. During the process of adopting the City Creek Master Plan, there was considerable interest expressed in annexing this area. At that time, Craig Peterson directed the planning staff to prepare an Annexation Policy Declaration and to take other steps necessary to facilitate annexation. Salt Lake City and the U. S. Forest Service are the only property owners in the area to be- annexed. There is also one private patented mining claim owned by Mr. Russel Woodruff and others. Enclosed are a copy of the annexation policy declaration, the annexation plat, and letters from the Forest Service and Mr. Woodruff indicating that they have no objections to this annexation proposal . We• have also included a letter from Bruce Baird, Assistant City Attorney. Bruce has reviewed the enclosed information and indicates that everything is in order. We have also strengthened the Policy Declaration as Bruce suggested. Therefore, I recommend that we put this proposal in petition form and route it through the regular petition process for review and approval . sA; rEk r •44 �'pC�ai-V00 �' !rs J PALMER DEPAULIS ""� v�..►.� VvY�ar va... MAYOR OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 324 SOUTH STATE STREET FIFTH FLOOR, SUITE 500 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 535-7704 • May 18, 1987 Allen C. Johnson • Deputy Planning Director Salt Lake City Planning & Zoning 324 South State Street, Room 200 Salt Lake City, Utah • 84111 • Dear Mr. Johnson: , - Thank you for the information on annexation of City Creek Canyon. I concur with the proposal to proceed with annexation of City Creek Canyon as outlined in your letter of May 18, 1987. I am very supportive of : policies and recommendations outlined in the City Creek Canyon Master Plan and I look forward to having this area annexed into the City. Sincerely, //2 • Mayor • PD/dll ,1Y SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1988 (City Creek Annexation and Zoning pursuant to Petition No. 400-537-87 ) AN/ORDINANCE RECOGNIZING THE ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT 15 TO THE MASTER ANNEXATION POLICY DECLARATIONS; EXTENDING THE LIMITS OF SALT LAKE' CITY TO INCLUDE THE CITY CREEK ANNEXATION, ZONING THE SAME PRESERVATION "P-1" BY AMENDING THE USE DISTRICT MAP AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 21 . 14.020 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE; AND AMENDING THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT BOUNDARY MAP. WHEREAS, Petition No. 400-537-87 was filed with the City Recorder of Salt Lake City, together with a plat showing the tract of land to be annexed hereafter to be known as the City Creek Annexation, requesting that the contiguous, irregularly shaped parcel of approximately 5839 acres of unincorporated territory lying in the City Creek Canyon area of Salt Lake County be taken within the city limits of Salt Lake City Corporation to extend the City's limits; and WHEREAS, the petition was signed by a majority of the owners of real property and the owners of more than one-third in value of all real property, as shown by the last assessment roles, situated in the tract hereinafter described; and WHEREAS, in order to facilitate the orderly expansion of the City' s boundaries, the City has previously adopted a Master Annexation Policy Declaration on June 20, 1979. The proposed annexation lies within Study Area No. 15 of said Declaration and is the specific subject of Amendment No. 15 of said Declaration which was approved after favorable Planning Commission review; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, after examining the petition and having the petition favorably reviewed by the various departments of the City and the Planning Commission, and having accepted the petition by Resolution No. 146 of 1988, and having considered the petition at a publicly advertised hearing held January 17 , 1989:, and after finding the proposed annexation to be consistent and in keeping with the City` s Master Annexation Policy Declaration for Study Area No. 15 and Amendment No. 15, the Council voted by two-thirds or greater vote of its membership, in favor of the annexation; and WHEREAS, no objection or contest to such annexation or amendment has been filed as required by law or is presently pending; NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . Area. That the city limits of Salt Lake City be, and the same hereby are, enlarged and extended so as to include the following irregularly shaped approximately 5811: acre parcel of land located in City Creek Canyon in Salt Lake County, Utah: See Exhibit A SECTION 2. Zoning. Be it further ordained and declared that the above City Creek Annexation is hereby zoned Preservation "P-1" and the Use District Map as adopted by Section 21 . 14.020 of the Salt Lake City Code relating to the boundaries of use districts shall be, and the same hereby is amended by the addition of the City Creek Annexation zoned Preservation "P-1" . -2- SECTION 3. City Council Map. The Salt Lake City Council District Map is hereby amended to include the City Creek Annexation in Council District 3 as specified on such map. SECTION 4. General Jurisdiction. Be it further ordained and declared that the tract of land described above in Section 1 shall henceforth be within the corporate limits of Salt Lake City Corporation. All ordinances, jurisdictions, rules and obligations of, or pertaining to, Salt Lake City are extended over and made applicable and pertinent to this tract of land; and the streets, blocks, alleys and public ways of said tract shall be controlled and governed by the ordinances, rules and regulations of Salt Lake City in that behalf. The monuments of the City Engineer shall henceforth be taken therein as the standards of location and distances of -said land. SECTION 5. Conditions Precedent. Prior to the acceptance of this annexation and the publication of this Ordinance, the petitioners shall enter into an Annexation Agreement with the City requiring such terms and conditions as have been recommended by the Planning Commission in a form approved by the City Attorney, which Annexation Agreement is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 6 . Filings and Notice. Upon the passage and publication of this Ordinance, the Recorder of Salt Lake City is hereby directed to file with the County Recorder of Salt Lake County a copy of the approved annexation plan or map, duly certified and acknowledged, together with a certified copy of this Ordinance. The City Recorder is further directed to provide -3- notice to the Utah State Tax Commission pursuant to applicable state law. SECTION 7. Publication and Effect. This Ordinance shall take effect upon the date of its first publication. The City Recorder is instructed not to publish this Ordinance until an annexation plat prepared by a registered professional engineer or surveyor at the developer' s expense has been submitted to the City meeting all City standards for such a document and has been signed by the Mayor. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1988. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s Action: Approved Vetoed MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER BRB:pp -4- DESCRIPTION THE FOLLOWING DESCRIPTION IS FOR THE ANNEXATION QF UPPER CITY CREEK CANYON AREA FOR PURPOSES OF PRESERVING THE AREA FOR WATER SHED AND A NATURAL AREA, LOCATED NORTHEAST OF SALT LAKE • CITY ALONG THE SALT LAKE-DAVIS COUNTY LINE, LOCATED IN TOWNSHIPS I NORTH, RANGES I AND 2 EAST, SALT LAKE BASE AND MERIDIAN. THE DESCRIPTION LINES ARE BASED ON THE GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARY OF THE SALT LAKE-DAVIS COUNTY LINE WHICH FOLLOWS THE NORTH CANYON RIM(RIDGE TOP) ABOVE CITY CREEK CANYON IN AN IRREGULAR GEOGRAPHIC.BOUNDARY AND SURVEY DATA OBTAINED FROM THE U.S. GOVERNMENT SURVEYS, 1884 AND 1891, OF TOWNSHIP I NORTH, RANGE ( EAST AND TOWNSHIP I NORTH, RANGE 2,EAST, SALT LAKE BASE AND MERIDIAN. SHOULD ANY PART OF THE BOUNDARY BE LOCATED BY FUTURE SURVEYS, IT IS THE INTENT TO HOLD TO POINTS OF NTERSECTIONS Of TOP OF RIDGES AM) SECTION LNE5 THAT HAVE BEEN LOCATED N THE FELD ALONG BLACK • MOLN I.AN RDGE, SURVEYS ALONG SECTION ONES AND MEASUREMENTS TO AND FROM SECTION AND QUAR TER SECTION CORNERS TO LOCATE POINTS ON THE ANNEXATION LINES AND NOT BEARINGS AND DISTANCES THAT HAVE BEEN CALCULATED ALONG THE DESCRIPTION LINES, HEREIN AFTER DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; BEGINNING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION • OF THE SALT LAKE CITY BOUNDARY LINE AND THE SALT LAKE - DAVIS COUNTY LINE THAT IS NORTH 636 FEET AND EAST 600 FEET FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 17,TOWNSHIP I NORTH, RANGE ! EAST, SALT LAKE BASE AND MERIDIAN; THENCE NORTH AND NORTHEAST ALONG THE SALT LAKE CITY - DAVIS COUNTY BOUNDARY, AN IRREGULAR GEO- GRAPHIC BOUNDARY THAT FOLLOWS THE RIDGE LINE ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF CITY CREEK CANYON FOR MORE THAN SIX MILES THROUGH THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 17. THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 8, SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 9, MIDDLE AND NORTH HALF OF SECTION 10, NORTH HALF OF SECTION II, THE SOUTH- EAST CORNER OF SECTION 2, THE SOUTH HALF OF SEC- TION I, TOWNSHIP I NORTH, RANGE I EAST; CONTINUED THROUGH THE MIDDLE AND NORTH HALF OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP I NORTH. RANGE 2 EAST; CONTINUED THROUGH THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 31 AND SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP I NORTH RANGE 2 EAST TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH T'HE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP I NORTH,RANGE 2 EAST, A POINT THAT IS EAST 200 FEET FROM THE NORTHWEST Ll� , CORNER OF SECTION 5;THENCE DEPARTING EAST,FROM THE SALT LAKE - DAVIS COUNTY LINE, ALONG THE �• NORTH LINE OF SECTION 5, T.IN., R.2E., S.L.B.SM. A I DISTANCE OF 5,080 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER T SECTION SECTIONTHENCE LINE TO THE QUART 2640 ALONG QUARTER BE TWEEN TWEEN X SECTIONS 5 AND 4; THENCE S. 012' E. 2640 FEET -I,'ul ALONG SECTION LINE TO SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SEC- • TION 5; THENCE SOUTH 2640 FEET ALONG THE SECTION LINE TO THE QUARTER CORNER BETWEEN SECTION 8 AND 9, T..IN., R.2E4 THENCE SOUTH 2640 FEET ALONG THE SECTION LINE TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 8; THENCE SOUTH 1650 FEET ALONG THE SECTION LINE TO THE TOP OF BLACK MOUNTAIN RIDGE THAT BEARS NORTHEAST-SOUTHWEST; THENCE S. 88'22' W. 5282 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SECTION LINE BETWEEN SECTIONS 17 AND 18 ON A RIDGELINE THAT BEARS EAST- WEST; THENCE S. 82'05' W. 5331 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF SECTION 18,T.IN R.2E., A POINT THAT IS 2534 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 18;T.I.N; R.2.E..S.L.B.8M4THENCE S. 66'55' W. 270 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 13 T.IN., ME; THENCE WEST 2392 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNEA OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 13; THENCE SOUTH 1019 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 13; THENCE S. 66'55' W. 2870 FEET TO A • POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF SECTION 13, T.IN., RJE, A POINT THAT IS 495 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 13; THENCE S. 70'22' W. 1195 FEET TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE PRESENT SALT LAKE CITY BOUNDARY LINE, A POINT THAT IS 1125 FEET WEST AND 117 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 14 T.IN., R.IE., THENCE NORTH ALONG THE SALT LAKE CITY BOUNDARY LINE 3159 FEET TO A POINT THAT IS WEST 1125 FEET AND NORTH 636 FEET FROM • THE QUARTER CORNER OF SECTIONS 14 AND 13; THENCE WEST 19,395 FEET ALONG THE EXISTING CITY BOUNDARY THROUGH THE REMAINDER OF SECTION 14, SECTION 15, SECTION 16 AND INTO SECTION 17 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINS 5811 ACRES MCRE OR LESS. 6j STAFF RECOMMENDATION Proposed Ordinance Amending FY 1988/89 Budget March 17, 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 February 21, 1989, a Public Hearing was held on budget amendment number 3. During the hearing, the Administration requested that Council transfer $200,000 from the General Fund Contingency to the Finance Department to cover an operating deficit in the constable service delivery program for parking related warrants. A majority of the Council was concerned that transferring the funds would deplete the General Fund Contingency, leaving no room for emergencies. The budget amendment was approved less the $200,000. This left the Finance Department in the position of operating at a deficit. The instructions were for the Administration to see if this amount could be retrieved from departmental savings. STAFF ANALYSIS: Two options have been identified to correct the situation. Use the General Fund Contingency as previously recommended. The advantage of this option is that we are using the contingency fund for its intended purpose, which is an appropriation of funds to cover unforeseen events that occur during the fiscal year. The disadvantage is that the contingency fund is drawn down to a balance of $27,000. If this option is not chosen and the contingency fund not used, it will lapse to fund balance at the end of the year and will no longer be available for use. The City cannot appropriate fund balance unless it exceeds 5% of total revenues of the General Fund. In this case the fund balance would not exceed the 5%, therefore if we allow the contingency to lapse to fund balance we have essentially lost the opportunity to use the funds this year. The other option is to use funds identified from departmental savings. The advantage of this option is that the Contingency Fund is not affected and gives a cushion against any unforeseen revenue shortfall in the last quarter. The disadvantage is twofold. First, even though it is fairly certain that it will happen, there is no guarantee that the projected savings will materialize at the end of the year. Second, and more importantly, Finance will lose its flexibility in using funds for other projects at year end. If the savings do materialize and are not used, they become in effect a non-lapsing contingency that will carry over to next year. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Appropriate the $200,000 from General Fund Contingency to cover the additional cost of service delivery for parking related warrants. With this recommendation, Council will still have the ability to address any unforeseen revenue shortfall, while at the same time maximizing use of available funds. RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move that we amend Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 39 of 1988 adopting the budget of Salt Lake for fiscal year beginning July 1, 1988 and ending June 30, 1989, as proposed. MP etRMAION1 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, 5TH FLOOR LANCE R. BATEMAN, CPA SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111- PALMER DEPAULIS DIRECTOR OF FINANCE - - MAYOR (801) .535-7676 " February 28, 1989 TO: Salt Lake City Council RE: MARCH 21, 1989, PUBLIC HEARING AND PURSUANT TO ACTION ON FORMAL BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 4 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 March 21, 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 February 28, 1989 Page - 2 RECOMMENDATIONS: The Budget Staff recommends: All items in the amendment package be approved Tuesday, March 21, 1989. Respectfully submitted, 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 March 21, 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 March 21, 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: CITY RECORDER Approved by the Mayor this day of , 1989. MAYOR ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attome 's Office 2 CITY RECORDER Date `2 Er' S ay FMN:cc -3- 1909 Budget Amendment k4 March 21. 1989 page 1 of 1 1 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 Airport 29,795,000 Airport CIP Department Request: To budget funds to complete Capital Improvement Projects. Discussion: This request Is in conjunction with the issuance of Series 1909 Airport Revenue Bonds which will be issued in April. Proceeds, along with some additional operating reimbursements will be used to construct a parking garage, pedestrian bridges and other related facilities. Recommendation: Appropriate S26,700,000 of Bond Proceeds and 53,095,000 of Operating reimbursements to the Airport CIP account to construct needed Improvements. 29,795,000 Finance 200,000 Parking Department Request: To transfer and budget General fund contingency to cover the cost of constable service delivery for parking related warrants. Discussion: The budget for delivery of park! warrants by the constable's office was origins. lower because of court rules relating to service of warrants within a 45 day period of the court date. The court changed their ruling and we now serve all warrants as soon as possible because it is in the best Interest of the City to collect on as many as possible. Also, the number of delinquent tickets has increased. Therefore, there is not enough budget to cover the cost of this added service, so an increase is needed. The treasurer's office is projecting that by the and of this year we could bo spending an average of 822,000 per month. Recommendation: Appropriate 5200,000 of General Fund contingency to cover the cost of services through June. 200,000 Non-Departmental -200,000 Contingency Reduction in contingency account as per the above transaction in the Finance Department. 288,976 PILOT/ Department Request: To budget funds received from Transitional the Salt Lake City Housing Authority as payment ln- Housing lieu of taxes (PILOT) and grant those funds to the Housing Authority for purposes of leveraging other Federal HUD. Private Volunteer's of America, and local Housing Authority funds to purchase housing units to provide transitional housing to those In need. Discussion: Upon appropriation of these PILOT funds an lnterlocal agreement between Salt Lake City and the Salt Lake City Housing Authority will be presented for approval and signed. If approved. these funds will be disbursed to the (lousing Authority to complete this project. Recommendation: Appropriate 5288,976 of PILO revenue and appropriate S288,976 as contributi,, to the SLC Housing Authority to complete a transitional housing program for the City. 88,976 288,976 29,795,000 0 0 0 0 0 30,083,976 amend.mar2 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 0 19,688,000 Franchise Taxes 15,389,560 0 15,389.560 Total Taxes 59,819,469 0 59,819,469 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 0 1,835.395 Federal Revenue Sharing 0 0 0 State Beer/Liquor Tax 480,000 0 480,000 Intergovernmental Revenue 2,325.676 0 2,325,676 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 0 288,976 288,976 Total Other Current Revenue 19,837,635 288,976 20,126,611 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 $80,081,344 $288,976 $80,370.320 USES Expenditures Administrative Services $2,995,747 $0 $2,995.747 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 3,886.546 200,000 4,086,546 Fire 15,966.089 0 15.966,089 Mayor 1,878,298 0 1,878,298 Non Departmental 3,566.358 288,976 3,855.334 Parks 5,300,794 0 5,300,794 Police 20,499,867 0 20,499,867 Public Works 14,010,341 0 14,010,341 Total Expenditures 73.059.386 488,976 73,548.362 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 Contingency 227.900 -200,000 27,900 Approp. To Fund Balance 0 0 0 Total Other Uses 7,021,958 -200,000 6,821.958 TOTAL USES $80,081,344 $288,976 $80,370,320 AIRPORT ENTERPRISE FUND BUDGET SUMMARY FY 1988-89 GAAP BUDGETARY BASIS BASIS 1988-89 1988-89 1988-89 COUNCIL AMENDED AMENDED BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS BUDGET BUDGET OPERATING REVENUES: Landing Fees $5,841,900 $0 $5,841.900 $5,841,900 Terminal Rentals 11,417,700 0 11.417,700 11.417,700 Automobile Rentals 3,131,300 0 3.131,300 3.131,300 Automobile Parking 4,265,000 0 4.265.000 4.265,000 Aviation Fuel Tax 4,549,800 0 4,549,800 4,549,800 Terminal Concession Fees 2,327,300 0 2,327,300 2,327.300 Flight Kitchens 1,713,500 0 1,713,500 1,713.500 Other Revenue 4,852,800 0 4,852,800 4,852,800 TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES 38,099,300 0 38,099,300 38,099,300 OPERATING EXPENSES: Personal Services 7,388,800 0 7,388,800 7,388,800 Material and Supply 1,269,700 0 1,269,700 1,269.700 Travel and Training 68,500 0 68,500 68,500 Utilities 2,249,400 0 2,249,400 2.249,400 Contractual Services 381,700 0 381.700 381,700 Airline Rebate 2,190,000 0 2,190,000 2,190,000 Janitorial Services 1.060,000 0 1,060.000 1,060,000 Interfund Charges 2,356,200 0 2,356,200 2,356,200 Other Charges and Services 1,026,300 0 1,026.300 1,026,300 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 17,990.600 0 17,990,600 17,990,600 NET OPERATING INCOME 20.108.700 0 20.108.700 20,108,700 OTHER SOURCES (USES): Interest Income (Expense) 800,000 0 800,000 800.000 AIP/Other Contributions 18,833,500 3,095,000 21.928.500 Contributon-Restricted Fund -300,000 0 -300,000 Bond Proceeds 0 26,700,000 26,700,000 Depreciation 0 0 0 -9,217,100 Capital Outlay -1,314,600 0 -1,314.600 Debt Service: Interest -5,088,700 0 -5,088.700 -5,088,700 Debt Service: Principal -2,835,000 0 -2,835,000 Capital Improvements -41,472,000 -29,795,000 -71,267,000 TOTAL OTHER SOURCES (USES) -31,376,800 0 -31.376,800 -13,505,800 Appropriation to Fund Balance 0 0 0 Appropriation of Fund Balance -11,268,100 0 -11,268,100 Change in Retained Earnings $6,602,900 Beginning Fund Balance (Deficit) 6.781,100 6.781,100 Ending Fund Balance (Deficit) ($4,487,000) S0 (S4.487,000) Note: Fund balance is defined as cash and investments, less accounts payable. accrued payroll. contract retainage, and restricted accounts. SAR LAKE/CIS ruff RPORA.'ION1 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ROSEMARY DAVIS Capital Planning and Programming mRECTOR 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 240 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 535-7902 February 28 , 1989 TO: THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL RE: HOLDING HUD REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING ON GENERAL HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS Overview: In order for Community Development planning to proceed it is necessary to hold a public hearing to solicit citizen input from effected community organizations , neighborhood councils , and interested citizens about general community development and housing needs. Availability of Funds : The City' s CDBG allocation for July 1 , 1989 is $3 , 947, 000 . Discussion: This public hearing is required by HUD to obtain citizen input on general housing and community development needs including housing rehabilitation, street and sidewalk improvements, development of parks , public buildings, planning and public services. Comments regarding the overall performance of the City' s CDBG program are also solicited at this time. The hearing is scheduled so that citizens ' and community organizations ' comments can be considered by the Mayor before he makes his recommendation for annual CDBG funding to the Council . The public is invited to the hearing through a CDBG Announcement sent to 250 organizations and individuals by Capital Planning and Programming, a display ad in the newspaper , and by the Council ' s regular meeting notices . Recommendation: That on March 7, 1989 the Council set a public hearing to meet HUD CDBG requirements and solicit input on housing and community development needs for Tuesday, March 21, 1989 . Sincerely, f) 67)Rosemary Davis Director RD/SL