03/05/2002 - Minutes (3) PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 2002
The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Tuesday, March 5,
2002 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South
State Street.
In Attendance: Council Members Christensen, Van Turner, Eric Jergensen, Nancy Saxton,
Jill Love, Dave Buhler and Dale Lambert.
Also in Attendance: Mayor Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson; Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative
Officer; Jay Magure, Chief of Staff; Cindy Gust-Jenson, City Council Executive
Director; Gary Mumford, Council Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor; Michael
Sears, Council Budget & Policy Analyst; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Roger
Cutler, City Attorney; Dan Bergenthal, Transportation Engineer; Mary Johnston,
Administrative Enforcement Programs Manager; Rick Graham, Director of Public Services;
Greg Davis, Public Services Finance Director; Steve Fawcett, Management Services Deputy
Director; Max Peterson, City Engineer; Gaylord Smith, Engineering Project
Manager/Consultant; Tim Campbell, Director of Airports; Jodi Howick, Assistant City
Attorney; Joseph Moratalla, Airport Contract Payments; Margaret Hunt, Director of
Community and Economic Development; David Dobbins, Deputy Director of Community and
Economic Development (CED) ; LuAnn Clark, Deputy Director of Housing and Neighborhood
Development (HAND) ; Randy Hillier, CIP Admin/Budget & Policy Analyst; and Chris Meeker,
Chief Deputy Recorder.
Council Chair Buhler presided at and conducted the meeting.
The meeting was called to order at 5:32 p.m.
#1. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS
AND ANNOUNCEMENTS.
No report was given.
See file M 02-5 for Council announcements.
#2. RECEIVE AN UPDATE REGARDING ISSUES AT THE 2002 LEGISLATIVE SESSION.
Councilmember Saxton said billboard ordinances were an issue. She said amortization of
a billboard which blocked building was being discussed. She said retirement funds for
Highway Patrol Officers was being discussed.
#3. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE UTAH DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, UTAH TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, CITY OF LOGAN AND PARK CITY TO ESTABLISH
A UNIFORM CERTIFICATION PROGRAM FOR DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISES.
Jodi Howick, Tim Campbell and Gary Mumford briefed the Council. Ms. Howick said this
was a uniform certification program for the State which complied with the federal
requirement to have firms qualify as disadvantaged business enterprises. She said
hiring these firms was a requirement in connection with federal funding through the
Department of Transportation.
#4. INTERVIEW MARGARET HUNT PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF ADVICE AND CONSENT TO HER
APPOINTMENT AS COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR.
Ms. Hunt said she was looking forward to working in Salt Lake City and addressing the
backlog of issues the department had. She said the high priority issue had to do with
downtown and westside revitalization. She said she was interested in what the Council's
interests were with regard to Community and Economic Development. She said her
02 - 1
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 2002
background in economic development was with Utah Power or Pacificorp for 23 years. She
said she had served in the capacity of an industrial development consultant recruiting
businesses and a consultant in economic development.
Councilmember Christensen asked Ms. Hunt what deficiencies she had seen in government
with regard to communities. Ms. Hunt said she had the experience of working with
over 300 communities. She said she had observed that constant turnover of elected
officials made it difficult for communities to sustain a long- term vision for economic
development. She said economic development was 1) a long-term commitment and 2) being
able to take advantage of short-term opportunities. She said there should be a balance.
#5. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A LOAN AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY AND COMMUNITY
HOUSING SERVICE FOR THE PURCHASE AND REHABILITATION OF THE CAPITOL VILLA APARTMENTS
LOCATED AT 238 WEST 600 NORTH. View Attachment
LuAnn Clark and Michael Sears briefed the Council. Mr. Sears said Councilmember
Christensen had asked him about the involvement of a parcel of property adjoining the
Capital Villa Apartments which the Redevelopment Agency owned. Ms. Clark said this
loan was a preservation loan renewed on a yearly basis and would be used for purchase
and rehabilitation of the apartments. She said Community Housing Services had contacted
the owner of the apartments and asked that they keep the rent affordable. She said
the average rent was $128 per month and most of the residents were elderly. She said
the loan would help accomplish this.
Councilmember Christenson said in the future he wanted to read the Housing Trust
Board' s minutes to know what types of issues had been raised as the loans were brought
to Council.
#6. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING TRAFFIC CODE AMENDMENTS. View Attachment
Mary Johnston, Russell Weeks and Dan Bergenthal briefed the Council. Mr. Weeks said
he had spoken to an Administrative Law Judge who said all violations involving
substantial and serious bodily injury were to be prosecuted civilly. A discussion was
held regarding criminal vs. civil prosecution. Mr. Weeks said criminal prosecution
meant up to six months on jail sentence. A discussion was held regarding what
constituted being a pedestrian in the crosswalk. Mr. Weeks said the discussion had
been that vehicles should yield to people who were about to enter the crosswalk instead
of yielding to pedestrians in the crosswalk.
Councilmember Lambert said he was confused with the definition of an unmarked crosswalk.
Mr. Bergenthal said an unmarked crosswalk was at a location where sidewalk extended to
the roadway. He said even if no white lines were painted, a crosswalk still existed.
He said a crosswalk extended following through the edge of the sidewalk straight across
the street. A discussion was held regarding the definition of a crosswalk.
Mr. Cutler said the definition of an unmarked crosswalk in the ordinance was the same
as State Code. A discussion was held regarding where the definition for unmarked
crosswalks should be located in the ordinance. Councilmember Saxton said depending on
the type of violation, civil or criminal, the investigation course was different. She
said when a life was taken, the violation should be criminal. A discussion was held
regarding bifurcation of the system, where a decision could be made as a civil penalty
or a criminal matter. Councilmember Jergensen said enforcement and treatment of a
victim should be equal. He said an educational component was necessary so citizens
were aware of what was going on. Councilmember Saxton said the responsibility was the
driver's and the pedestrian had the right-of-way before stepping off of the curb. A
decision was made to form a subcommittee with Council Members Love, Saxton and Lambert
02 - 2
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 2002
to study the ordinance.
#7. HOLD A DISCUSSION RELATING TO THE COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION FOR
THE SELECTION OF A FINANCIAL AUDIT FIRM.
Councilmember Jergensen and Gary Mumford briefed the Council. Councilmember
Jergensen said the recommendation was Deloitte & Touche. He said Mr. Mumford and Mr.
Sears reviewed all of the proposals and then used the following basic points to narrow
the proposals, 1) first year proposed cost, 2) overall cost, 3) total amount of budget,
4) budgeted hours, and 5) cost per hour budgeted. He said then references were checked
and balanced against the detailed point information for a recommendation. Ms. Gust-
Jenson asked if the Council wanted to state the expectation that the firm would do
work only for the legislative branch unless supported by the Council in the contract.
All Council Members were in favor of stating the expectation.
#8. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 5 AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS.
View Attachment
Rocky Fluhart, Steve Fawcett, Randy Hillier and Michael Sears briefed the
Council. Mr. Fluhart said one of the principal reasons for budget openings was grant
revenue. He said the City appropriated grant revenue as grants were awarded. He said
budget amendments were also needed when funding circumstances were not anticipated.
He said different processes or ways of amending the budget could be explored. Ms.
Gust-Jenson referred to Issue 14, HAND Director position. She said the comparison
showed the number of employees and executive positions. She said compared to the
budget and the number of staff members in other departments the number of executive
positions in Community and Economic Development was high.
Councilmember Buhler asked if the expenditures at Liberty Park in Issue #1 for
the removal of trees were appropriate for the Capital Improvement Project fund. Mr.
Hillier said the Refuse Fund funded Urban Forestry. He said Urban Forestry was
responsible for trees located in parks within the City. Mr. Graham said Forestry was
responsible for the City' s forest, the street trees and the public right-of-way in
front of homes. He said as a practice the trimming of trees was done by the Parks
Department or with a City project. He said in an emergency situation Forestry would
step in and be reimbursed. Mr. Fluhart said the removal of trees was to accommodate
a sidewalk being done as a CIP project. A discussion was held regarding removal and
loss of trees.
Councilmember Buhler asked, with regard to Issue #5, Pioneer Precinct, if
remaining project funds would be sufficient to complete the building rehabilitation.
Mr. Hillier said the funds would be sufficient. A discussion was held regarding when
the soil stabilization problem was found. Mr. Smith said the soils report was delayed
due to the Olympics. He said the building was on top of an old riverbed which was
composed of soft clays and sandy silts. Councilmember Saxton asked for a list of what
had been done, when it had been done and what the concerns were with regard to the
Police Precinct Building. All Council Members were in favor of advancing the issue
with the understanding that Councilmember Saxton's questions would be answered before
the vote.
A discussion was held regarding Issue #6, water carryover projects and #7,
stormwater carryover projects. Mr. Hooton discussed water reserves, water conservation
and the purchase of water. Councilmember Saxton asked Mr. Hooton to be aggressive with
a water conservation program. All Council Members were in favor of moving Issues #6
and #7 forward.
02 - 3
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 2002
A discussion was held regarding Issue #9, Impact fee exemptions. Councilmember
Buhler asked Mr. Fluhart if impact fee exemption issues should be taken care of at the
end of the fiscal year or all at once. Mr. Fluhart said a recommendation would be
forwarded asking that the General Fund reimburse exempt impact fees. All Council
Members were in favor of holding the issue for further study.
A discussion was held regarding Issue #10, Budget Adjustment full time employee
request for Airport Enterprise Fund. Mr. Campbell discussed Federal Security
Regulations at Airports since the September 11th bombing. He said the Federal Aviation
Administration required certain security staffing to be 24 hours a day, seven days a
week. He said the Air National Guard had been used but staffing was now required.
A discussion was held regarding Issue #12, Pioneer Park use plan. Councilmember
Christensen said he was concerned about having another study of Pioneer Park done. Mr.
Graham said a plan of action was needed for consistent and daily activity at the park.
Mr. Fawcett said CIP funding was not appropriate for funding. He said funding should
be from the general fund. He requested that the change be made. All Council Members
were in favor of moving the issue forward except Council Members Saxton and Lambert.
A discussion was held regarding Issue #14, Housing and Neighborhood Development
Director position reestablishment. Mr. Fluhart said the position was imperative to the
function of the department. He said the City had been passive in economic development
and now needed to be pro-active with regard to economic development and the development
of housing. A decision was made that Ms. Hunt would come back to the Council at a
later date with regard to this issue.
#9. DISCUSS THE PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR REVIEW OF THE CDBG, HOPWA, HOME AND ESG
RECOMMENDATIONS, AND IDENTIFY INITIAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF RESEARCH. View Attachment
Michael Sears and LuAnn Clark briefed the Council. Mr. Sears gave a brief review
of the public hearing and briefing schedule. (See file M 02-1 for the handout) . Mr.
Sears said there would be a briefing regarding the City taking over private streets.
He said a policy decision was needed.
#10. CONSIDER ENTERING INTO AN EXECUTIVE SESSION, IN KEEPING WITH UTAH CODE TO
DISCUSS LABOR NEGOTIATION.
An Executive Session was not held.
The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
cm
02 - 4
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 25, 2002
SUBJECT: Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund loan to Community
Housing Services, Inc. for the Capitol Villa Apartment
project
STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears, Budget & Policy Analyst
CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rocky Fluhart, Jay Magure, David
Dobbins, and LuAnn Clark
Document
Type Budget-Related Facts Policy-Related Facts Miscellaneous Facts
Resolution $300,000 loan from the This proposed loan Proposed resolution
Housing Trust Fund of supports the Council authorizes a$300,000
Salt Lake City to housing policy included in loan from the City's
Community Housing the adopted Community Housing Trust Fund to
Services, Inc. to Housing Plan. Community Housing
purchase and Services, Inc.Trust
rehabilitate the Capitol fund balance is
Villa Apartments. approximately
$2,200,000.The
requested loan terms
are 3%for 30 years.
The Administration is proposing that the City Council approve a resolution
authorizing the Mayor to execute a loan agreement and related loan documents with
Community Housing Services, Inc. for a $300,000 loan from the City's Housing Trust
Fund. This action would facilitate the purchase of the Capitol Villa Apartments at 238
West 600 North for rehabilitation. All 108 units in the project will continue to be
marketed as affordable housing units.
OPTIONS AND MOTIONS:
1. ["I move that the Council"j Adopt the resolution as proposed.
2. ["I move that the Council"j Not adopt the resolution.
MATTERS AT ISSUE/POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION:
• This project is leveraged with funds provided by Towle Financial Services and
Federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credits. The applicant has also received
funding from the Olene Walker Housing Trust Fund in the amount of
$300.000. Total purchase and rehabilitation cost for this project is projected to
be $6,417,930. - Are all other sources providing funding as anticipated? Is the
amount of money allocated for rehabilitation sufficient due to the age of the
property?
Page 1
ANALYSIS:
BACKGROUND: The Capitol Villa Apartments were originally built in 1981 as a
project-based Section 8 apartment complex. This status has expired, but an annual
renewal has been granted by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD). Community Housing Services, Inc. intends to acquire this
property and market the apartments as affordable housing over the long term (99
years).
The Capitol Villa complex has 108 units for the elderly/disabled. All 108 units will
continue to be marketed as affordable housing units.
The funding application for the project is contained in the Council Transmittal for this
resolution request.
Page 2
SA LT' C .Y�+ C +R�.PO-°�+,`A�IO=
DAVID DD661N5
ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON
DEPUTY DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR
COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer DATE: February 13, 2002
•
FROM: David Dobbins Z`, Z'c(-
RE: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute a loan agreement between Salt Lake City
Corporation and Community Housing Services, Inc., for the purchase and rehabilitation of the Capitol
Villa Apartments located at 238 West 600 North, Salt Lake City,Utah.
STAFF CONTACT: LuAnn Clark
DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution
BUDGET IMPACT: The City will loan$300,000 from the Housing Trust Fund.
DISCUSSION: Community Housing Services, Inc., has requested a $300,000 loan from the
City's Housing Trust Fund to purchase and rehabilitate the Capitol Villa Apartments, consisting of 108
units for the elderly/disabled located at 238 West 600 North. All 108 units will continue to be
marketed as affordable housing units. The loan will be amortized over 30 years at 3% interest per
year.
The Capitol Villa Apartments were constructed in 1981 under the U. S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development Section 8 Housing Assistance Program. Its Section 8 status has expired.
However, it has been renewed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD) on
an annual basis. Community Housing Services, Inc., intends to retain this project as affordable
housing over the long term (99 years). The Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan identifies a
tremendous need for more affordable housing within the City's boundaries. Preserving these
apartments as affordable housing for the long term will help the City accomplish one of its most
important housing goals.
The funds requested from the Housing Trust Fund will be leveraged with funds provided by Towle
Financial Services and Federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credits. The applicant has also received
funding from the Olene Walker Housing Trust Fund in the amount of$300,000. It is anticipated the
total cost of purchasing and rehabilitating the project will be $6,417,930.
The Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board reviewed this proposal and recommended approval on
January 23, 2002.
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1
TELEPHONE: 801-535-6230 FAX: 801-535-6005
RESOLUTION NO. OF 2002
AUTHORIZING A LOAN FROM
SALT LAKE CITY'S HOUSING TRUST FUND
TO COMMUNITY HOUSING SERVICES, INC.
FOR THE CAPITOL VILLA APARTMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Corporation (the City) has a Housing Trust Fund to
encourage affordable and special needs housing development within the City; and
WHEREAS, Community Housing Services, Inc., has applied to the City for a
$300,000 loan at 3% over thirty years to purchase the Capitol Villa Apartments located
at 238 West 600 North consisting of 108 affordable units for the elderly/disabled.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
1. It does hereby approve Salt Lake City to enter into a loan agreement with
Community Housing Services, Inc., for $300,000 at 3% over thirty years from Salt Lake
City's Housing Trust Fund.
2. Community Housing Services, Inc., will use the loan to purchase and
rehabilitate the Capitol Villa Apartment project located at 238 West 600 North, Salt Lake
City, Utah.
3. Ross C. Anderson, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, following approval of the
City Attorney, is hereby authorized to execute the requisite loan agreement documents
on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation and to act in accordance with their terms.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of
, 2002.
RESOLUTION NO. OF 2002
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
By:
CHAIR
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM
SALT LAKE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
DATE: yi
ce'
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER BY: It
COMMUNITY
HOUSING
SERVICES
INCORPORATED
FUNDING APPLICATION
SALT LAKE CITY HOUSING TRUST FUND
for
CAPITOL VILLA APARTMENTS
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
December 27, 2001
°4110N,IIV
FUNDING APPLICATION
SALT LAKE CITY HOUSING TRUST FUND
Cover Sheet
Project Name: Capitol Villa Apartments
Applicant/Organization: Community Housing Services, Inc.
A Utah Non-Profit Corporation
Mailing Address: 1059 East 900 South
• Salt Lake City, Utah 84105
Contact Person: Philip Carroll / Kenneth Patterson
Phone Number: 801-328-1050
Fax Number: 801-328-1082
E-mail: CHSIncorp(cr�aol.com
Federal Employee Identification Number 87-0529257 4110
Project Name (if applicable): Capitol Villa Apartments
Project Location: 238 West 600 North, Salt Lake City, Utah 84103
Amount Requested: $ 300,000.00
Terms Requested: 30 Years at 3%
Please contact Sandi Marler at 535-7269. to answer questions or for assistance to
complete this application. The application is typed in Microsoft Word and is available on
disc.
Project Description
Part I
1. Describe the project. Please attach site plan, floor plan, and elevation of your
project, if available. Please address how your project will be accessible/visitable.
Capitol Villa Apartments is a 108-Unit apartment complex servicing elderly
and handicapped/disabled people. The property is a part of the Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Section 8 Housing Assistance
Program. All buildings are accessible and five (5) of the apartments meet
ADA requirements for access and occupancy by wheelchair residents. Site
plan, floor plan and elevation of buildings are attached as Exhibit No. 1.
2. Does the project conform to the City's Master Plan for the area? Please indicate
which master plan. Briefly restate the master plan objectives the project will
meet.
Yes, see attached letter from the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City to
the Utah Housing Corporation. Exhibit No. 2
3. What is the property zoned?
Capitol Villa is an existing housing complex. Zoning and conditional use
approvals were granted by Salt Lake City on August 13, 1979. Occupancy
was approved by Salt Lake City on May 7, 1981. A copy of the occupancy
permit is enclosed as Exhibit No. 3.
4. How will the community be involved? Please provide a letter of support from the
Community Council in the area.
See enclosed letter from the Capitol Hill Neighborhood Council,
Exhibit No. 4.
5. Who will benefit from this project? Please include income information.
Capitol Villa is for elderly and handicapped/disabled people.
• 107 of 108 current residents have household incomes less than the Very
Low Income classification of 50% of the average median income.
• 96 of the 108 current residents have household incomes of less than 30%
of average median income.
• The average monthly residents rent is $126.
See Executive Summary enclosed as Exhibit No. 5.
6. How will the project be accomplished if the Salt Lake City Trust Fund is unable to
fund this request?
The purchase of Capitol Villa is by a non-profit corporation committed to
preserve the property as affordable housing for it's remaining useful life.
Without Salt Lake City Trust Funds it will be almost impossible for the non-
profit to purchase Capitol Villa. Thus, this elderly housing will not be
preserved and will probably not remain as affordable housing.
2
Project Funding
Part II
1. Please list the sources of all funds as of the date of the application. If this is a tax
credit project, please provide a copy of the tax credit application.
Tax Credit Application is enclosed as Exhibit No. 6.
Sources of Funding/Construction:
Source Amount
Equity Tax Credit Equity $2,284,651
1st Mortgage FHA Insured Loan 3,250,000
2"d Mortgage State of Utah 300,000
Other Secured Debts Salt Lake City 300.000
Unsecured Debt Deferred Developer's Fee 283,279
Other
Total Sources as of: Estimated at 12/10/2001 $6,417,930
Sources of Funding/Post Construction:
Source Amount
Equity Tax Credit Equity $2,284,279
1st Mortgage FHA Insured Loan 3,250,000
2"d Mortgage State of Utah 300,000
Other Secured Debts Salt Lake City 300,000
Unsecured Debt Deferred Developer's Fee 283,279
Other
Total Sources as of: Estimated at 12/10/2001 $6,417,930
1 a. Ratio of Salt Lake City Trust Funding to total funding: 21:1 (4.67%)
2. Please list the uses of all funds for the proposed project, being as specific as
possible. The total of Uses of Funds should equal the total project cost.
Uses:
Land/Building Acquisition Cost $4,300,000
Rehabilitation/Construction Cost 1,396,902
NE, Permit and other fees 41,000
Other, please specify Developer's Fee 283,279
Financing and Other Expenses 281,749
Reserves 115,000
Total uses as of: Estimated at 12/10/2001 $6,417,930
3
3. What will be the value of the project at the time of completion?
$6,417,930
4. Please attach sales or operating projections for the project for the first five years
after completion. Please list below the assumptions made to prepare the
operating projection. Please show revenue and expense categories in as much
detail as possible.
See Enclosed Exhibit No. 7.
5. What is the source of repayment of the funds?
The rents from the apartments.
6. What type of security is being offered to the City?
A lien on the property
7. Please list any other governmental grants, loans, tax credits, licenses, etc.,
necessary for this project to proceed. Please include if the money has been
awarded or where it is in the process.
Mortgage - $3,250,000 - Application Pending
Salt Lake City - $ 300,000 - Application Pending
State OWHTF - $ 300,000 - Approved
Tax Credits - $2,284,000 - Approved
• 8. Please describe the purchase terms under which the applicant will/has acquire(d)
the property. How much of the purchase price will be paid with equity provided
by the applicant? By others?
See Source and Uses of funds in Part II, 1 and 2 by this application. The
$2,284,000 equity will be provided by an investor partner of the new
ownership of the property.
9. If an appraisal of the property has been obtained, please attach a copy.
See enclosed Appraisal and Rent Comparability Study.
10. Please state the number of years you will maintain this property as affordable.
99 years or for the remaining useful life of the property.
U
4111
Applicant Information
Part III
1 . Please check each of the following which is true for the Applicant
(a) The Applicant is an individual doing business under his/her own name.
X (b) The Applicant has the status indicated below and is organized or to be
organized under the laws of the State of Utah .
A corporation
X A nonprofit or charitable institution or corporation
A partnership known as or to be known as:
A business association or joint venture known as or to be known
as:
II
A Federal, State or local government or instrumentality thereof
Individual known as:
Social Security Number of Individual:
Other (explain):
2. If the Applicant is not an individual or a government agency, give date of
organization:
3. Please provide a list of the officers, director or trustees, board of trustees or
board of directors, or partners of the applicant's organization.
Please refer to Exhibit No. 8.
4. Who will manage the property once it has been acquired?
It is our intent to renew the management contract with the current
management agent, Sellers Management & Development to minimize any
potential negative impact the ownership transition may have on residents.
5
5. Please provide a brief description of your organization.
1110
Please refer to Exhibit No. 9
6. Who will be responsible for this project?
Responsibility for overseeance of the property will be shared by the President
and Vice President of Community Housing Services, Inc.
7. Please provide examples of experience your organization has with this type of
project.
Please refer to Exhibit No. 10.
6
Current Ownership Information
Part IV ,
1. Who is the current owner of the property?
Capitol Villa Investments, A Utah Limited Partnership
2. Who is the current manager of the property?
Sellers Management & Development Company
3. Please provide a list of the officers, director or trustees, board of trustees or
board of directors, or partners of the organization that currently owns the
property.
General Partner- DBM Community Developers
(Brian L. Sellers, M. Tom Shimizu, and
Daniel A. Loewen)
Limited Partner- Heartland Realty Investors, Inc
S
Certification
I (we) Philip Carroll and Kenneth Patterson certify that this
Applicant Disclosure of Ownership and Control is true and correct to the best of my
(our) knowledge and belief.
Signature Signature - -
President Vice-President
Title Title
1059 East 900 South 1059 East 900 South
Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 Salt Lake City, Utah 84105
Address and Zip Code Address and Zip Code
Date: December 20, 2001 Date: December 20, 2001
Eligible Activities for Salt Lake City Housing Trust Funds
Part V
As set forth in Salt Lake Ordinance 78-00 of 2000, funds are provided to Salt
Lake City's Housing Trust Fund to be used exclusively to assist with affordable and
special needs housing in the City. Fund moneys may be used for:
1 . Acquisition, leasing, rehabilitation, or new construction of housing units for
ownership or rental, including transitional housing;
2. Emergency home repairs;
3. Retrofitting to provide access for persons with disabilities;
4. Down payment and closing cost assistance;
5. Construction and gap financing;
6. Land acquisition for affordable and special needs housing units
7. Technical assistance;
8. Other activities and expenses incurred that directly assist in providing affordable
and special needs housing.
Fund moneys may not be used for administrative expenses.
s
•
A
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 21,2002
TO: City Council Members
FROM: Russell Weeks
RE: Proposed Amendments to City Traffic Code
CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson,Rocky Fluhart,David Dobbins,Tim Harpst,
Mary Johnston,Dan Bergenthal
OPTIONS
• Adopt the proposed ordinance.
• Do not adopt the proposed ordinance.
• Consider adopting the proposed ordinance with an amendment to section 12.52.355 titled
Negligent Operation Causing Personal Injury or Death to include citations issued to
drivers involved in accidents that cause"substantial bodily injury"as a Class B
misdemeanor instead of as a civil violation.
• Consider adopting the proposed ordinance with an amendment to section 12.76.045 to
specify that motorists must yield to pedestrians at intersections as well to pedestrians in
marked or unmarked crosswalks. City Council Members may wish to read a letter to the
City Council from the City Attorney's Office that is included in Council Member packets
before considering this option.
• Consider requesting that the Administration make amending the Utah Code relating to
pedestrians and crosswalks a priority in its legislative efforts and/or urge the
Administration to include in its on-going public information efforts the need for
pedestrians to yield to automobiles when pedestrians are not in crosswalks.
POTENTIAL MOTIONS
• I move that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance.
• I move that the City Council not adopt the proposed ordinance.
• I move that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance with the following
amendments:That Paragraph B of Section 12.52.355 read: "The operator of any vehicle
who negligently fails to yield the right of way as required by any section of this title
which failure is the direct proximate cause of substantial bodily injury or serious bodily
injury or death by any person,whether such injured or deceased person is a pedestrian or
an occupant of a vehicle,shall be deemed guilty of a Class B misdemeanor."That
Paragraph C of the same section be omitted.
• I move that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance with the following
amendments: That the title of Section 12.76.040 read: "Yielding Right-of-Way at
Intersections and Marked or Unmarked.Crosswalks—Driver and Pedestrian Duties."That
Subparagraph 1 under Paragraph A,titled"Driver Duties"read: "With regard to
1
intersections and marked or unmarked crosswalks,vehicles shall yield the right-of-way
to: (a)(i)pedestrians carrying a brightly colored flag customarily used by pedestrians in
the City about to enter intersections or while crossing a street within a crosswalk,and(b)
all other pedestrians about to enter intersections or a marked or unmarked crosswalk.
(Two things should be noted: (1)Council staff has no law degree,and the City Council may
wish to postpone any final adoption of this particular proposed amendment until it can be
discussed with the City Attorney's Office.(2)Council Members again may wish to refer to the
letter from the City Attorney's Office included in Council Member packets.)
ISSUES DISCUSSION/BACKGROUND
The Administration and the City Council have dealt with this proposed ordinance for
about a year.As the Administration's transmittal letter says,the proposed ordinance is intended to
coordinate Salt Lake City's traffic code with state law.The proposed ordinance also makes a
number of housekeeping changes to make clear delineations between civil violations and criminal
violations and to clarify City ordinances pertaining to drivers' and pedestrians' rights and duties
to yield rights-of-way and to pedestrian control devices.
There appear to be two main issues involved in the proposed ordinance.The first issue
involves Section 12.52.355 titled Negligent Operation Causing Personal Injury or Death.
Under the proposed revision a driver found to have negligently failed to yield the right of
way to other vehicles or pedestrians and to have caused an accident that results in death or
"serious bodily injury ... shall be deemed guilty of a Class B misdemeanor."A driver found to
have negligently failed to yield the right of way to other vehicles or pedestrians and found to have
caused an accident that results in"substantial bodily injury ... shall be deemed guilty of a civil
violation."
The issue involves definitions of"serious"and"substantial"bodily injury.The proposed
ordinance defines"serious bodily injury"as injuries that create or cause"permanent
disfigurement,protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily members or organ,or
creates a substantial risk of death."The proposed ordinance defines"substantial bodily injury"as
injuries that do not amount to serious bodily injury but that create or cause"protracted physical
pain,temporary disfigurement,or temporary loss or impairment or the function of any bodily
member or organ."
A May 25,2001,City Council staff memorandum quoted the City Attorney Office as
saying that the decision to split penalties based on the degree of injuries resulting from an
accident was based upon discussions among the City Attorney's Office,the City Prosecutor and
the Administrative Law Judge.The City Attorney's Office said in May 2001 that final
determination of whether penalties should be split between criminal and civil administration
remains with the City Council. (Please see attached staff memorandum dated May 25,2001.)
The second issue involves rights and duties of motorists and pedestrians.According to
the City Attorney's Office, Section 12.76.045 titled Yielding Right-of-Way at Marked or
Unmarked Crosswalks—Driver and Pedestrian Duties comports with Utah law on duties of
motorists and pedestrians.
2
The Administration has changed the language in the section of the proposed ordinance
several times to meet concerns raised by previous City Council Members. (For an earlier version
of the language,please see attached May 25,2001,memorandum.)The previous City Council
deferred action on the proposed ordinance until City Council Members were satisfied with the
language in the section. Council staff has included a potential motion in this memorandum that
may be a starting point for continued revision of the section if Council Members are not satisfied
with the language in the current proposed ordinance.
The main point involving previous City Council Members'views may be summarized by
the following language from a document located during City Council staff research on the
proposed ordinance:
"We still require the pedestrian to be in the intersection or crosswalk in order to
require the motorist to yield.This is not pedestrian friendly. ... It's far more pedestrian
friendly and appropriate for motorists to yield to pedestrians at an intersection or a
crosswalk.Motorists must become more aware of pedestrians,and pedestrian presence on
our streets must be given priority ... for us to become the`pedestrian friendly'city we
talk about..."
A response from the City Attorney's Office to a question relating to this staff
memorandum included a reference to Utah Code Section 41-6-16 titled Uniform application of
chapter-Effect of local ordinances. The section is part of the Rules and Regulations chapter of
the Motor Vehicle Act. The section reads:
"The provisions of this chapter are applicable and uniform throughout this state
and in all of its political subdivisions and municipalities.A local authority may not enact
411 or enforce any rule or ordinance in conflict with the provisions of this chapter.Local
authorities may,however,adopt ordinances consistent with this chapter,and additional
traffic ordinances which are not in conflict with this chapter."
•« 'A question for the City Council is:Would amending the proposed ordinance to include
language requiring motorists to yield to pedestrians who are at intersections but not in crosswalks
be in conflict with State law or consistent with State law?Again, Council Members may wish to
refer to the letter from the City Attorney's Office included in the City Council packets.
OTHER ITEMS
The proposed ordinance also would define which traffic violations are prosecuted as
criminal violations and which are prosecuted as civil violations.The ordinance also would close a
variety of"loopholes"in the existing City traffic code including:
• Adding language that says,"It shall not be a defense that there was no apparent
observer present to view such speed contest or exhibition,"to Section 12.36.040
titled Speed or Acceleration Contests Prohibited.
• Prohibiting the use of more than four headlights or auxiliary lights with beam
intensities of more than 300 candle-power. (Section 12.28.090.)
• Making it illegal to park parallel more than 12 inches away from the curb of a
street.According to the Attorney's Office,the 12-inch restriction is State law.
3
}
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 25,2001
TO: City Council Members
FROM: Russell Weeks
RE: Briefing:Traffic Code Amendments—Administrative Courts
Document Type Budget-Related Facts Policy-Related Facts Miscellaneous Facts
Ordinance No significant budget The Administrative The proposed
impact. Court was established in amendments include
December 1999.An housekeeping items to
amendment was adopted close loopholes and
in May 2000 after a few make a clear delineation
months of operation.In between civil violation
February 2001 the and criminal violations.
Administration sought
more amendments to
close perceived
loopholes in the City
•
Traffic Code and to
make the code
consistent with the Utah
State Code.The City
Council tabled action on
the proposed
amendments until it was
satisfied that the
amendments relating to
pedestrian safety were
addressed to the
Council's satisfaction.
The City Council held a discussion of the proposed amendments to the Traffic Code at a
work session on February 6.During the discussion Council Member Rogan suggested that
perhaps the code needed to be strengthened regarding vehicle drivers not yielding to pedestrians
at intersectionbwhen drivers are making right turns since that is an area of particular danger for
pedestrians. Subsequent to the briefing the Administrative Court indicated that the Traffic Code is
probably adequate regarding the requirement to yield to pedestrians at intersections.The City
Council on February 13 tabled consideration of the proposed amendments to continue to address
pedestrian safety in crosswalks versus vehicles making right turns.The Administration then
revised the Traffic Code relating to right turns.The Administration also added other amendments
1
dealing with penalties for injury accidents involving failure to yield rights of way and the
operations of the Administrative Court.
ISSUES,POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION
There appear to be two issues for City Council consideration at the May 31 briefing:
• Do the proposed revisions to the Traffic Code address concerns about pedestrian safety
raised by City Council Members?
• Should penalties for injury accidents involving failure to yield rights of way be divided
into criminal and civil penalties?
DISCUSSION
The two main proposed changes involve revisions to the Traffic Code pertaining to
pedestrian safety in crosswalks and penalties for injury accidents pertaining to failure to yield
rights of way.
It should be noted that Council Member concerns in the first item centered on requiring
motorists to yield the right of way to pedestrians at an intersection or crosswalk.Under the
current Traffic Code,pedestrians must be in an intersection or crosswalk before motorists are
required to yield.
A revised section—12.32.045—titled Meaning of Vehicular Signal Indications—Driver
and Pedestrian Duties,appears to require motorists to yield to pedestrians when vehicles are
making right turns.(Paragraph Ala).The section also allows pedestrians to cross roadways
within any marked or unmarked crosswalk when"facing any green signal indication,except when
the signal indication is a turn arrow for a vehicular movement in conflict with the desired path of
the pedestrian."(Paragraph Ale).
Another proposed revision is a new section—12.76.045—titled Yielding Right of Way at
marked or Unmarked Crosswalks—Driver and Pedestrian Duties.
The new section reads:
"Vehicles shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians at marked or unmarked
crosswalks by slowing or coming to a complete stop and shall not enter said crosswalk
when a pedestrian is in the vehicle's travel lane,within an adjoining lane,or is attempting,
as shown by clearly discernable signs,lawfully to enter the vehicle's travel lane or
adjoining lane.Clearly discernable signs include a pedestrian being in close proximity to
the vehicle's travel lane or adjoining land and:
a) making eye contact with the approaching driver or making other visual or
auditory signs indicating an effort to attract the approaching driver's •
attention;or auditory signs indicating an effort to attract the approaching
driver's attention;or
b) while facing the crosswalk,showing one or more of the following:
(i) a brightly colored flag customarily used by pedestrians in the
City while crossing a street within a crosswalk;
2
(ii) a white cane or service animal customarily used by pedestrians
having visual impairments;
(iii) a wheel chair or similar wheeled mechanical,electrical or —
motorized vehicle customarily used by pedestrians having
mobility impairments;or
(iv) signs of impairment or infirmity of any kind,including,but
not limited to,infirmity resulting from advanced age."
The issue for consideration is whether the proposed amendments address City Council
Members'concerns about pedestrian safety.
The second key proposed revision involves section 12.52.355 titled Negligent Operation
Causing Personal Injury or Death.Under the proposed revision a driver found to have
negligently failed to yield the right of way to other vehicles or pedestrians and to have caused an
accident that results in death or"serious bodily injury,""shall be deemed guilty of a Class B
misdemeanor."A driver found to have negligently failed to yield the right of way to other
vehicles or pedestrians and to have caused an accident that results in"substantial bodily injury,"
"shall'be deemed guilty of a civil violation."
The issue involves definitions of"serious"and"substantial"bodily injury.The proposed
amendment defines"serious bodily injury"as injuries that create or cause"permanent
disfigurement,protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily members or organ,or
creates a substantial risk of death."The proposed amendment defines"substantial bodily injury"
as injuries that to not amount to serious bodily injury that create or cause"protracted physical
pain,temporary disfigurement,or temporary loss or impairment or the function of any bodily
member or organ."
According to the City Attorney Office,the amendment was proposed because of an injury
accident that the Salt Lake County District Attorney's Office declined to prosecute.The decision
to split penalties based on the degree of injuries resulting from the accident was based on
discussions among the City Attorney's Office,the City Prosecutor and the Administrative Law
Judge.However,final determination of whether the penalties should be split between criminal
and civil penalties remains with the City Council,according to the City Attorney's Office.
3
s
6 u -.
's '�� ai_;C T,YlCo :�P I, Ni
REVONA STONER a i` .�wc��wF.� ROSS C. "ROCKY"ANDERSON
MINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES
MAYOR
ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT OFFICE
COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
2 TO: Rocky J. lu ATE: December 12, 2001
Chief Administrative Officer
FROM: Mary Johnston
Administrative Enforcement Division Manager
Management Services Department
Dan Bergenthal
Transportation Engineer
Department of Community and Economic Development
SUBJECT: Traffic Code Amendments pertaining to the Administrative Court, pedestrian and
drivers yielding duties and pedestrian control devices.
CONTACT: Mary Johnston,Administrative Enforcement Division Manager
Telephone: 535-7173
Dan Bergenthal, Transportation Engineer
Telephone: 535-7106
DOCUMENT TYPE: Salt Lake City Ordinance
BUDGET IMPACT: Not applicable
DISCUSSION: This ordinance amendment coordinates the City's traffic code with Utah Code
Annotated, Section 10-3-703.5, makes a number of housekeeping changes to make a clear
delineation between civil violations and criminal violations and updates and clarifies city
ordinances pertaining to drivers and pedestrians rights and duties to yield right-of-way and
pedestrian control devices.
There are several instances in the City's traffic code where violations are classified as Class B
misdemeanors or there is ambiguity as to what the classification is. Utah Code Annotated,
Section 10-3-703.5 (2000) allows the Administrative Court to operate, but limits its jurisdiction
to violations that were previously classified lower than a class B misdemeanor(infractions and
class C misdemeanors). The proposed changes bring the City traffic code in line with the state
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 225, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1
TELEPHONE: BO1-535-6321 FAX: B01-535-6082
Council Transmittal
December 12,2001
Page 2
code. Other changes deal with violations as to which there has been confusion whether they —
should be handled as civil or criminal violations.
As a result of issues addressed by the city's Pedestrian Safety Committee, city ordinances
12.76.020, 12.76.030, and 12.76.040 have been rewritten and combined into a new ordinance,
12.76.045 Yielding Right-of-Way at Marked or Unmarked Crosswalks-Driver and Pedestrian
Duties. The new ordinance redefines how drivers yield to pedestrians at crosswalks and provides
increased penalties for repeat offenders. Drivers cited for failing to yield to the visibly disabled,
elderly and those using orange crossing flags would be required to appear before the
Administrative Law Judge and would be subject to substantially increased fines.
City ordinances 12.32.030 and 12.32.040 were modified and combined into a new ordinance
12.32.045 Meaning of Vehicular Signal Indications—Driver and Pedestrian Duties. These
modifications update the current ordinances to the standards contained in the current edition of
the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD 2000.)
Work of the Pedestrian Safety Committee has resulted in the preferred use of Pedestrian
Countdown Timers in the city. In addition, the use of symbols instead of words in pedestrian
signals necessitated changes to city ordinance 12.32.050 Pedestrian"Walk" and"Don't Walk"
Signals. The ordinance has been renamed as ordinance 12.32.055 Pedestrian Signal Indications.
Changes include updating the ordinance to include references to the Walking Person and Hand
symbols and adding a section to allow pedestrians to begin crossing the roadway during the
flashing hand phase at locations with countdown timers.
RECOMMENDATION: It is requested this Ordinance be placed on the January 8, 2002,
Salt Lake City Council Agenda for approval.
Attachment
A/2-11P"
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. of 2001
(Traffic code amendments)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1.12.050, SALT LAKE CITY CODE,
RELATING TO VIOLATION PENALTIES; AMENDING THE TITLE TO CHAPTER 2.75,
SALT LAKE CITY CODE,PERTAINING TO ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT
PROGRAM; AMENDING SECTION 2.75.050,SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO
HEARING OFFICER; AMENDING SECTION 2.75.060,SALT LAKE CITY CODE,
PERTAINING TO CIVIL TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS;AMENDING SECTION 12.04.110, SALT
LAKE CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO CROSSWALK;AMENDING SECTION 12.04.120,
SALT LAKE CITY CODE,PERTAINING TO CROSSWALK LINE; ENACTING SECTION
12.04.235,SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO MARKED CROSSWALK;
ENACTING SECTION 12.04.595,SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO UNMARKED
CROSSWALK; AMENDING SECTION 12.12.010,SALT LAKE CITY CODE,PERTAINING
TO OBEDIENCE TO TRAFFIC CODE; AMENDING SECTION 12.16.060,SALT LAKE CITY
CODE, PERTAINING TO COLLISION WITH UNATTENDED PROPERTY; AMENDING
SECTION 12.20.030, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO MISDEMEANOR
CITATION WHEN IMMEDIATE APPEARANCE IS NOT MADE; ENACTING SECTION
12.20.035, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO CIVIL VIOLATION CITATIONS;
REPEALING SECTION 12.20.040, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO VIOLATING
PROMISE TO APPEAR; AMENDING SECTION 12.24.012, SALT LAKE CITY CODE,
PERTAINING TO VIOLATION OF RESTRICTED LICENSE; AMENDING SECTION
12.24.018, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO DRIVING WITHOUT INSURANCE;
AMENDING THE TITLE TO SECTION 12.24.115,SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PERTAINING
TO CIVIL VIOLATION FOR DRIVING ON A SUSPENDED LICENSE OTHER THAN
ALCOHOL OR CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE OR STATE VIOLATION RELATED;
AMENDING THE TITLE TO SECTION 12.24.120,SALT LAKE CITY CODE,PERTAINING
TO ALCOHOL OR CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE OR STATE VIOLATION FOR DRIVING
ON A SUSPENDED LICENSE; AMENDING SECTION 12.28.010,SALT LAKE CITY CODE,
PERTAINING TO STATE VEHICLE INSPECTIONS; AMENDING SECTION 12.28.020,
SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO VEHICLE REGISTRATION AND LICENSE
PLATES; AMENDING SECTION 12.28.090, SALT LAKE CITY CODE,PERTAINING TO
LIGHTS, BRAKES, AND OTHER EQUIPMENT; REPEALING SECTION 12.32.030, SALT
LAKE CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO COLOR INDICATIONS FOR SIGNALS-DRIVERS
AND PEDESTRIAN DUTIES; REPEALING SECTION 12.32.040,SALT LAKE CITY CODE,
PERTAINING TO FLASHING RED OR YELLOW SIGNALS; ENACTING SECTION
12.32.045, PERTAINING TO THE MEANING OF VEHICULAR SIGNAL INDICATIONS-
DRIVER AND PEDESTRIAN DUTIES; REPEALING SECTION 12.32.050, SALT LAKE CITY
CODE, PERTAINING TO PEDESTRIAN"WALK"AND "DON'T WALK" SIGNALS;
ENACTING SECTION 12.32.055, PERTAINING TO PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL INDICATIONS;
AMENDING SECTION 12.36.040,SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO SPEED OR
ACCELERATION CONTESTS; AMENDING SECTION 12.44.020, SALT LAKE CITY CODE,
PERTAINING TO OVERTAKING AND PASSING VEHICLES PROCEEDING IN SAME
DIRECTION; AMENDING SECTION 12.44.130, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO
TURNING MOVEMENTS AND SIGNAL REQUIREMENTS; ENACTING SECTION
2
12.52.355, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO NEGLIGENT OPERATION
CAUSING PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH;REPEALING SECTION 12.56.030,SALT
LAKE CITY CODE,PERTAINING TO VEHICLE STATE INSPECTION CERTIFICATES;
AMENDING SECTION 12.56.100, SALT LAKE CITY CODE,PERTAINING TO PARKING
OPPOSITE TRAFFIC;REPEALING SECTION 12.76.020,SALT LAKE CITY CODE,
PERTAINING TO PEDESTRIAN RIGHTS OBEDIENCE TO TRAFFIC CONTROL
SIGNALS; REPEALING SECTION 12.76.030, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO
RIGHT-OF-WAY IN CROSSWALKS VEHICLE REQUIREMENTS; REPEALING SECTION
12.76.040,SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO VEHICLE STOPPED AT
CROSSWALK—PASSING PROHIBITED; AND ENACTING SECTION 12.76.045,SALT
LAKE CITY CODE,PERTAINING TO YIELDING RIGHT-OF-WAY AT MARKED OR
UNMARKED CROSSWALKS—DRIVER AND PEDESTRIAN DUTIES.
Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah:
SECTION 1. That Section 1.12.050, Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to violation
penalties be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows:
1.12.050 Violation-Penalty.
Any person convicted of violating any provision of the ordinances codified in this code,
or ordinances hereafter enacted, shall be guilty of a Class B misdemeanor unless otherwise
specified in such ordinance, or interpreted by the court as a Class C misdemeanorl-ef infraction,
or civil violation, and shall be punished as follows:
3
A. In the case of a Class B misdemeanor and civil violations under Chapter 2.75,by a
fine in any sum not exceeding one thousand dollars or, in the case of a Class B misdemeanor,by
imprisonment for a term not longer than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment;
B. In the case of a Class C misdemeanor,by a fine in any sum not exceeding seven
hundred fiftyfivefiftyfi.N=.e-llundfed dollars or by imprisonment for a term not longer than ninety days, or
by both such fine and imprisonment;
C. In the case of an infraction,by a fine in any sum not exceeding seven hundred
fiftyfive hundred dollars;
D. The sentence to pay a fine, when imposed upon a corporation, association or
partnership, for a Class B misdemeanor shall be in any sum not exceeding five thousand dollars;
E. The sentence to pay a fine, when imposed upon a corporation, association or
partnership, for a Class C misdemeanor or infraction, shall be in any sum not exceeding one
thousand dollars;
F. A prosecution of a corporation, association or partnership, as an entity, shall not
preclude prosecutions of individuals responsible for the actions of such entities and shall not
preclude a separate fine or imprisonment or both for those individuals, as well as a separate fine
for the business entity.
SECTION 2. That the title to Chapter 2.75, Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to
administrative enforcement program be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows:
Chapter 2.75
ADMINISTRATIVE TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
4
SECTION 3. That Section 2.75.050,Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to hearing officer
be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows:
2.75.050 Hearing Officer:
A. Duties: Consistent with the policies and procedures promulgated by the AU, the
hearing officer may receive civil penalties, surcharges, and assessments owed; certify to the State
that violations did occur so that points may be assessed to the violator pursuant to Utah Code
Annotated section 53-3-221;reduce civil penalties owed; dismiss citations upon payment of fees
and attendance at traffic school; enter into agreements for the timely or periodic payment of
penalties, surcharges and assessments; and perform such other duties as deemed necessary or
desirable by the AU to carry out the purposes of this Chapter in accordance with justice and
equity.
B. Accountability: The hearing officer shall serve as the staff for the AU but shall be
supervised as an employee under the direction of the City Director of Management Services or
his/her designee.
C. Exceptions: Regardless of provisions in this Section to the contrary,violations of
the following City Code sections shall require a mandatory appearance before the AU for
disposition, and shall not be disposed of by a hearing officer:
1. Section 12.36.040.
2. Section 12.48.070.
3. Section 12.48.080.
4. Section 12.48.100.
5. Section 12.52.355C.
5
6. Subsection Al(a) of Section 12.76.045.
7. Subsection Al(b) of Section 12.76.045 for a second and for each subsequent
violation within one(1)year of a previous conviction or forfeiture of penalty for a
violation of said subsection.
SECTION 4. That Section 2.75.060,Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to civil traffic
violations be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows:
2.75.060 Civil Traffic Violations:
A. When an officer determines that a violation of Title 12 of this Code has occurred,
the officer shall issue an administrative citation as provided in this Chapter, except as provided in
subsection B of this Section.
B. An officer shall not issue an administrative citation for any of the following
violations of this Code, which shall continue to be prosecuted in a criminal proceeding:
1. Sections 12.16.010 through 12.16.120 (a moving violation that would be a
Class B misdemeanor in a criminal proceeding);
2. Section 12.24.100 (driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol);
3. Section 12.24.070 (alcoholic beverages in vehicles);
4. Section 12.24.080 (intoxicated person in or about vehicles);
5. Section 12.24.120 (Class B misdemeanor-driving on denied, suspended or
revoked license);
6. Section 12.52.350 (reckless driving);
7. Section 12.52.355B (Negligent Operation Causing Serious Bodily Injury or
Death);
6
87. When any violation of Title 12 of this Code occurs in conjunction with any of
the violations listed above or in conjunction with any other criminal violation of this Code or of
State or Federal law.
SECTION 5. That Section 12.04.110, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to crosswalk be,
and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows:
12.04.110 Crosswalk.
"Crosswalk" means la)that part of a roadway at an intersection included within the
connections of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on opposite sides of the street or highway,
measured from the curbs, or in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the traversable roadway;
and in the absence of a sidewalk on one side of the roadway, the part of a roadway included
within the extension of the lateral lines of the sidewalk at right angles to the centerline; (b)-also
any portion of a roadway at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated for pedestrian
crossing by lines or other markings on the surface.
SECTION 6. That Section 12.04.120,Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to crosswalk line
be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows:
12.04.120 Crosswalk lines.
"Crosswalk lines" means a single white pavement marking lines that identify a crosswalk;
not less than six inches in width, painted on a street marking the outlying limits of a pedestrian
crossing.
SECTION 7. That Section 12.04.235, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to marked
crosswalk be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows:
12.04.235 Marked Crosswalk.
7
"Marked crosswalk"means a crosswalk for which the lateral lines are marked upon the
surface of the roadway.
SECTION 8. That Section 12.04.595, Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to unmarked
crosswalk be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows:
12.04.595 Unmarked Crosswalk.
"Unmarked crosswalk"means a crosswalk for which the lateral lines are not marked upon
the surface of the roadway.
SECTION 9. That Section 12.12.010,Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to obedience to
traffic code be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows:
12.12.010 Obedience To Traffic Code Required:
A. Unlawful Acts: It is unlawful for any person to:
1. Do any act prohibited by this Title;
2. Fail or refuse to do any act required by this Title;
3. Operate any vehicle in violation of any provision of this Title; or
4. Operate any vehicle unless such vehicle is equipped and maintained in
compliance with this Title.
(See Section 12.56.550 of this Title for sections subject to civil penalties.)
B. Violationsactions: Any person guilty of violating any provision of this title
shall be deemed guilty of a civil violation under Chapter 2.75an infraction unless such offense is
specifically otherwise designated as.a Class B misdemeanor.
C. EnhancementMisdemeanef On Third Conviction: Upon a third conviction of any
moving violation,whether the same violation or different violations, within the prior twelve (12)
8
month period, such third violation is subject to enhancement equivalent to the fine set forth at
Section 1.12.050, or its successors„eeifially designated as a Class B misdemeanor.
D. Violation Penalties: A person convicted of a civil
violationan infraction or a Class B misdemeanor, as provided in this Section, shall be punishable
as provided by Section 1.12.050 of this Code,or its successor.
SECTION 10. That Section 12.16.060, Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to collision with
unattended property be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows:
12.16.060 Collision with unattended property.
A. The driver of any vehicle which collides with or is involved in an accident with
any vehicle or other property which results in damage to the other vehicle or property shall
immediately stop, and shall then and there either locate and notify the operator or owner of such
vehicle or other property of such driver's name and address and the registration number of the
vehicle causing such damage, or shall attach securely in a conspicuous place on the vehicle or
other property a written notice giving such driver's name and address and the registration number
of the vehicle causing such damage. If applicable, the driver shall also give notice as provided in
Section 12.16.010, or its successor.
B. Any person failing to comply with said requirements under such circumstances is
guilty of an in-fr-actiencivil violation under Chapter 2.75.
SECTION 11. That Section 12.20.030,Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to misdemeanor
citation when immediate appearance is not made be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as
follows:
12.20.030 Misdemeanor Citation When Immediate Appearance Is Not Made:
9
A. Upon any Class B misdemeanor violation of this Title, whenever a person is not
immediately taken before a magistrate as provided in the preceding Section, the police officer
shall prepare in triplicate or more copies, a misdemeanor citation, shall issue one copy of which
to the person subject to arrest or prosecution, and shall,within five(5)days, file duplicate copies
with the court specified in the citation.
B. Each copy of the citation issued under authority of this Title shall contain:
1. The name of the court before which the person is to appear;
2. The name of the person cited;
3. A brief description of the offense charged;
4. The date,time and place at which the offense is alleged to have occurred;
5. The date on which the citation was issued;
6. The name of the peace officer or public official who issued the citation, and the
name of the arresting person if an arrest was made by a private party and the citation was issued
in lieu of taking the arrested person before a magistrate;
7. The time and date on or before and after which the person is to appear;
8. The address of the court in which the person is to appear; and
9. A notice containing substantially the following language:
READ CAREFULLY
This citation is not a complaint and will not be used as a complaint without your consent.
If a complaint is filed you will be provided a copy by the court. You MUST appear on or before
the time set in this citation. IF YOU FAIL TO APPEAR A COMPLAINT WILL BE FILED
AND THE COURT MAY ISSUE A WARRANT FOR YOUR ARREST.
10
C. Any person who wilfully fails to appear before a court pursuant to a citation
issued under this Section is guilty of a misdemeanor, regardless of the disposition of the charge
upon which such person was originally cited.
SECTION 12. That Section 12.20.035, Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to civil violation
citations be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows:
12.20.035 Civil violation citation when immediate appearance is not made.
A. Upon any civil violation of this title, the enforcement officer shall: (1)prepare in
as many copies as may be needed, a civil violation citation, (2) shall issue one copy to the person
subject to prosecution, and (3) shall,within five days, file duplicate copies or an electronic copy
with the administrative enforcement office as specified in the citation.
B. Each copy of the citation issued under authority of this title shall contain:
1. The name and address of the administrative enforcement office before which
the person is to appear;
2. The name of the person cited;
3. A brief description of the violation charged;
4. The date, time and place at which the violation is alleged to have occurred;
5. The date on which the citation was issued;
6. The name of the enforcement officer who issued the citation;
7. The time and date on or before and after which the person is to appear;
8. A notice containing substantially the following language:
CITATION AND NOTICE TO APPEAR
11
You are required to pay or appear within 20 days from the date of this citation. Failure to
follow the instructions on the back of the citation may result in increased costs, attorney fees and
other penalties provided by law.
SECTION 13. That Section 12.20.040,Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to violating
promise to appear be, and the same hereby is, repealed.
,
B. A written promise to appear in court may be complied with by an appearance by
counsel.
SECTION 14. That Section 12.24.012,Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to violation of
restricted license be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows:
12.24.012 Violation of restricted license.
A. It is unlawful for any person to drive a motor vehicle upon the streets of the city in any
manner in violation of the restrictions or endorsements imposed in a restricted operator's license
or a temporary learner permit granted to such person by the state or by such person's home state
or country.
B. It is unlawful for any person to drive a commercial motor vehicle as defined by Section
53-3-102, Utah Code Annotated, or its successor,upon the streets of the city in any manner in
violation of the restrictions or endorsements imposed in a restricted commercial driver license or
12
temporary learner permit granted under Title 53, Chapter 3, Part 4,Utah Code Annotated, or its
successor.
SECTION 15. That Section 12.24.018, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to driving
without insurance be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows:
as follows:
12.24.018 Driving without insurance.
A. It is unlawful for any person to operate a motor vehicle which is subject to the
requirements of insurance contained in the Utah Automobile No Fault Insurance Act, Section 41-
12a-30131 41 1, et seq., Utah Code Annotated, or theiris successors, anywhere within the
corporate limits of the city, knowing that the owner of the motor vehicle does not have security in
effect as required by Utah state lawthe Utah No Fault Insurance Act.
B. The foregoing notwithstanding, no person cited for a violation of this Section shall be
adjudged guilty of a violation hereof if such person produces reasonable evidence before an
administrative hearing officer or an administrative law judge that said security was in effect at
the time such person was issued a citation for failure to have such evidence in his or her
possession. Evidence of such security being in effect may be in the form of an identification card
approved by the Utah Department of Public Safety for issuance by an insurer to its insured with
respect to the motor vehicle.
C. An increased penalty may be imposed for a second and subsequent offenses within
three years of a previous conviction or forfeiture of penalty.
13
SECTION 16. That the title to Section 12.24.115, Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to civil
violation for driving on a suspended license other than alcohol or controlled substance or state
violation related be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows:
as follows:
12.24.115 Civil Violation -Non-alcohol and non-controlled-substance-related dDriving
Prohibited wWhile dDriving Orivilege dDenied, sSuspended, dDisqualified,oOr
rRevoked:
SECTION 17. That the title to Section 12.24.120,Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to
alcohol or controlled substance or state violation for driving on a suspended license be, and the
same hereby is, amended to read as follows:
as follows:
12.24.120 Class B Misdemeanor_Alcohol and controlled-substance-related dDriving
p.Prohibited wWhile dDriving QPrivilege dDenied, sSuspended, dDisqualified,oOr
rRevoked- Penalty:
SECTION 18. That Section 12.28.010,Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to state vehicle
inspections be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows:
12.28.010 State vehicle inspection certificate-required.
No person shall drive, stop or park,nor shall any owner or person in possession cause or
knowingly permit to be driven, stopped or parked on any street or alley within this city any
vehicle which is required under the laws of the state of Utah to be inspected, unless such vehicle
has been inspected and has attached thereto, in proper position, a valid and unexpired certificate
of inspection as required by the laws of the state.
14
SECTION 19. That Section 12.28.020, Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to vehicle
registration and license plates required be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows:
as follows:
12.28.020 Vehicle registration and license plates required.
A. Every vehicle, at all times while being driven, stopped or parked upon the streets
or alleys of this city, shall:
1. Be registered in the name of the owner thereof in accordance with the laws of
the state, unless such vehicle is not required by the laws of Utah to be registered in this state;
32. Display in proper position two valid, unexpired registration plates, one on the
front and one on the rear of such vehicle; and
23. When required, current validation or indicia of registration attached to the rear
plate and in a manner complying with the laws of the state, and free from defacement,mutilation,
grease and other obscuring matters so as to be plainly visible and legible at all times.
B. However, if such vehicle is not required to be registered in this state, and the
indicia of registration issued by another state, territory,possession or district of the United States,
or of a foreign country, substantially complies with the provisions hereof, such registration shall
be considered compliance with this code.
C. Every commercial vehicle, as defined by Section 53-3-102,Utah Code Annotated, at
all times while being driven, stopped or parked upon the streets or alleys of this city, shall meet
the requirements of this Section 12.28.020.
SECTION 20. That Section 12.28.090, Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to lights,brakes,
and other equipment be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows:
15
as follows:
12.28.090 Lights, brakes,and other equipment.
A. No person shall drive,move, stop or park,nor shall the owner or person in
possession cause or knowingly permit to be driven,moved, stopped or parked on any street or
alley, any vehicle:
1. Which is in such unsafe condition as to endanger any person or property;
2. Which is not equipped with those serviceable lamps,reflectors,brakes, horn and other
warning and signaling devices, windows,windshields,windshield wipers, mirrors, mufflers,
fenders,tires, and other parts and equipment in the position,condition and adjustment meeting
the requirements of the laws of the state as to such parts and equipment;
3. Which,when upon a street or highway, is operating more than four head lamps,
auxiliary lamps and/or spot lamps on the front of such vehicle, each projecting a beam of an
intensity greater than 300 candle power at any one time.
43. Which is of such size, weight or condition, or is loaded or equipped in such manner as
is in violation of the laws of the state with respect to such vehicle.
B. No person shall do any act forbidden or fail to perform any act required by the
laws of the state relating to tires, lamps,brakes, fenders, horns, sirens,whistles,bells and other
parts and equipment, and size,weight and load of any vehicle; provided,however, an authorized
emergency vehicle may be equipped with and may display flashing lights which do not indicate a
right or left turn.
16
C. Any motorcycle or motor-driven vehicle carrying a passenger on a public
highway, other than in a side car or enclosed cab shall be equipped with footrests for such
passenger.
D. No person shall operate any motorcycle or motor-driven cycle with handlebars
above shoulder height.
E. No person under eighteen years of age shall operate or ride upon a motorcycle or
motor-driven cycle upon a public highway unless such person is wearing protective headgear
which complies with standards established by the State Commissioner of Public Safety. This
subsection shall not apply to persons riding within a closed cab.
SECTION 21. That Section 12.32.030 of the Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to Color
Indications For Signals—Driver and Pedestrian Duties be, and is hereby repealed.
12 32 030 € di +• f a„als Driver and + destr; n duties
n rr
" • " " n
r
1. "Green" Alone.
V h' 1 t c a th a
a ay rr oceed t ght tt, h t, ht
or left unless a sign at such place prohibits eitherh t . R t vehicular traffic shallll
intersection t th t' ct, al is exhibi
17
4, D e tria F g tho a „„ eel s the roadway, .ithi,
2. Steady"Yellow" Alone When Showing Following the "Green" Signal.
a. Vehicular traffic facing the signal is thereby warned that the "Red" signal will
intersection when the "Red" signal is exhibited.
b. Pedestrians facing such signal are thereby advised that there is insufficient
time to cross the roadway, and any pedestrians then starting to cross shall yield the
right of way to all vehicles.
3. Steady"Red" Alone.
V h' 1 traffic faci„g the . gn l shall stop before entering the nearest
crosswalk at an intersects at such anothe int a..m .be indicated b. a cllea;lly
n "
prohibited by a sign,may cautiously enter the intersection for the purpose of making a
turn to the right,but shall not interfere with other traffic nor endanger pedestrians
lawfullywithin ., alL
b. No pedestrian facing such signal shall enter the roadway unless he can do so
safely and without interfering with any vehicular traffic.
4. Steady "Red" with "Green Arrow."
a. Vehicular traffic facing such signal may cautiously enter the intersection only
to make the movement indicated by such arrow, but shall yield the right of way to
18
•
pe1 t ' 1 f ll tn . a k an.l to oer raffc lawfully„sing the
� : hi th t
intersection.
b. No pedestrian facing such signal shall nte. the roadway unless he can do so
safely ncl with. ,t interf ri ith ychic,l r traffi.
B. In the event an official traffic control signal is erected--andd maintains d at a pllace other
of any sign or marking the stop shall be made at the signal.
SECTION 22. That Section 12.32.040 of the Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to Flashing
red or yellow signals be, and the same is hereby repealed.
12.32.040 Flashing red er yellow
device, it shall require obedience by traffic as follows:
a stop at a stop sign.
2 Fl h' Yellow or A,�,her (rya do Sign l\ Whon n yellow lens ; :ll,,,�,in te.a
with rapid intermittent flashes, drivers of vehicles may proceed through the intersection
or past such signal only with caution.
19
B. Pedestrians facing a flashing red or yellow signal may proceed to cross the
roadway at such intersections.
SECTION 23. That Section 12.32.045,pertaining to the meaning of vehicular signal
indications—driver and pedestrian duties be, and is hereby enacted,to read as follows:
12.32.045 Meaning of Vehicular Signal Indications—Driver and Pedestrian Duties.
A. The following meanings shall be given to highway traffic signal indications for
vehicles and pedestrians. Yielding duties between drivers and pedestrians are
further defined in Section 12.76.045 of this Title or its successor.
1. Steady green signal indications shall have the following meanings:
a. Traffic, except pedestrians, facing a CIRCULAR GREEN signal indication
may proceed straight through or turn right or left except as such movement is
modified by lane-use signs,turn prohibition signs, lane markings, or roadway design.
But vehicular traffic, including vehicles turning right or left, shall yield the right-of-
way to other vehicles within the intersection, and to pedestrians, at the time such
signal indication is exhibited.
b. Traffic, except pedestrians, facing a GREEN ARROW signal indication,
shown alone or in combination with another signal indication, may cautiously enter
the intersection only to make the movement indicated by such arrow, or such other
movement as is permitted by other signal indications shown at the same time. Such
20
vehicular traffic shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and to other traffic using
the intersection.
c. Unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian signal,pedestrians facing any green
signal indication, except when the signal indication is a turn arrow for a vehicular
movement in conflict with the desired path of the pedestrian,may proceed across the
roadway within any marked or unmarked crosswalk.
2. Steady yellow signal indications shall have the following meanings:
a. Traffic, except pedestrians, facing a steady CIRCULAR YELLOW or
YELLOW ARROW signal indication is thereby warned that the related green
movement is being terminated or that a red signal indication will be exhibited
immediately thereafter when vehicular traffic shall not enter the intersection.
b. Pedestrians facing a steady CIRCULAR YELLOW or YELLOW ARROW
signal indication,unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian signal, are thereby advised
that there is insufficient time to cross the roadway before a red signal indication is
shown, and no pedestrian shall then start to cross the roadway.
3. Steady red signal indications shall have the following meanings:
a. Vehicular traffic facing a steady CIRCULAR RED signal indication alone
shall stop at a clearly marked stop line. If there is no stop line,traffic shall stop
before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection; or if there is no
crosswalk, then before entering the intersection. Such traffic shall remain stopped
until a signal indication to proceed is shown, or as provided below. Except when a
sign is in place prohibiting a turn on red or a RED ARROW signal indication is
21
displayed, vehicular traffic facing a CIRCULAR RED signal indication may enter the
intersection to turn right, or to turn left from a one-way street into a one-way street,
after stopping. Such vehicular traffic shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and to
other traffic using the intersection.
b. Vehicular traffic facing a steady RED ARROW signal indication shall not
enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrows[except as
described in the Option stated below in this subsection (A)(3)(b)] and, unless
entering the intersection to make another movement permitted by another signal
indication, shall stop at a clearly-marked stop line. If there is no stop line, said
vehicular traffic shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the
intersection, or if there is no crosswalk, then before entering the intersection, and shall
remain stopped until a signal indication permitting the movement indicated by such
RED ARROW is shown.
Option: Where turns are allowed on red and the signal indication is an arrow,
a sign may be used to indicate that turns are allowed on red after stopping.
c. Unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian signal,pedestrians facing a steady
CIRCULAR RED or RED ARROW signal indication alone shall not enter the
roadway.
4. Flashing signal indications shall have the following meanings:
a. Flashing yellow - When a yellow lens is illuminated with rapid intermittent
flashes, vehicular traffic may proceed through the intersection or past such signal
indication only with caution.
22
b. Flashing red- When a red lens is illuminated with rapid intermittent flashes,
vehicular traffic shall stop at a clearly-marked stop line. If there is no stop line, traffic
shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection. If there is
no crosswalk, at the point nearest the intersecting roadway where the driver has a
view of approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway before entering the
intersection. The right to proceed shall be subject to the rules applicable after making
a stop at a STOP sign.
c. Flashing RED ARROW and flashing YELLOW ARROW signal indications
have the same meaning as the corresponding flashing circular signal indication,
except that they apply only to vehicular traffic intending to make the movement
indicated by the arrow.
d. Pedestrians facing a flashing red or yellow signal may proceed to cross the
roadway in a crosswalk only after ascertaining that it is safe to do so and then only
with due caution. Vehicular traffic shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians crossing
a roadway at such intersections.
B. In the event an official traffic-control signal is erected and maintained at a place other
than an intersection, the provisions of this section shall be applicable except as to those
provisions that by their nature have no application. Any stop required shall be made at a sign or
marking on the highway pavement indicating where the stop shall be made, but in the absence of
any sign or marking the stop shall be made at the signal.
SECTION 24. That Section 12.32.050,Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to pedestrian
"walk" and"don't walk" signals be, and the same hereby is, repealed.
23
2.32.050 Pedestrian "Walk" and "Don't Walk" signals.
Walk" are in place and operating, such signals shall indicate and govern pedestrians as follows:
of the s final and shall be rt r the right of•w..y by the drivers of'.,ll yeh clew
such signal,but any pedestrian who has partially completed his or her crossing on the"Walls"
"
n rt 5)
SECTION 25. That Section 12.32.055,pertaining to pedestrian signal indications, be,
and is hereby enacted to read as follows:
12.32.055 Pedestrian Signal Indications.
Whenever a pedestrian signal is in place and operating, the illuminated words or symbols
shall indicate and govern pedestrians as follows:
A. A steady white WALK or WALKING PERSON(symbolizing WALK) signal
indication means that, exercising due caution, a pedestrian facing the signal indication may start
to cross the roadway in the direction of the signal indication.
B. A flashing orange DONT WALK or UPRAISED HAND (symbolizing DONT
WALK) signal indication means that a pedestrian shall not start to cross the roadway in the
direction of the signal indication,but that any pedestrian who has already started to cross on a
24
steady white WALK or WALKING PERSON (symbolizing WALK) signal indication may
complete crossing the roadway.
C. A steady orange DONT WALK or UPRAISED HAND (symbolizing DONT WALK)
signal indication means that a pedestrian shall not enter the roadway in the direction of the signal
indication.
D. A COUNTDOWN CLOCK(displaying time in seconds remaining in the pedestrian
crossing phase) in conjunction with the flashing orange UPRAISED HAND means that a
pedestrian facing the signal indication may start to cross the roadway in the direction of the
signal indication, but only if such pedestrian is able to safely walk completely across the street or
to a safety island before the COUNTDOWN CLOCK shows no remaining time.
SECTION 26. That Section 12.36.040, Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to speed or
acceleration contests be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows:
12.36.040 Speed or acceleration contests prohibited.
No person shall engage in any vehicle speed contest or exhibition, or in any vehicle
acceleration contest or exhibition on any street or alley, and no person shall aid or abet any such
vehicle speed contest or exhibition or acceleration contest or exhibition on any street or alley. It
shall not be a defense that there was no apparent observer present to view such speed contest or
exhibition.
SECTION 27. That Section 12.44.020,Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to overtaking and
passing vehicles proceeding in same direction be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as
follows:
25
12.44.020 Overtaking and passing vehicles proceeding in same direction.
The following rules shall govern the overtaking and passing of vehicles proceeding in the
same direction, subject to the following provisions:
A. The driver of a vehicle, overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same
direction, shall pass to the left at a safe distance and may not again drive to the right side of the
roadway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle.
B. The driver of an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the right in favor of the
overtaking vehicle and may not increase the speed of his or her vehicle until completely passed
by the overtaking vehicle.
C. On a road having more than one lane in the same direction,the driver of a vehicle
traveling in a left lane shall, upon being overtaken by another vehicle in the same lane, yield to
the overtaking vehicle by moving safely to the right, and may not impede the movement or free
flow of traffic in a left lane except:
1. When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction
under the rules governing this movement;
2. When preparing to turn left;
3. When reasonably necessary in response to emergency conditions;
4. To avoid actual or potential traffic moving onto the right lane from an
acceleration or merging lane; or
5. When necessary to follow the highway direction signs that direct use of a lane
other than the right lane.
26
D. Violation of this section is a civil violation to be handled under Chapter 2.75C—lass
B misdemeanor.
SECTION 28. That Section 12.44.130,Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to turning
movements and signal requirements be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows:
12.44.130 Turning movements-Signal requirements.
A. No person shall turn a vehicle at an intersection unless the vehicle is in a proper
position upon the roadway, as required in Section 12.44.120, or its successor, or turn a vehicle to
enter a private road or driveway, or otherwise turn a vehicle from a direct course, or move right
or left upon a roadway unless and until such movement can be made with reasonable safety. No
person shall turn any vehicle without giving an appropriate signal in the manner hereinafter
provided in the event any other traffic may be affected by such movement.
B. A signal of intention to turn right or left or to change lanes shall be given
continuously for at least the last three seconds preceding the beginning of the turn or change.
C. Signals required on vehicles by Section 12.44.140, or its successor, shall not be
flashed on one side only on a disabled vehicle; or as a courtesy or "do pass" to operators of other
vehicles approaching from the rear; and shall not be flashed on one side only of a parked vehicle,
except as may be necessary for compliance with this section.
SECTION 29. That Section 12.52.355,Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to vehicle
operation causing injury to person be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows:
12.52.355. Negligent Operation Causing Personal Injury or Death.
27
A. (1) "Serious bodily injury" means bodily injury that creates or causes serious
permanent disfigurement,protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or
organ, or creates a substantial risk of death.
(2) "Substantial bodily injury"means bodily injury,not amounting to serious bodily
injury, that creates or causes protracted physical pain, temporary disfigurement, or temporary loss
or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.
B. The operator of any vehicle who negligently fails to yield the right of way as required
by any section of this title which failure is the direct proximate cause of serious bodily injury or
death to any person, whether such injured or deceased person is a pedestrian or an occupant of a
vehicle, shall be deemed guilty of a Class B misdemeanor.
C. The operator of any vehicle who negligently fails to yield the right of way as required
by any section of this title which failure is the direct proximate cause of substantial bodily injury
to any person,whether such injured person is a pedestrian or an occupant of a vehicle, shall be
deemed guilty of a civil violation. Said violation shall be handled as provided by Chapter 2.75 of
this Code.
SECTION 30. That Section 12.56.030, Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to vehicle state
inspection certificates be, and the same hereby is, repealed.
12.56.030 vehicle S+ + ct; t•f~
No shall .lam-. o sty p rk .h ll
vehicle which is required under the laws of the state of Utah to be inspected, unless such vehicle
28
f i„s„ection a red by the laws of the t.,te
ter------- --- -�-i,.;--- -� ---- ---.. - o�iu� C
SECTION 31. That Section 12.56.100,Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to parking
opposite traffic be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows.
12.56.100 Stopping or parking upon roadways .
with the right hand wheels of the vehicle within eighteen inches of the curb or cdgc of the
roadway, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
A. Except as otherwise provided in this section, every vehicle stopped or parked upon a
two-way roadway shall be stopped or parked with the right-hand wheels parallel to and within
AP
twelve inches of the right-hand curb or as close as practicable to the right ed e of the right-hand
� g
shoulder.
B. Every vehicle stopped or parked upon a one-way roadway shall be stopped or parked
parallel to the curb or edge of the roadway in the direction of authorized traffic movement with
its right-hand wheels within eighteen inches of the right-hand curb or as close as practicable to
the right edge of the right-hand shoulder or with its left-hand wheels within eighteen inches of
the left-hand curb or as close as practicable to the left edge of the left-hand shoulder.
29
SECTION 32. That Section 12.76.020 of the Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to
Pedestrian Rights Obedience to Traffic Control Signals,be, and the same is hereby repealed.
12.76.020 Pedestrian Rights Obedience To Traffic Control Signals:
Pedestrians shall be subject to traffic control signals as heretofore declared in Sections
(Prier code Title 46, Art. 17 § 264)
SECTION 33. That Section 12.76.030,pertaining to right of way in crosswalks—vehicle
requirements be, and the same hereby is, repealed.
12.76.030 Right Of Way In Crosswalks Vehicle Requirements:
roadwayroaelway-when-the-pedest-fien-is-in-the-eresewalk any place upon that half of the roadway upon
half of the roadway as to be in danger. Such vehicle must not again proceed until the pedestrian
into the path of a vehicle which is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. (Prior code Title
16,Art. 17 § 265)
SECTION 34. That Section 12.76.040,pertaining to vehicles stopped at a crosswalk-
parking prohibited be, and the same hereby is, repealed.
1 L 7� 040 Vehicle stopped at^ alk Passing rrohibit a
a......v.v �v ♦ Vlll V1V UIVtJtl Val Kl VLVJn�
30
When_v_r a _hic1 stopp a
nott overtake-and pass such stoppcd vehicle. (P-riorcode Title n6 n rt 1 7 § 766
SECTION 35. That Section 12.76.045,pertaining to yielding the right-of-way at marked
or unmarked crosswalks or at crosswalk entrance zones—driver and pedestrian duties be, and is
hereby, enacted to read as follows:
12.76.045 Yielding Right-of-Way at Marked or Unmarked Crosswalks —Driver and
Pedestrian Duties
A. Driver Duties.
1. With regard to marked or unmarked crosswalks, vehicles shall yield the right-of-
way to:
(a) (i)pedestrians carrying a brightly colored flag customarily used by
pedestrians in the City while crossing a street within a crosswalk;
(ii) pedestrians using a white cane or a service animal customarily used by
pedestrians having visual impairments;
(iii)pedestrians using a wheelchair or similar wheeled mechanical,
electrical or motorized vehicle customarily used by pedestrians having
mobility impairments;
(iv) pedestrians exhibiting signs of impairment or infirmity of any kind,
including, but not limited to, infirmity resulting from advanced age; and
(b) all other pedestrians
31
by slowing or coming to a complete stop while such pedestrian is within a marked or
unmarked crosswalk and is in the vehicle's travel lane or adjoining lane.
2. Whenever a vehicle is slowing or stopped at a marked or unmarked crosswalk, all
approaching vehicles traveling in the same direction as the slowing or stopped vehicle
shall also slow or stop to verify that no pedestrian is within their travel lane or an
adjoining lane in a marked or unmarked crosswalk.
3. A vehicle turning onto an adjacent roadway shall yield the right-of-way to
pedestrians as explained in subsections 1 and 2 above.
B. Increased penalty.
1. The civil penalty to be assessed against a person for each violation of subsection
Al(a) of this section may be increased beyond the penalty ordinarily assessed for such
violation.
2. The civil penalty ordinarily assessed for a violation of subsection Al(b) of this
section may be increased for a second and for each subsequent violation within one (1)
year of a previous conviction or forfeiture of penalty for a violation of said subsection.
C. Pedestrian Duties.
1. Whenever traffic or pedestrian signals are in place and operation the illuminated
indications shall govern pedestrians as explained in Sections 12.32.045 and 12.32.055 or
their successors. At all other locations pedestrians shall be granted those rights and be
subject to those restrictions stated in this Chapter.
2. No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run
into the path of a vehicle which is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard.
32
SECTION 36. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon the date of its first publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of
2001.
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on
Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed.
MAYOR
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. of 2001.
Published:
ATTEST:
G-\Ordina0l\Traffic Code Amendments 12-11-01 draft doc
33
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 28, 2002
SUBJECT: Fiscal Years 2001-2002, 2002-2003
Budget Amendment #5
STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears, Budget and Policy Analyst
Document Budget-Related Facts Policy-Related Miscellaneous
TYPe Facts Facts
Ordinance The proposed amendment reduces the The ordinance is The requested
fund balance of the General Fund for presented to amendment has
fiscal year 2001-2002 by$4,538,825 to amend the issues related to
bid CIP projects in advance,pay Impact 2001-2002, CIP Funds, RDA
Fees, and hire a HAND Director.The 2002-2003 Grants, Public
fiscal year 2002-2003 reduction would biennial budget. Safety, Public
be$92,000 if the HAND Director position Utilities, and
were approved.The fund balance in the donations to th
General Fund will be approximately City.
$13,520,000 if the budget amendment is
adopted as proposed for fiscal year 2001-
2002 but will be replenished in fiscal
year 2002-2003 from CIP appropriations.
• General Fund Contingency will remain at
$143,500.
The briefing and discussion of the fifth budget amendment of fiscal years 2001-2002
and 2002-2003 is scheduled for March 5, 2002, and a public hearing is tentatively
scheduled for April 2, 2002.
MATTERS AT ISSUE
Issue #1: FY 02 Bidding and Awarding of FY 03 CIP Projects ($4,500,000 —
General Fund)
The Administration is requesting that the Council approve the bidding and awarding
of fiscal year 2002-2203 CIP projects in fiscal year 2001-2002 to take advantage of
the favorable construction climate that exists. This action has been discussed by the
City Council in previous briefmgs. The proposed action would result in the transfer of
General Fund balance to specific project cost centers within the CIP Fund. The CIP
Fund would reimburse the General Fund in fiscal year 2002-2003. The CIP Fund is
funded from an allocation from the City's General Fund, other governmental revenue,
private donations and grants. Some projects that are identified for advance bidding
are funded from sources outside the City.
The projects identified for advancement to take advantage of the favorable bidding
climate are: Peace Garden Irrigation, Liberty Park (assorted projects), ADA
Page 1
Ramp/Corner Repair, Local Streets Reconstruction, Traffic Calming, Asphalt Overlay
(Class C Funded), Salt Lake Valley Waste Facility (Salt Lake County Funded).
The projects proposed for advance bidding and funding are as the City Council
adopted in June of 2001, with one exception. The $400,000 identified for Liberty Park
consists of a proposed relocation of a major sidewalk in Liberty Park and the moving,
pruning and replanting of trees. The Refuse Fund's Forestry budget has already
incurred costs associated with the tree removal and pruning. The Administration
would like the Council to reimburse the Refuse Fund for the cost of the tree removal
and pruning from within the $400,000 being advanced. The Council may wish to
consider if the pruning and removal of trees in Liberty Park is an expense that
th CIP Fund should incur. The Council may wish to confirm with th
Administration that all of the expenses associated with the removal and pruning
of trees was undertaken as part of the relocation of the sidewalk and not as a
saf ty measure unrelated to planned Liberty Park CIP projects.
Issue #2: Special Revenue Carryover- Former Trust Funds ($400,000 - Special
Revenue Fund)
Th City, in compliance with GASB 34, has eliminated expendable trust funds and
replaced them with special revenue funds. Prior to GASB 34, the Accounting Division
automatically set a budget for control purposes in expendable trust fund accounts to
b whatever the available cash balance was at the end of each month. This was
possible because expendable trust funds, by definition, didn't require formally
adopted budgets. In order to control contributions in a similar manner, the
Accounting Division is requesting that the Council adopt a budget that will be placed •
in a "budget only cost center" within the special revenue funds. As contributions are
received (for example: celebrations or events such as the Physical Fitness of Cities)
budgets will be moved from the "budget only cost center" to the project to match the
actual amount of available cash. The Council will be asked to consider approving the
initial projects in the same manner as it currently approves grants. The
Administration is suggesting a budget of $400,000, but this is probably a high
estimate since the amounts received in past years have been less than $300,000.
However, only the actual amount received will be set up with a budget to allow
expenditures to occur. This action would not move funds, but would allow the
Administration the authority to deposit donated funds and establish an available cash
amount.
Issue #3: Emergency Management - Hazard Mitigation Grant ($20,000 - Misc.
Grant Fund)
The City has received a grant from the State of Utah, Division of Comprehensive
Emergency Management (CEM). The grant is for Hazard Mitigation purposes in local
municipalities. Grant funds will be used to purchase cabinets and switches that will
house the City's computer network system.
The grant requires a local match of 25% that will be met with in-kind services of grant
administration and installation of the server racks by the City's Information
Management Services Division.
Page 2
The Administration requests that the Council adopt a resolution authorizing the
Mayor to accept this grant and sign any additional contracts or awards related to the
grant. The Administration recommends that the Council adopt the budget to allow for
the facilitation of this grant and the resolution relating to this grant.
No additional FTE's are associated with this grant.
Issue #4: PSB Building Services-Budget Transfer($45,700 - General Fund)
The Administration is recommending that the cleaning budget within Police
Department's appropriations be transferred to the Support Services budget. The
Support Services Division provides building services to the Police Department. The
requested budget transfer will allow Support Services to account for all Public Safety
Building maintenance and service expenses in one budget.
Issue *5: Police - Pioneer Precinct Soil Stabilization ($210,000- CIP Fund)
The City recently bonded for the rehabilitation of an existing building to house the
Pioneer Police Precinct. As the project has progressed the City's Engineering Division
has determined that the soil under the building will need mitigation to assure that in
the event of an earthquake, the building structure will not be compromised. The total
cost of the soil mitigation is approximately $350,000. The Administration
recommends using $50,000 from interest earned on the project bond, $140,000 from
the existing precinct building rehabilitation budget, and $120,00 from CIP
contingency. The Council may wish to confirm that remaining project funds will
b sufficient to complete the building rehabilitation.
The Council appropriation would allow for the use of the interest income and the
transfer from CIP contingency.
Issue *6: Public Utilities - Water Carryover projects ($9,843,000 - Water
Enterprise Fund)
The Public Utilities Department is recommending that $9,843,000 be appropriated for
expenses and capital improvements in the Water Enterprise Fund. Uses will include
$4,000,000 for water purchases, $4,443,000 for water carryover projects, and
$1,400,000 for the South Temple Water Line Replacement project.
The water carryover projects are the unexpended portions of projects that were
appropriated during the last budget cycle and are currently under construction. The
water purchases are Central Utah Water stored in Jordanelle Reservoir to help the
City during the anticipated water shortage this coming summer season. The South
Temple Water Main Line replacement is a major capital project that the Department of
Public Utilities is proposing to take place while South Temple is under construction.
Issue *T Public Utilities - Stormwater Carryover projects ($1,696,000 -
Stormwater Enterprise Fund)
The Public Utilities Department is recommending that $1,696,000 be appropriated for
expenses in the Stormwater Enterprise Fund. Uses will include $1,555,000 for
Page 3
Stormwater carryover projects, and $141,000 for the South Temple Stormwater Line
Replacement project.
The Stormwater carryover projects are projects that were appropriated during the last
budget cycle and are currently under construction. The South Temple Stormwater
Main Line replacement is a major capital project that will be cost effective to take
place while South Temple is under construction.
Issue #8: Youth Programs- Grant($50,422 Misc. Grant Fund)
The City has solicited and received donations in the amount of $50,422 relating to
Youth City and Imagination Celebration programs. The Administration recommends
that the Council adopt the budget appropriation request.
Issue #9: Impact Fee Exemptions ($15,825 General Fund)
The City has exempted three entities from paying impact fees on their development
projects. Under the City's Impact Fee ordinance the City's General Fund is responsible
for the payment of impact fees for exempted projects. The total so far this year is
$15,825. The City Council may wish to delay action on this request until th
last budget opening of the year to allow the Administration the opportunity t
include all impact fee exempt projects into one budget request. Th City
Council will receive a briefing on the Impact Fee Ordinance and recomm nd d
hanges to the ordinance on March 19, 2002. The Council may wish to consid r
th Impact Fee Ordinance briefing details before considering action on this
it m.
Issue #10: Airport - Budget Adjustment FTE request ($153,700 - Airport
Enterprise Fund)
Due to the increased new Federal Security Regulations adopted as a result of recent
terrorist attacks, the airport is required to increase the amount of security staffing at
vehicle checkpoints to remain in compliance. The Airport Board recommends that an
additional 11 FTEs be added to the airport staffing document and that $153,000 in
airport reserve funds be used to pay for these additional position in fiscal year 2001-
2002. The additional cost in fiscal year 2002-2003 will be $443,600. Th City
Council may wish to confirm that the Airport Capital Improvement Program is
th appropriate expenditure budget for these new positions. Generally th
Council requires that ongoing revenue sources be identified for ongoing
xpenditures.
The new positions will be titled Airport Operations Safety Specialists. Current
Curbside Specialist staff will be incorporated into the new positions and will rotate
their duties between secure area vehicle checkpoints and curbside duties.
Issue #11: Housing Trust Fund-RDA Grant($677,000 -Misc. Grant Fund)
The City's Community and Economic Development/Housing and Neighborhood
Development staff submitted a request for funds to the Redevelopment Agency of Salt
Lake City (RDA). The request was for funds that could be used for Housing Trust
Fund purposes. The most recent RDA budget included a grant to the Housing Trust
Page 4
Fund in the amount of $677,000 for the purposes of land acquisition, installation,
construction and/or rehabilitation of structures.
The Administration recommends that the City Council adopt this budget to accept
and facilitate this grant to the Housing Trust Fund.
Issue #12: Pioneer Park Use Plan - Grant ($60,000 - Misc. Grant Fund, CIP
Fund)
The Administration is requesting that an additional $25,000 be appropriated from CIP
contingency for the required local match to a grant from the City Parks Forum. The
Public Services Department expects to receive a grant in the amount of $35,000 for
the rehabilitation of facility deficiencies. The Administration intends to use the grant
funds and local match money to plan for the revitalization and future use of Pioneer
Park. The Council may wish to note that there are several existing plans that
have components dealing with Pioneer Park.
The Council will also be requested to adopt a resolution that authorizes the Mayor to
accept this grant and sign any additional contracts or awards related to the grant. The
Administration recommends that the Council adopt the budget to allow for the
facilitation of this grant and the resolution relating to this grant.
No additional FTE's are associated with this grant.
Issue #13: HAND Adjustments-Grant($26,800-Misc. Grant Fund)
During the reconciliation of eleven years of HOME funding, the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) discovered funds that have not been granted
to Salt Lake City. The funds were discovered by HUD and have been awarded to Salt
Lake City for use in the Neighborhood Housing Services program and the City's 1st
Time Homebuyer Program. Fifteen percent of the grant funds will go to Neighborhood
Housing Services the remainder to the 1st Time Homebuyer program. HUD has asked
that the City appropriate these funds as soon as possible.
This grant does not have a new resolution for the Council to sign. The only needed
Council action is the adoption of the budget to allow for the facilitation of these
grants. No additional FTE's are associated with this grant.
Issue #14: HAND Director Position Reestablishment($23,000 - General Fund)
The Administration is recommending that the Housing and Neighborhood
Development (HAND) Director position be reinstated. The previous course of having
the CED Deputy Director for Business Development act as the HAND Director has not
worked as expected and it has become clear to the Administration that two positions
are necessary. The cost to reinstate the position will be $23,000 in fiscal year 2001-
2002 and $92,000 in fiscal year 2002-2003. The HAND Director is an Executive level
005 position.
The HAND division would be structured as in the past with one director and one
deputy director.
Page 5
The Administration recommends that the FTE for the HAND Director be reinstated
and that a budget be appropriated for this position.
Issue #15: CIP Transfer to Impact Fee ($410,000 - CIP Fund)
As part of the biennial budget adoption the City Council reimbursed the General Fund
$410,000 for two studies relating to Impact Fees. The two studies were 100%
reimbursable under the City's Impact Fee ordinance but because fees had not been
collected the City's General Fund paid for the studies. During the budget adoption the
appropriation of the transfer into the General Fund was made, but the transfer from
CIP Fund balance was not made. The recommended action creates two expenditure
cost centers within the CIP Fund to account for the transfer to the General Fund. The
two cost centers will be $180,000 for the CityGate Associates study and $230,000 for
the Impact Fee study. The Administration is recommending that the appropriation
from CIP Fund Balance be made to complete the transfer of funds.
cc: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rocky Fluhart, Jay Magure, Steve Fawcett, David Dobbins, Luann Clark, Rick Dinse, Mac
Connole, Jerry Burton, Gordon Hoskins, Stephen Goldsmith, Brent Wilde, David Oka, Elwin Heilmann, Jay
Bingham,Joseph Moratalla,Rick Graham, Greg Davis,Jim Lewis,Leroy Hooten,Charleen Sylvester,Randy Hillier,
Sherrie Collins,Laurie Dillon,Susi Kontgis,and Kay Christensen
Page 6
}
IT 11T
DAVID DOBBIN5 SALT' AI E:Q EX. CORPORATION'.
RO5S C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON
DEPUTY DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR
COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer" ' DATE: February 7, 2002
FROM: David Dobbins ,167
RE: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the grant awarded to the
City's Management Services Department from the State of Utah, Department of Public Safety,
Comprehensive Emergency Management Division.
STAFF CONTACT: Sherrie Collins, 535-6150
DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution
BUDGET IMPACT: City will receive a$20,000 grant
DISCUSSION: The Management Services Department applied for and received a
FEMA Hazard Mitigation grant in the amount of$20,000 from the Utah Department of Public
Safety, Comprehensive Emergency Management Division. These funds are to be used to
purchase server cabinets and strap kits to anchor the cabinets that will contain components of the
City's computer network system. If additional funds remain, hazard mitigation equipment
deemed appropriate may also be purchased.
This grant requires a 25% match, which is met through City staffs time and salary.
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1'/
TELEPHONE: 801-535-523❑ FAX: 80 1-535-6005
®Revcco anPea
RESOLUTION NO. OF 2002
AUTHORIZING SALT LAKE CITY TO ACCEPT THE DIVISION OF
COMPREHENSIVE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT GRANT AWARD
FROM THE
UTAH DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13 Utah Code Ann. , as amended,
allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to
provide joint undertakings and services; and
WHEREAS, the attached grant Award has been prepared to
accomplish said purposes;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake
City, Utah:
1 . It does hereby authorize and approve of SALT LAKE CITY
CORPORATION accepting the $20 , 000 . 00 of COMPREHENSIVE EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT GRANT funding described in Exhibit --A" attached
hereto, from the UTAH DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, to expend for
the purposes of :
Hazard Mitigation to include purchasing server cabinets and strap
kits to anchor cabinets that will contain components of the
City' s computer network system.
2 . Ross C. Anderson, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, is
hereby authorized to receive said grant award and execute any and
all subsequent agreements between the City and other entities
resulting from the said Award on behalf of Salt Lake City
Corporation, so long as such subsequent agreements do not depart
substantively from the grant award approved herein.
Passed by the City council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day
day of , 2002 .
Salt Lake City Council
By
Chairperson
ATTEST:
TO FORM
Salt Lake Oft Attorney's Office
Date G ��L
By
REC'D
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
DIVISION OF COMPREHENSIVE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Michael O.Leavitt
Governor
Robert L.Flowers
Commissioner Scott A.Behunin
State Office Building,Room 1110 Director
Earl R.Morris Box 141710
Deputy Commissioner Salt Lake City,Utah 841 1 4-1 71 0
Verdi R.White II (801)538-3400
Deputy Commissioner • (801)538-3770 FAX Line
January 18, 2002
The Honorable Rocky Anderson, Mayor
City and County Building
451 South State St.
Room 301
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Point of Contact: Ryan Pietramali, Emergency Services Program
Dear Mayor Anderson:
On December 20,2001,the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA)approved the
seismic retrofit project you submitted to the State for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program(HMGP)
and funding has been obligated. The Utah Division of Comprehensive Emergency Management
(CEM) manages the program and will be your agency point-of-contact during implementation,
completion, and closeout of the project.
Our office has met with your point-of-contact regarding reporting,reimbursement,and other
procedures. We will continue to meet with your point-of-contact approximately on a monthly basis
to provide whatever assistance he may require.
Reimbursement through the State for project expenses can be handled on a federal quarterly
basis, unless you require it more often.
Please continue to review your application as to the details of your project,budget amounts,
schedules, and other necessary information.
If you have questions, please contact Dr.Fred May, State Hazard Mitigation Officer, of our
office, at (801) 538-3758.
Sin y,
Scott A. Behunin
Director
SAB/fm
sJ �111?
ROCKY J. FLU HART SAE' !, v��i=3'y CORPORATION;
-- - �_ a ROSS C. ANDERSON
HIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER MAYOR
COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
TO: Dave Buhler, Chairman /ivic?
J
Salt Lake City Council I
FROM: Rocky J. Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer
DATE: February 21, 2002
SUBJECT: Budget Amendment No. 5
Recommendation: We recommend that on February 28, 2002, the City Council set a
date to hold a public hearing on April 2, 2002, to discuss Budget Amendment No. 5.
Discussion and Background: The amendment packet will be transmitted to the
City Council Office on February 26, 2002, for the briefing on March 5, 2002.
Legislative Action: The attached ordinance to amend this budget has been approved by
the City Attorney.
cc: Dan Mule, City Treasurer
Shannon Ashby
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 238, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1
TELEPHONE: 801-535-6426 FAX: 801-535-6 1 9❑
®acc.ceo rnvea
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. of 2002
(Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 32 of 2001
which adopted the Final Biennial Budget of Salt Lake City,
including the employment staffing document,
for Fiscal Years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE NO. 32 OF
2001 WHICH APPROVED, RATIFIED AND FINALIZED THE BIENNIAL BUDGET
OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, INCLUDING THE EMPLOYMENT STAFFING
DOCUMENT, FOR THE FISCAL YEARS BEGINNING JULY 1, 2001 AND ENDING
JUNE 30, 2002 AND BEGINNING JULY 1, 2002 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 2003.
PREAMBLE
On June 14, 2001, the Salt Lake City Council approved, ratified and finalized the
biennial budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the employment staffing document, for
the fiscal years beginning July 1, 2001 and ending June 30, 2002 and beginning July 1,
2002 and ending June 30, 2003, in accordance with the requirements of Section 118,
Chapter 6, Title 10 of the Utah Code Annotated, and said biennial budget, including the
employment staffing document, was approved by the Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah.
The City's Policy and Budget Director, acting as the City's Budget Officer,
prepared and filed with the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted
biennial budget, including the amendments to the employment staffing document, 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 April 2,
2002 to consider the attached proposed amendments to the biennial budget, including the
employment staffing document, and ordered notice thereof be published as required by
law.
Notice of said public hearing to consider the amendments to said biennial budget,
including the employment staffing document, was duly published and a public hearing to
consider the attached amendments to said biennial budget, including the employment
staffing document, was held on April 2, 2002, in accordance with said notice at which
hearing all interested parties for and against the biennial budget amendment proposals
were heard and all comments were duly considered by the City Council.
All conditions precedent to amend said biennial budget, including the
employment staffing document, 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 biennial
budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved,
ratified and finalized by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 32 of 2001.
SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The biennial budget amendments,
including amendments to the employment staffing document, attached hereto and made a
part of this Ordinance shall be, and the same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the
biennial budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the employment staffing document, for
the fiscal years beginning July 1, 2001 and ending June 30, 2002 and beginning July 1,
2002 and ending June 30, 2003, in accordance with the requirements of Section 128,
Chapter 6, Title 10, of the Utah Code Annotated.
2
SECTION 3. Certification to Utah State Auditor. The City's Policy and Budget
Director, acting as the City's Budget Officer, is authorized and directed to certify- and file
a copy of said biennial budget amendments, including amendments to the employment
staffing document, with the Utah State Auditor.
SECTION 4. Filing of copies of the biennial Budget Amendments. The said
Budget Officer is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said biennial budget
amendments, including amendments to the employment staffing document, 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
, 2002.
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER
3
Transmitted to the Mayor on
Mayor's Action: Approved Vetoed
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Z _ z Z -o;-±)
: 1 :1714,1,6 -
(SEAL)
Bill No. of 2002.
Published: .
G\Ordinance 02\Amending budget a_.Jac
4
FY 2002 Initiatives in Budget Amendment - March
FY 2002 FY 2003
Initiative Name Initiative Gen. Fund FTE Gen.Fund FTE
Amount Impact Impact
1. FY 02 Bidding and $4,500,000 $4,500,000 -0- ($4,500,000) -0-
Awarding of FY 03 CIP
Projects
2. Special Revenue Carryover $400,000 -0- -0-
-Former Trust Funds
3. Emergency Management— $20,000 -0- -0-
Hazard Mitigation Grant
4. Budget Transfer for PSB $45,700 -0- -0-
Building Services
5. Pioneer Precinct Soil $210,000 -0- -0-
Stabilization
6. Public Utilities -Water $9,843,000 -0- -0-
Carryover Projects
7. Public Utilities - Storm $1,696,000 -0- -0-
Water Carryover Projects
8. Youth Programs - Grant $50,422 -0- -0-
9. Impact Fee Exemptions $15,825 -0- -0-
10. Airport Budget Amendment $153,700 11 -0-
-FTE Needs
11. Housing Trust Fund—RDA $677,000 -0- -0-
Grant
12. Pioneer Park Use Plan— $60,000 -0- -0-
Partial Grant
13. HAND Adjustments - Grant $26,800 -0- -0-
14. HAND Director Position $23,000 $23,000 1 $92,000 -0-
Reestablishment
15. CIP Transfer to Impact Fee $410,000 -0- -0_
Salt Lake City Corporation
Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Budget Development and Budget Amendment
Public Services Engineering FY01-02
Department For Fiscal Year
EY 02 Bidding and Awarding of FY 03 CIP
Proiecta BA#5 01
Initiative Name Initiative Number
Randy Hillier 535-6353
Prepared By Phone Number
Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change
Biennial Period Proposed
A.Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year
FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04
1.General Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
2.Internal Service Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
3.Enterprise Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
4.Other Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
1.General Fund
General Fund Balance (4,500,000) 4,500,000
FY03 CIP Items:Peace Garden's Irrigation 150,000 050.0001
Liberty Park 400,000 (400.000)
ADA Ramp/Corner Repairs 200,000 (200,000)
Local Streets Reconstruction 1,500,000 (1.500,000)
Traffic Calming 250,000 (250,000)
Asphalt Overlay(Class C Funded) 1,500,000 (1.500 000)
Salt Lake Valley Waste Facility(Salt Lake 500,000 (500,000)
County Funded)
Total $0 $0 $0
2.Internal Service Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
3 Enterprise Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
4.Other Fund •
•
Total $0 $0 $0
•-C.Expenditure Impact Detail. • -- •
1.Salaries and Wages
•
2.Employee Benefits
3.Operating and Maintenance Supply
4 Charges and Services
5.Capital Outlay 4,500,000 (4,500 000)
6.Other(Specify)
Total $4.500,000 ($4.500.000) $0
Salt Lake City Corporation
Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Budget Development and Budget Amendment
E.Measured or measurable Impact on functions,structure and organization
F.Issue Discussion:A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below;
criteria,condition,effect,cause and recommendation.
Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected.It provides a basis for comparison without which
analysis cannot be effective.The criteria varies from issue to issue.In straightforward cases,it can be an ordinance or
policy.In of
Condition is a description of current practices.It is the information to which the criteria is compared.
Effect is the difference,if any,between the condition and criteria.It is best described in teems of a dollar impact or e
service level impact.If an effect cannot be identified,there is no finding.
Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding.It is simply identifying why the condition
varies from the criteria.Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into
management
Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause.By doing so,it is most likely to result in improving the
condition to be in line with the criteria.
Issue Discussion:
In order to capitalize on the favorable construction climate that will likely exist following the
Olympics, it has been recommended by the City Council, as well as the City's Engineering
Department, that as many CIP projects as possible be bid and awarded this winter. By doing so, it is
hoped that the City will benefit from significant cost savings on these expedited CIP projects. In order
to accomplish this, General Fund balance will be required. An estimated total of$4,500,000 will be
needed to award the seven projects listed. Once July 1, 2002, the beginning of FY 2003, arrives,
these funds will be repaid to the General Fund balance.
Typically, projects are only awarded during the fiscal year for which they were appropriated.
However, it is anticipated that moving several of the CIP projects for FY 03 into FY 02 will result in
significant cost savings for the City. During FY 03, CIP will not equal 9% of General Fund
expenditures because of this shift,however,the biennial total will not decrease.
Analyst Comments: This action has been discussed by the Council in earlier budget amendment
briefings. It is generally felt that the City will realize savings by awarding these projects early.
I recommend that Public Services consider using the bulk of the$400,000 which is being moved
forward for Liberty Park for the issue mentioned below:
Background: It has been proposed that a major sidewalk within Liberty Park be relocated. The
plan that has been chosen places a 10 foot wide sidewalk on either side of a 20 foot grass center
panel. The grass panel and sidewalk will be centered down the middle of 600 East in Liberty Park.
This budget amendment includes both the cost of preparing the site for the sidewalk relocation and
the actual construction cost. The preparation cost includes removing 14 large caliper trees,pruning
54 trees and replanting 50 large caliper trees. The estimated cost of these activities is$65,004. The
construction of the concrete sidewalks and associated landscaping materials is estimated to cost
$296,600.Part of the tree removal and pruning costs have been incurred since it was deemed critical
to park-user safety. The Refuse Fund's Forestry budget is seeking reimbursement for these costs.
Criteria: A safe environment for all users of Liberty Park.
Condition: Currently unsafe conditions exist for park users.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Budget Development and Budget Amendment
Cause: Trees lining the 600 E.location in Liberty Park are in various stages of decline and
represent a risk to park users.
Recommendation: Public Services recommends a combination of new construction,tree care,
and tree replacement. The sidewalk needs to be relocated in order to permit park users to walk safely
through the 600 E.corridor.Additionally,replacement trees need to be planted now in anticipation of
removal of existing trees over time.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Budget Development and Budget Amendment
•
Management Services FY 01-02
Department For Fiscal Year
Special Revenue Carryover(Former Trust Funds) BA#5 02
Initiative Name Initiative Number
Elwin Heilmann 535-6424
Prepared By Phone Number
Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change
Biennial Period Proposed
A.Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year
FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04
1.General Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
2.Internal Service Fund
Total _ $0 $0 $0
3.Enterprise Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
4.Other Fund
Special Revenue Trust Activities 77-77001-1895- 400,000 400,000
Budget Only
Total $400,000 $400,000 $0
B.Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source:
1.General Fund
Total $0 $0 _ - $0
2.Internal Service Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
3.Enterprise Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
4.Other Fund
Special Revenue Trust Activities 77-77001-2590- 400,000 400,000
Budget Only
Total $400,000 $400,000 $0
C.Expenditure Impact Detail"
1.Salaries and Wages
2.Employee Benefits
3.Operating and Maintenance Supply
4.Charges and Services
5.Capital Outlay
6.Other(Specify) 400,000 400,000
Total $400,000 $400,000 $0
Salt Lake City Corporation
Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Budget Development and Budget Amendment
E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization
Approval of this initiative will give the administration the ability to receive and then expend donations
for specific purposes in a more timely manner, will give the Accounting Division flexibility to adjust
budgets in individual accounts as donations are received throughout the year. In addition, staff time
and paperwork will be saved by not requesting several budget openings throughout the fiscal year..
F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below;
criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation.
Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which
analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or
policy. In of
Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared.
Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a
service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding.
Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition
varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into
management
Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the
condition to be in line with the criteria.
Issue Discussion:
On July 1, 2001, GASB 34 eliminated the ability the City has to use an expendable trust fund as a
method to receive and expend donations. In the October budget opening, the Council approved
budgets for the amount of cash held by these funds as of June 30, 2001. However, the amendment
did not address additional donations received during this fiscal year. Initially, the 400,000 amount will
be established in a Budget-Only cost center. Then, on a routine basis, the Accounting division will be
able to reduce the amounts in this Budget-Only cost center and increase the budgets in individual
accounts so that remaining budgets equal remaining cash. The Council will approve the initial project,
just as they currently approve grants.
With the current condition of each individual account, City administration could accept donations for
something new, but would not be able to expend funds for the intended purpose until such time as the
need could be addressed in a budget opening.
Without Council action, the City cannot meet its obligations to the donors until such time that a
budget can be established by Council action for specific donations received.
It is recommended that the Council establish a budget for a $400,000 estimated amount of
donations received in each fiscal year (2001-2002 and 2002-2003)
Salt Lake City Corporation
Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Budget Development and Budget Amendment
Management Services FY 01-02
Department For Fiscal Year
Federal Emergency Management Agency Hazard
Mitigation Grant BA#5 03
Initiative Name Initiative Number
Sherrie Collins 535-6150
Prepared By Phone Number
Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change
Biennial Period Proposed
A.Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year
FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04
1.General Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
2.Internal Service Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
3.Enterprise Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
4.Other Fund
Miscellaneous Grant Fund 72 20,000
Total $20,000 $0 $0
B.Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source:
1.General Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
2.Internal Service Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
3.Enterprise Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
4.Other Fund
Miscellaneous Grant Fund 72 20,000
Total $20,000 $0 $0
• C.Expenditure Impact Detail
1.Salaries and Wages
2.Employee Benefits
3.Operating and Maintenance Supply
4.Charges and Services
5.Capital Outlay 20,000
6.Other(Specify)
Total $20,000 $0 $0
Salt Lake City Corporation
Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Budget Development and Budget Amendment
E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization
Major Impact.
F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below;
criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation.
Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which
analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or
policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city.
Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared.
Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a
service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding.
Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition
varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into
management or personnel issues.
Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the
condition to be in line with the criteria.
Issue Discussion:
Criteria: Emergency Management Services applied for and received this grant from the State of
Utah, Division of Comprehensive Emergency Management (CEM). This grant is issued to local
municipalities for Hazard Mitigation purposes.
Condition: These funds will be used to purchase six server cabinets, six strap kits, and other
materials to anchor cabinets that will contain the City's servers and switches. Servers and switches
are expensive components that are an integral part of the City's computer network system. Currently,
these components are on shelves that would most certainly fail in the event of a major earthquake.
Any remaining funds will be used for other hazard mitigation purposes.
Effect: The cabinets will replace current shelving in the City and County Building, Public Safety
Building, IMS, Parks Maintenance Building, Public Utilities and the Street and Sanitation Division
Building.
Cause: Grant requires a 25% match which will be met with the in-kind services of grant
administration and installation of the server racks by IMS. These funds will be used strictly to
purchase materials and supplies necessary to mitigate hazards in the event of a major earthquake or
bombing.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary resolution and
budget to accept and facilitate this grant.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Budget Development and Budget Amendment
G.Grant Criteria:A grant will satisfy one of the following four criteria.
This grant relates to 2.
1_In some cases, the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for
projects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund
or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant fundincL
2- Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial
savings or operating efficiencies.
3=Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future.
4- None of the above.
Question 1 -Will this grant fund employee positions? No. What programs are funded with this grant
and what are the performance measures of each program?
Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? This is a
competitive grant that the City could apply for if federal funding availablity continues and City
demonstrates a need.
Question 3 -Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable?
NA.
Question 4 -Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the
grant funding time frame? Yes.
Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds
become unavailable? No.
Question 6 -Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector?Is
there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Budget Development and Budget Amendment
Police FY02
Department For Fiscal Year
Budget Transfer for PSB Bldo Services BA#5 04
Initiative Name Initiative Number
Jerry Burton 799-3824
Prepared By Phone Number
Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change
Biennial Period Proposed
A.Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year
FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04
1.General Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
2.Internal Service Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
3.Enterprise Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
4.Other Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
B.Expenditures Imoacte&bv Fund and Source:
1.General Fund
Police Department Building Service Costs (45,700)
Support Services Budget 45,700
Total $0 $0_ $0
2.Internal Service Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
3.Enterprise Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
4.Other Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
C.Expenditure Impact Detail
1.Salaries and Wages
2.Employee Benefits
3.Operating and Maintenance Supply
4.Charges and Services 0
5.Capital Outlay
6.Other(Specify)
Total $0 $0 $0
Salt Lake City Corporation
Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Budget Development and Budget Amendment
E.Measured or measurable Impact on functions,structure and organization
F.Issue Discussion:A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below;
criteria,condition,effect,cause and recommendation.
Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected.It provides a basis for comparison without which
analysis cannot be effective.The criteria varies from issue to issue.In straightforward cases,it can be an ordinance or
policy.In other cases,it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city.
Condition is a description of current practices.It is the information to which the criteria is compared.
Effect is the difference,if any,between the condition and criteria.It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a
service level impact.If an effect cannot be identified,them is no finding.
Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding.It is simply identifying why the condition
varies from the criteria.Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into
management or personnel issues.
Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause.By doing so,it is most likely to result in improving the
condition to be in line with the criteria.
Issue Discussion: Support Services provides most building services to the Police Department. In
the FY 02 budget,a portion of the cleaning costs remained budgeted in the department's budget. The
recommendation is to decrease the Police Department's budget and increase Support Services
budget in a budget neutral transfer. This will allow Support Services to collect all PSB related
maintenance and service cost in one department. This one budget amendment will represent both
sides of the transaction.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Budget Development and Budget Amendment
Police Department FY 01-02
Department For Fiscal Year
Pioneer Precinct Soil Stablization BA#5 05
Initiative Name Initiative Number
Jerry Burton 799-3824
Prepared By Phone Number
Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change
Biennial Period Proposed
A.Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source; 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year
FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04
1.General Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
2.Internal Service Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
3.Enterprise Fund
Total $0 $0 1 $0
4.Other Fund
SW Police Precinct Bond Interest (50,000)
SW Police Precinct Soil Stabilization 50,000
Total $0 $0 $0
B.Expenditures Impacted_by Fund and Source'
1.General Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
2.Internal Service Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
3.Enterprise Fund
Total $0 i $0 $0
4.Other Fund
SW Police Precinct Bond Interest (50,000)
CIP Contingency (160,000)
SW Police Precinct Soil Stabilization 210,000 -
•
Total $0 $0 $0
C.Expenditure Impact Detail
1.Salaries and Wages
2.Employee Benefits
3.Operating and Maintenance Supply
4.Charges and Services
5.Capital Outlay
6.Other(Soil Stabilization) 210,000
Total $210,000 $0 $0
Salt Lake City Corporation
Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Budget Development and Budget Amendment
E.Measured or measurable Impact on functions,structure and organization
F.Issue Discussion:A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below;
criteria,condition,effect,cause and recommendation.
Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected.It provides a basis for comparison without which
analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue.In straightforward cases,it can be an ordinance or
policy.In other cases,it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city.
Condition is a description of current practices.It is the information to which the criteria is compared.
Effect is the difference,if any,between the condition and criteria.It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a
service level impact.If an effect cannot be identified,there is no finding.
Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding.It is simply identifying why the condition
varies from the criteria.Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into
management or personnel issues.
Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause.By doing so,it is most likely to result in improving the
condition to be in line with the criteria.
Issue Discussion:
As the Pioneer Precinct project design and development has progressed, testing of the existing
structure and the ground it is built on has been ongoing. The City Engineer's office,with the use of an
outside expert,determined the soil beneath the existing structure needs mitigation to assure that in the
event of an earthquake,the building structure(which will meet seismic codes within existing budget) is
not compromised by excess movement of the soil underneath.
After meeting with City Engineering, Architect Firm Edward Daniels& Associates (EDA) and City
Administration, the department proposes the following for council consideration. An additional
$350,000 over-and-above the current project budget will be required to address this issue. Of the
$350,000 additional project cost it is proposed the City Council appropriate $160,000 from the CIP
Contingency fund balance, and $50,000 from interest earned on the project bond, totaling $210,000.
The remaining $140,000 of the $350,000 in increased cost will be redirect from within the existing
project budget.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Budget Development and Budget Amendment
Public Utilties-Water Utility Fund FY 01-02
Department For Fiscal Years
Water Carryover Projects BA#5 06
Initiative Name Initiative Number
Jim Lewis 483-6773
Prepared By Phone Number
Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change
Biennial Period Proposed
A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year
FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04
1. General Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
2. Internal Service Fund
Total $0 $0 I $0
3. Enterprise Fund
Water Utility Reserve Funds 9,843,000
Total $9,843,000 $0 $0
4. Other Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source:
1. General Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
2. Internal Service Fund
Total $0 I $0 $0_
3. Enterprise Fund
Water Purchases 4,000,000
Water Carryover Projects 4,443,000
South Temple Water Line Replacement 1,400,000
Total $9,843,000 $0 $0
4. Other Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
C. Expenditure Impact Detail
1. Salaries and Wages
2. Employee Benefits
3. Operating and Maintenance Supply
4. Charges and Services 4,000,000
5. Capital Outlay 5,843,000
6. Other(Specify)
$0
Total $9,843,000 $0
Salt Lake City Corporation
Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Budget Development and Budget Amendment
E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization
The Water Utility must amend the CIP program to complete projects started and budgeted last year
in the amount of $4,443,000. The Water budget also needs to be adjusted $4,000,000 for the
purchase of additional water the department may require for a potential drought. The Water Utility also
requests funding the replacement of a water line on South Temple from Main Street to Virginia Street
in the amount of$1,400,000 while a street reconstruction project makes this practical.
F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below;
criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation.
Criteria: The required adjustment amounts to $9,843,000 from reserve funds, which are available.
This adjustment will allow the department to meet its goals and continue to build the needed
construction projects. A major portion relates to carryover projects budgeted last year and under
construction this year. They are: 1. Watershed restrooms= $130,000. 2. Pilot treatment
plant=$230,000. 3. Redesign City Creek Treatment Plant=$320,000. 4. A new voice telephone system
and interactive voice response system=$113,000. 5. On going meter replacement
program=$1,000,000. 6. Three new water treatment monitors for=$125,000. 7. Water line
replacements=$2,525,000. This totals $4,443,000. Funding is also requested for the purchase of
treated water estimated at $4,000,000 to allow the department to reserve more of our water for
summer usage to cover possible water shortage. Funding is also requested for the construction of a
replacement water line on South Temple from Main street to Virginia street in connection with the City
road reconstruction project. The total amendment amounts to $9,843,000.
Effect: Without funding projects would be delayed or stopped in the middle of construction.
Drought conditions would further increase the need to impose rationing if water could not be
purchased.
Cause: With the many construction projects planned years in advance, some projects carryover to
the next fiscal year and need refunding. Purchase of water for storage was caused by the 4 dry years.
Recommendation: We recommend approval of the budget amendment to allow completion of the
capital improvement projects.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Budget Development and Budget Amendment
Public Utilties-Stormwater Utility Fund FY 01-02
Department For Fiscal Year
Stormwater Carryover Projects BA#5 07
Initiative Namen Initiative Number
Jim Lewis 483-6773
Prepared By Phone Number
Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change
Biennial Period Proposed
A.Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year
FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04
1.General Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
2.Internal Service Fund
Total $0I $0 $0
3.Enterprise Fund
Stormwater Reserve Funds 1,696,000
Total $1,606,000 $0 I $0
4.Other Fund
Total $0 $0 $0�
B.Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source;
1.General Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
2.Internal Service Fund
Total $0 I $0 $0
3.Enterprise Fund
Stormwater Carryover Projects 1,555,000
South Temple Stormwater Line Replacement 141,000
Total $1,696,000 $0 $0
4.Other Fund
Total $0 $0 -I $0
C.Expenditure Impact Detail •
1.Salaries and Wages
2.Employee Benefits
3.Operating and Maintenance Supply
4.Charges and Services
5.Capital Outlay 1,696,000
6.Other(Specify)
Total $1,696,000 $0 $0
Salt Lake City Corporation
Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Budget Development and Budget Amendment
E.Measured or measurable Impact on functions,structure and organization
The Stormwater Utility requires this amendment to the CIP program to complete projects started
and budgeted last year in the amount of$1,555,000. Also, the department is requesting funding for
the construction of a replacement stormwater line on South Temple from Main Street to Virginia Street
in the amount of$141,000 in connection with the street reconstruction project.
F.Issue Discussion:A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below;
criteria,condition,effect,cause and recommendation.
Criteria:The required adjustment amounts to$1,696,000 from reserve funds.This adjustment will
allow the department to meet its current needs and continue to construct the needed construction
projects. The major portion of this adjustment relates to funding for carryover projects which were
budgeted last year and under construction this year. Below is a list of each project carried over from
last year: 1. American Beauty Drive $1,060,000. 2. Pioneer Road construction project $12,000. 3.
Glendale Drive$55,000.4. Gladiola Street project$71,000. 5. 700 East from 900 south to 1300 south
$166,000. 6. Catherine Street to Colorado $191,000. For a total of $1,555,000. Funding is also
requested for the construction of a replacement water line on South Temple from Main street to
Virgins street in connection with the City road reconstruction project in the amount of$141,000. The
total amendment amounts to$1,696,000.
Condition:To complete projects budgeted last year.
Effect:Without funding projects would be delayed or stopped in the middle of construction.
Cause: Due to the summer construction season projects are budgeted and started in one budget
year and not completed until the next. This requires a new appropriation in the following year to allow
completion of the projects.
Recommendation:We recommend approval of the budget amendment to allow completion of the
capital improvement projects.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Budget Development and Budget Amendment
Mayor's Office FY 01-02
Department For Fiscal Year
Youth Programs BA#5 08
Initiative Name Initiative Number
Charleen Sylvester 535-7705
Prepared By Phone Number
Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change
Biennial Period Proposed
A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year
FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04
1. General Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
2. Internal Service Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
3. Enterprise Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
4. Other Fund
Youth City and Imagination Celebration,Fund 77 50,422
Total $50,422 $0 $0
B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source:
1. General Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
2. Internal Service Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
3. Enterprise Fund
Total $0 $0 _ $0
4. Other Fund
Youth City and Imagination Celebration, Fund 77 50,422
Total $50,422 $0 $0
C. Expenditure Impact Detail
1. Salaries and Wages
2. Employee Benefits
3. Operating and Maintenance Supply
4. Charges and Services 50,442
5. Capital Outlay
6. Other(Specify)
Total $50,442 $0 $0
Salt Lake City Corporation
Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Budget Development and Budget Amendment
E.Measured or measurable Impact on functions,structure and organization
Major Impact
F.Issue Discussion:A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below;
criteria,condition,effect,cause and recommendation.
Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected.It provides a basis for comparison without which
analysis cannot be effective.The criteria vanes from issue to issue.In straightforward cases,it can be an ordinance or
policy.
Condition is a description of current practices.It is the information to which the criteria is compared.
Effect is the difference,if any,between the condition and criteria.It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or e
service level impact.If an effect cannot be identified,there is no finding.
Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding.It is simply identifying why the condition
varies from the criteria.Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into
management
Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause.By doing so,it is most likely to result in improving the
condition to be in line with the criteria.
Criteria: The Mayor's Office has solicited and received various contributions from private donors
for operational costs of the City's youth programs.
Condition: These funds will be used for the operational costs associated with the implementation
of the Youth City and Imagination Celebration programs.
Effect: These programs target at-risk youth between the ages of 11 and 17 and provide them with
the opportunity to participate in a variety of interesting and productive after-school activities.
Cause:These are private donations to Salt Lake City and the Salt Lake City Foundation.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the Council appropriate the necessary budget to
facilitate these funds.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Budget Development and Budget Amendment
Community& Economic Development FY 01-02
Department For Fiscal Year
Impact Fee Exemptions BA#5 09
Initiative Name Initiative Number
David Dobbins , 535-7236
Prepared By Phone Number
Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change
Biennial Period Proposed
A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year
FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04
1. General Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
2. Internal Service Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
3. Enterprise Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
4. Other Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source:
1. General Fund
General Fund Contingency (15,825) 0 0
Impact Fee Account(Impact Fee Projects) 15,825
Total $0 $0 $0
2. Internal Service Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
3. Enterprise Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
4. Other Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
C. Expenditure Impact Detail
1. Salaries and Wages
2. Employee Benefits
3. Operating and Maintenance Supply
4. Charges and Services
5. Capital Outlay
6. Other (Impact Fee Projects) 15,825
Total $15,825 $0 $0
Salt Lake City Corporation
Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Budget Development and Budget Amendment
E.Measured or measurable Impact on functions,structure and organization
F.Issue Discussion:A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below;
criteria,condition,effect,cause and recommendation.
Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected.It provides a basis for comparison without which
analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue.In straightforward cases,it can be an ordinance or
policy.In of
Condition is a description of current practices.It is the information to which the criteria is compared.
Effect is the difference,if any,between the condition and criteria.It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a
service level impact.If an effect cannot be identified,there is no finding.
Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding.It is simply identifying why the condition
varies from the criteria.Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into
management
Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause.By doing so,it is most likely to result in improving the
condition to be in line with the criteria.
Issue Discussion:
Criteria: The Impact Fee Ordinance allows for exemption from impact fees for affordable housing
and for projects that receive financial support from the City or RDA. The General Fund must cover the
value of exemptions.
Condition: Three entities have received exemptions for their projects. Gary Nordhoff of
Crownstone Development has built 6 affordable units, so he has received an exemption of $5340.
The Habitat for Humanity has built 3 units and has received a$2670 exemption, and the Utah Opera
has received a$7815 exemption.
Effect: The General Fund must cover the exemptions.
Cause: The impact fee ordinance outlines this requirement.
Recommendation: The General Fund should cover the$15,825 exemptions.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Budget Development and Budget Amendment
Salt Lake City Department of Airports FY 01-02&02-03
Department For Fiscal Year
Airport Budget Amendment,FTE Needs BA#5 10
Initiative Name Initiative Number
J.C.Bingham/J.L.Moratalla 575-2918
Prepared By Phone Number
Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change
Biennial Period Proposed
A.Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year
FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04
1.General Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
2.Internal Service Fund
Total • $0 $0 $0
3.Airport Enterprise Fund
Airport Improvement Fund-Reserves 153,700 443,600
Airport Improvement Fund-PFC
Airport Improvement Fund-State Grant
Airport Improvement Fund-aip FAA Grant
Total $153,700 $443,600 $0
4.Other Fund
Total $0I $0 I $0H
B.Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source:
1.General Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
2.Internal Service Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
3.Airport Enterprise Fund
Airport Capital Improvement Program 153,700 443,600
Total $153,700 $443,600 $0
4.Other Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
Salt Lake City Corporation
Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Bud et Develo.ment and Bud•et Amendment
C.Expenditure Impact Detail
1.Salaries and Wages 153,700 443,600
2.Employee Benefits
3 Operating and Maintenance Supply
4.Charges and Services
5 Capital Outlay
6.Other(Specify)
Total $153,700 $443,600 $0
Salt Lake City Corporation
Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Budget Development and Budget Amendment
D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount
Airport Operations Safety Specialist 11 117 $ 443,600
Salt Lake City Corporation
Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Budget Development and Budget Amendment
E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization
F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below;
criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation.
Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which
analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or
policy. In of
Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared.
Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a
service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding.
Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition
varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into
management
Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the
condition to be in line with the criteria.
Issue Discussion:
Criteria: The Department of Airports is currently approved for a total of 548.80 full-time-equivalent
(FTE) prositions for FY 2001/2002 and 552.80 FTE's for FY 2002/2003. Normally the Airport would
requests new positions during the budget process, however with the urgency of these positions to be
filled, this amendment request is necessary.
Condition: As a result of the September 11 terrorist attacks, the FAA now requires that all
vehicles entering the airport operations secure areas go through a checkpoint. This requires staffing
of two checkpoints on a 24-hour basis.
Effect: Until recently these gates were staffed by the National Guard troops assigned to the
airport. With the recent reduction, National Guard troops will no longer be available. To provide
coverage on a 24-hour basis at the two checkpoints, 11 additional employees are needed, increasing
the FY 2001/2002 authorized FTE for the airport to 559.8 and 563.8 for FY 2002/2003. The salaries
and benefits budget for FY 2001/2002 will be increased by $153,700 (to cover the remaining four
months) and $443,600 for FY 2002/2003.
Cause: With the new Federal Security Regulations adopted as a result of the September 11
terrorist attacks, and the unavialability of the National Guard troops, these new positions are required
for compliance. These additional duties will be incorporated into the Curbside Specialist job and the
job title changed to Airport Operations Safety Specialists. This change will provide variety in the
curbside job and allows the employees to be rotated through the positions, providing relief from the
weather elements.
Recommendation: The Airport Advisory Board in its regulary scheduled meeting, approved this
budget amendment on January 23,2002. The Airport Board and Staff recommends adoption of this
budget amendment.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Budget Development and Budget Amendment
Housing and Neigborhood Development FY 01-02
Department For Fiscal Year
Housing Trust Fund-RDA Grant-CED BA#5 11
Initiative Name Initiative Number
Sherrie Collins 535-6150
Prepared By Phone Number
Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change
Biennial Period Proposed
A.Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year
FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04
1.General Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
2.Internal Service Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
3.Enterprise Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
4.Other Fund
Miscellaneous Grant Fund 72-60011 677,000
Total $677,000 $0 $0
B.Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source:
1.General Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
2.Internal Service Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
3.Enterprise Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
4.Other Fund
Miscellaneous Grant Fund 72-60011 677,000
Total $677,000 $0 I $0
C.Expenditure Impact Detail
1.Salaries and Wages
2.Employee Benefits
3.Operating and Maintenance Supply
4.Charges and Services
5.Capital Outlay 677,000
6.Other(Specify)
Total $677,000 $0 $0
Salt Lake City Corporation
Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Budget Development and Budget Amendment
_ E.Measured or measurable Impact on functions,structure and organization
Major Impact.
F.Issue Discussion:A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below;
criteria,condition,effect,cause and recommendation.
Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected.It provides a basis for comparison without which
analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue.In straightforward cases,it can be an ordinance or
policy.In other cases,it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city.
Condition is a description of current practices.It is the information to which the criteria is compared.
Effect is the difference,if any,between the condition and criteria.It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a
service level impact.If an effect cannot be identified,there is no finding.
Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding.It is simply identifying why the condition
varies from the criteria.Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into
management or personnel issues.
Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause.By doing so,it is most likely to result in improving the
condition to be in line with the cnteria.
Issue Discussion:
Criteria: CED/Housing and Neighborhood Development submitted a request for funds to the
Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City to be used for Housing Trust Fund purposes.
Condition: The RDA Agency Board of Directors approved Resolution No. 534.1 adopting the
Budget, authorizing the grant to CED-Housing and Neighborhood Development. This request will
increase the budget in the RDA/Housing Trust Fund-CED cost center.
Effect: These funds will be used to pay all or part of land acquisition and the cost of installation,
construction and/or rehabilitation of any building, facility, structure or other housing improvements,
including infrastructure improvements related to "Affordable Housing" located in any project area
within Salt Lake City, or;to pay part or all costs of land acquisition, or construction or rehabilitation of
"Income Targeted Housing", or to replace housing lost as a result of redevelopment, economic
development, or education housing development whether or not located in any project area within Salt
Lake City.
Cause: The term "Affordable Housing" means housing owned and occupied by or rented to
persons and families of low or moderate income whose households'earnings do not exceed 120% of
median income as defined by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development as adjusted for
household size. The term "Income Targeted Housing"means housing to be owned or occupied by a
family whose income is at or below 80%of median annual income for Salt Lake County.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary budget to accept
and facilitate this grant.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Budget Development and Budget Amendment
G. Grant Criteria: A grant will satisfy one of the following four criteria.
This grant relates to 2.
—In some cases, the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for
projects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund
or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding
2- Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial
savings or operating efficiencies.
3—Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future.
4- None of the above.
Question 9 - Will this grant fund employee positions? No. What programs are funded with this grant
and what are the performance measures of each program? Housing Trust Fund/Housing related
infrastructure improvements.
Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? NA
Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable?
NA.
Question 4 - Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the
grant funding time frame? Yes.
Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds
become unavailable? Yes
Question 6 - Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? Is
there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Budget Development and Budget Amendment
Public Services Department FY 01-02
Department For Fiscal Year
Pioneer Park Use Plan BA#5 12
Initiative Name Initiative Number
Sherrie Collins/Greg Davis 6150/6397
Prepared By Phone Number
Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change
Biennial Period Proposed
A.Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year
FY 2001-02 FY_2002-03. .__.FY 2003-04-
1.General Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
2.Internal Service Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
3.Enterprise Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
4.Other Fund
C/P Fund Contingency 25,000
Misc.72 Grant Fund 35,000
Total $60,000 $0 # $0
.13.Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source;
1.General Fund
Total $0 $0 $0-1
2.Internal Service Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
3.Enterprise Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
4.Other Fund
C/P Fund Contingency 25,000
Misc.72 Grant Fund 35,000
Total $60,000 $0 $0
C.Expenditure Impact Detail •
-
1.Salaries and Wages
2.Employee Benefits
3.Operating and Maintenance Supply
4.Charges and Services 60,000
5.Capital Outlay
6.Other(Specify)
Total $60,000 $0 $0
Salt Lake City Corporation
Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Budget Development and Budget Amendment
E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization
Measurable Impact
F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below;
criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation.
Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which
analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or
policy.
Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared.
Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a
service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding.
Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition
varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into
management
Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the
condition to be in line with the criteria.
Issue Discussion:
Criteria: Salt Lake City Public Services Department applied for and can expect to receive funding
from the City Parks Forum, a national non profit organization. The City Parks Forum, awards small
grants of up to $35,000 for limited use which is to address facility deficiencies.
Condition: The City will need to match the $35,000 with $25,000 of CIP contingencies or General
Fund, Fund Balance.
Effect: These funds will be used to retain a consultant to develop a plan for the revitalization and
future use of Pioneer park.
Recommendation: Public Services recommends that the City provide the required match and
establish the necessary budget to facilitate the grant.
CIP'Contingency Fund Balance(GF)
Notes:
+ FY 2002 Appropriation $200,000 Amount appropriated in the CIP Budget
+ Closed-out CIP Projects $647,984 Placed in CIP Contingency during first
budget opening
- Seven Canyons Fountain ($49,400) Funded during the first budget opening
- Liberty Park Playground ($30,000) Signed by Mayor
- Baseball Diamond Reconstruct ($38,000) Funded during the second budget opening
- Rotary Playground ($150,000) Adopted during fourth budget opening
Current Balance $580,584
- Pioneer Police Precinct Soil Stabilization ($160,000) To be considered by Council on Mar 12
- Pioneer Park Use Plan ($25,000) To be considered by Council on Mar 12
Balance $395,584 Potential balance following BA#5
Salt Lake City Corporation
Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Budget Development and Budget Amendment
Housing and Neighborhood Development. FY 01-02
Department For Fiscal Year
HAND Adjustments-Grant BA#5 13
Initiative Name Initiative Number
Sherrie Collins 535-6150
Prepared By Phone Number
Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change
Biennial Period Proposed
A. Revenue Im•acted b Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year
FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04
1. General Fund
Total $0 $0 _ $0
2. Internal Service Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
3. Enterprise Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
4. Other Fund
Miscellaneous Grant Fund 72-72104 150
Miscellaneous Grant Fund 72-72122 900
Miscellaneous Grant Fund 72-22030 25,750
Total $26,800 $0 $0
B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source:
1. General Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
2. Internal Service Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
3. Enterprise Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
4. Other Fund
Miscellaneous Grant Fund 72-72104 150
Miscellaneous Grant Fund 72-72122 900
Miscellaneous Grant Fund 72-22030 25,750
Total $26,800 $0 $0
C. Expenditure Impact Detail`
1. Salaries and Wages
2. Employee Benefits
3. Operating and Maintenance Supply
4. Charges and Services
5. Capital Outlay 26,800
6. Other(Specify)
Total $26,800 $0 $0
Salt Lake City Corporation
Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Budget Development and Budget Amendment
E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization
Major Impact.
F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below;
criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation.
Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which
analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or
policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city.
Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared.
Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a
service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding.
Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition
varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into
management or personnel issues.
Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the
condition to be in line with the criteria.
Criteria: These funds were discovered by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) when they completed a reconciliation of eleven years of HOME funding. They have not been
previously budgeted.
Condition: These errors were discovered by HUD and were identified when they reconciled their
IDIS accounting system. HUD has requested that we spend these funds as soon as possible.
Effect: HOME funds require that 15 percent of the amount awarded to the City be awarded to the
City's CHDO. The City's CHDO is Neighborhood Housing Services. The remainder of funds will be
allocated to the City's 1st Time Homebuyer Program.
Cause: The Council passed the necessary resolution when the original grant was received.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council make the necessary increase
adjustments to these budgets to accept and facilitate these HOME funds.
Analyst Comments:
Salt Lake City Corporation
Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Budget Development and Budget Amendment
G. Grant Criteria: A grant will satisfy one of the following four criteria.
This grant relates to 3.
1—In some cases, the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for
projects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund
or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding
2- Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial
savings or operating efficiencies.
3- Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future.
4- None of the above.
Question 1 - Will this grant fund employee positions? No. What programs are funded with this grant
and what are the performance measures of each program? NA
Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? NA
Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable?
NA.
Question 4 - Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the
grant funding time frame? Yes.
Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds
become unavailable? Yes
Question 6 - Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? Is
there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Budget Development and Budget Amendment
Community& Economic Development FY 01-02
Department For Fiscal Year
HAND Director BA#5 14
Initiative Name Initiative Number
David Dobbins 535-7236
Prepared By Phone Number
Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change
Biennial Period Proposed
A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year
FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04
1. General Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
2. Internal Service Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
3. Enterprise Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
4. Other Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source:
1. General Fund
Hand Director Salary and Employee Benefits 23,000 92,000 94,750
General Fund Balance (23,000) (92,000) (94,750)
Total $0 $0 $p
2. Internal Service Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
3. Enterprise Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
4. Other Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
C. Expenditure Impact Detail
1. Salaries and Wages 18,750 75,000 77,250
2. Employee Benefits 4,250 17,000 17,500
3. Operating and Maintenance Supply
4. Charges and Services
5. Capital Outlay
6. Other(Specify)
Total $23,000 $92,000 $94,750
Salt Lake City Corporation
Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Budget Development and Budget Amendment
D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount
Housing & Neighborhood Development Director 1 005 $23,000
Salt Lake City Corporation
Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Budget Development and Budget Amendment
E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization
F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below;
criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation.
Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which
analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or
policy. In of
Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared.
Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a
service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding.
Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition
varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into
management
Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the
condition to be in line with the criteria.
Issue Discussion:
During the 2001-02 budget process, the Administration proposed the elimination of the Housing &
Neighborhood Development Director position. At that time, the Administration felt that the
department's Deputy Director for Business Development could handle both the responsibility of
running the Housing & Neighborhood Development Division, plus performing business development
duties. The City Council then adopted a budget that retained the position for the first six months of the
2002 fiscal year. It has since become clear that two positions are needed to meet these demands.
The Department currently has filled the Deputy Director position with someone that is assigned to only
economic development activities. There is now a need to hire a HAND Director to oversee division
programs such as affordable housing, housing development, housing rehabilitation and relocation,
code enforcement, neighborhood planning, and community development. This move will return the
division to its past structure of having a HAND director and a deputy director.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Budget Development and Budget Amendment
Management Services FY 01-02
Department For Fiscal Year
CIP Transfer to Impact Fee BA#5 15
Initiative Name Initiative Number
Steve Fawcett 535-6399
Prepared By Phone Number
Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change
Biennial Period Proposed
A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year
FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04
1. General Fund
CIP Fund Balance 410,000
Total $410,000 $0 $0
2. Internal Service Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
3. Enterprise Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
4. Other Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source:
1. General Fund
Impact Fee Project-Transfer to GF 410,000
Total $410,000 $0 $0
2. Internal Service Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
3. Enterprise Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
4. Other Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
C. Expenditure Impact Detail
1. Salaries and Wages
2. Employee Benefits
3. Operating and Maintenance Supply
4. Charges and Services
5. Capital Outlay
6. Other(Impact Fee Exemptions) 410,000
Total $410,000 $0 $0
Salt Lake City Corporation
Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Budget Development and Budget Amendment
E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions,structure and organization
F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below;
criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation.
Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which
analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or
policy. In of
Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared.
Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a
service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding.
Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition
varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into
management
Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the
condition to be in line with the criteria.
Issue Discussion: Last June the City Council voted to reimburse the General Fund the $410,000
associated with the CIP Study conducted by CityGate and Associates. This is a legitimate expense
that could be paid for with impact fee moneys. The appropriation of the transfer from the CIP Fund
into the General Fund was made and adopted. The offsetting amount, the transfer from the CIP Fund
was not made. It is necessary to make this appropriation out of the CIP Fund Balance to complete the e
entry.
DAVID DOBBIN5 u + ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON
DEPUTY DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR
COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
0}-7
TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer0 DATE: February 27, 2002
J FROM: David Dobbins
RE: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the grant award provided to
the Public Services Department from the American Planning Association under The City Parks
Forum.
STAFF CONTACT: Sherrie Collins 535-6150
DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution
BUDGET IMPACT: $25,000 match needed from General Fund or CIP Contingencies
DISCUSSION: The Public Services Department, under the Direction of the Mayor,
applied for and received this grant in the amount of$35,000 from the American Planning
Association (APA). These funds are to be used to develop a plan for the revitalization and future
use of Pioneer Park in a partnership with APA,the City, Max Smith, the Pioneer Park
Revitalization Sub-Committee,the Rio Grande Community Council,the SLC Arts Council, the
Downtown Alliance, Artspace, the RDA, the Utah State Historical Society, and neighborhood
social service agencies.
The City will contract with a consultant to guide the development of a revitalization and use plan
for Pioneer Park. These funds may not be used for any other purpose than to pay the consultant
fees.
The City will need to match the $35,000 with$25,000 of CIP contingency or General Fund fund
balance. A request for the additional funds has been submitted to the Council in Budget Opening
#5.
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1
TELEPHONE: 801-535-6230 FAX: B01-535-6005
®ReereEo PAPER
RESOLUTION NO. OF 2002
AUTHORIZING SALT LAKE CITY TO ACCEPT
THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION' S,
CITY PARKS FORUM GRANT
WHEREAS, The American Planning Association has awarded a
$35, 000 . 00 City Parks Forum Grant to the Salt Lake City Public
Services Department to hire a consultant to develop and prepare a
plan for revitalization and future use of Pioneer Park, and;
WHEREAS, the attached grant Award has been prepared to
accomplish said purposes;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake
City, Utah:
1 . It does hereby authorize and approve of SALT LAKE CITY
CORPORATION accepting the $35, 000 . 00 American Planning
Association' s, City Parks Forum Grant described in Exhibit —A"
attached hereto, to expend for the purposes of :
Hiring a consultant to develop a plan for the revitalization and
future use of Pioneer Park.
2 . Ross C. Anderson, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, is
hereby authorized to receive said grant award and execute any and
all subsequent agreements between the City and other entities
resulting from the said Award on behalf of Salt Lake City
Corporation, so long as such subsequent agreements do not depart
substantively from the grant award approved herein.
Passed by the City council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day
day of , 2002 .
Salt Lake City Council
By
Chairperson
ATTEST: Approved as to Form
Salt Lake City' s Attorney' s Office
Date : D/.�
By:- j/ /2,1,4t1—
REC'D FEB 2 0 2 t/F �
"�
. �., ,r `"-� s' � �rw 4 W$;_ "mac �+y s:
q
, Rr , >r F _ Fr +r ►, f tr Pp a rs Ff r Pr !r
_ �. s 3 sa 3 .- '
w e!h - - �-,•w�< s : „twt �`". '.vim s _ `;e=a .,�c, .,. ..s, ,.
Sl\4
THE CITY PAK S 0 U vi
K f R
A Fellowship for Mayors . their Park Advisors , and Community Leaders
founding Fellows
ws
Mayor David L.Armstrong Lmiisvdlr February 12, 2002
Mayor Sharon Sayles Belton
Minneapolis
Mayor Marc H.Morial
Ness Orleans The Honorable Ross C. "Rocky"Anderson
Mayor Tom Murphy
Pittsburgh. Salt Lake City Corporation
451 South State Street, Room 306
APA Staff Salt Lake City,UT 84111
Mary E.Eysenbach
Director
Megan S.Lewis,AICP Dear Mayor Anderson:
Assistant Director
We enjoyed meeting with you during the City Parks Forum symposium in Chicago.
American Planning Association Due to your participation in our program, we are pleased to award a one-year grant of
22 SiMichigan Avenue
ie lboo $ 35,000 to the Salt Lake City Corporation.
icago,IL 60603
3I2.431.9100
312.431.9985 fax The terms and conditions of the grantthey
project have are enclosed. If meet with
www.cityparksforum.org
cpf@planning.org your approval,please indicate your acceptance by signing the agreement and returning
it to me. The first installment of the grant award, $17,500,will be sent to you upon
our receipt of the signed agreement. In the meantime, one of the conditions of the
agreement is that the APA will want to work with you on any press release about the
grant and approve it before it's made public. Your staff may contact me directly
about this matter.
We are excited about the project and its positive impact on your constituents. As the
Olympic Games will create a legacy for Salt Lake City, so will the revitalization of
Pioneer Park. If you have any questions,please contact me at (312) 786-6395.
Sicerely, %
1,1Catil
G/ , .GS.j1
i" Mary Elf. Eys nbach,Director ,G L- ,
The City Parks Forum 'Z �� cP
• Lk
Enclosure ' IL
��� �,/l CVO
A program of the American Planning Association funded by the Wallace Readers Digest I-unds and the Doris I)ukr Charitahle Iotimbnitrn
`',„- '-7,-,*'''', :fit, , „"Y..--,.. 43�?-xx-,
s., •:. .�� '''- ✓y .:.-tea m ,Y A
ae s -.rs, .s. ,,. ,1Nf �w�,% , f'v ✓. _. } <. _ rig
i t, ,. ►,. t i i z t I, a . i� -.. i
IT p KK,,,s FoR , ,..;„,,„
A .1 elluvsltii.°; for '1ivors, th ii kid. Ak.1v sti s . dud _t,iii111 tin it . 1 t'EJP.1 ,1I.•
Grant Terms and Conditions
These Terms and Conditions set forth the terms of the one-year$ 35,000 Grant(the"Grant")
by the American Planning Association (APA)to the Salt Lake City Corporation. References to the
"Grant Terms and Conditions" shall include this document as well as any attachments. The Grant,
which will only be considered approved as final upon the full execution of this document, is made
subject to the Salt Lake City Corporation following terms and conditions:
Program and Administrative Requirements
1. This Grant is to be used by the Salt Lake City Corporation to develop a plan for the
revitalization and future use of Pioneer Park in partnership with APA , the Salt Lake City
Corporation, Max Smith, Pioneer Park Revitalization Sub-Committee, Rio Grande Community
Council, neighborhood social service agencies, Salt Lake City Arts Council, The Downtown
Alliance, Artspace, Salt Lake City Redevelopment Authority, and the Utah State Historical
Society. Specifically, the Salt Lake City Corporation will contract with a consultant to guide
in the development of a revitalization and use plan for Pioneer Park, as detailed more fully in
the proposal submitted to APA (attached). This Grant may not be used for any other purpose
or program of the Salt Lake City Corporation.
2. APA, through its designated program staff, must be consulted in writing in advance, in the
event that any aspect of the program is changed or redesigned. The designated APA staff
person for this Grant is Mary Eysenbach, the Director of The City Parks Forum.
Payment of Grant Funds
1. This Grant will be paid according to the following schedule, assuming compliance with the
terms and conditions set forth herein:
$17,500 upon APA's receipt of the signed Grant Terms and Conditions until the grant
project is completed.
Balance (up to $17,500)upon completion of the grant project and the submission of
reports identified in the Reporting and Record Keeping Requirements of these Terms
and Conditions.
2. These Grant funds are restricted to the uses as described above and are to be used as
represented in the budget included with the proposal submitted to APA. These Grant monies
• are not to be used in any other way or for any other purposes without the prior written approval
of APA. Budget revisions of more than 25% in any major line item must be approved by APA
prior to expenditures.
— Reporting and Record Keeping Requirements
1. Salt Lake City Corporation will submit two reports on the progress of the project supported by
this Grant. The first report form will be included with the first installment payment by APA to
the Salt Lake City Corporation. The first report will be due to APA no later than August 31,
2002. The second and final report must be submitted upon completion of the project. In
addition to the information requested in the forthcoming report guidelines, the reports should
include the following:
a. Copies of educational materials, brochures, reports, photographs and any other
representative materials relating to the project(interim and final report).
b. Copies of any media coverage generated by the project; (interim and final report).
c. Project accounting information. Information should include a comparison of the
actual expenses to the approved line item budget and an explanation for any
overages and/or unspent funds. (interim and final report).
d. Salt Lake City Corporation's most recent audited financial statements. (final report).
Publicity and Acknowledgment
Acknowledgment for this Grant should include:
1. A general acknowledgment of APA among Salt Lake City Corporation's list of annual funders
in all appropriate programs,publications, web pages, and public announcements for the Grant
period.
2. Use of the"American Planning Association" in any public documents pertaining to this Grant.
Prominence of acknowledgment on all printed materials should be commensurate with the
level of funding relative to other funding sources.
3. APA reserves the right to include information relating to the Grant in APA's periodic reports,
newsletters or news releases or in other materials issued by or on behalf of APA.
4. APA will work with the Salt Lake City Corporation to develop a press release, which must
conform to the following guidelines:
a. APA should be named in the first paragraph.
b. Provision should be made in the release for a quote from a representative of APA.
c. The following description of The City Parks Forum should be included in the
announcement:
The City Parks Forum SMis a program of the American Planning Association, whose
mission is to advance the art and science of urban, rural and regional land-use
planning. For more information, visit APA's web site at www.planning.org. The City
• Parks Forum sM is made possible by the Wallace-Reader's Digest Funds and the Doris
•
Duke Charitable Foundation.
5. The final version of the new release or any other form of announcement, and its release date,
must be reviewed and approved by APA before the Grant is made public in any way.
Conditions Necessitating a Refund of Grant Funds to APA
If any of the following circumstances occur, APA may, at its discretion, in addition to other
remedies available to it, require that Salt Lake City Corporation immediately repay the full amount of
the Grant funds which were unspent as of the date of the occurrence.
1. The purpose of the Grant has been fully completed or the period of time indicated in the Grant
proposal (attached) for the completion of the purpose of the Grant has expired (without being
extended with the consent of APA).
2. The Salt Lake City Corporation, for any reason,becomes unable to carry out the purpose of the
Grant stated in the Grant Description, or otherwise violates these Grant Terms and Conditions.
No Assignment or Delegation
Salt Lake City Corporation may not assign or otherwise transfer any of its rights or delegate
any of its obligations under these Grant Terms and Conditions or with respect to the Grant.
Accepted by the Salt Lake City Corporation
Accepted and Agreed on this date:
Salt Lake City Corporation
By:
Printed Name:
Title:
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorneys Office
Date 0
• 1 ' Ar a."`Ugly J '3,�R�®D�� I��OO j ROSS C. ROCKY ANDERSON
RICHARD GRAHAM ..w. �t�� r►ti� ',ROCKY"
PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES MAYOR
THE CITY PARKS FORUM
Catalyst Grant Application Form
Applicant Organization: Salt Lake City Corporation
Address: 451 South State Street, Room 148
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Project Contacts:
Name:Rick Graham Phone: 801-535-7774
Email: rick.graham@ci.slc.ut.us
Name:Stephen Goldsmith Phone: 801 535-7757
Email: stephen.goldsmith@ci.slc.ut.us
Project Name: Revitalization and Use Plan for Pioneer Park
Project Description: Salt Lake City will be retaining a consultant to guide the City and
other stakeholders, including private, public and neighborhood community leaders, in the
development of a plan for the revitalization and future use of Pioneer Park that will meet
the following objectives:
• Create a safe and welcoming place;
• Preserve open-space as much as possible;
• Maintain the park as a first rate destination for residents and visitors;
• Continue to develop more programming that will animate the park on a daily
basis; and
• Increase the residential population around the park and support surrounding
neighborhood businesses.
The revitalization and use plan would be phase-one of a two-phase process. The plan
would be based on input from a collaboration of many individuals within Salt Lake City
(stakeholders) who have a vested interest in the revitalization and future enjoyment of
this historic gathering place within the City, as well as the successful experience of other
communities throughout the country, such as Portland, Oregon who have developed
similar public spaces.
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 148, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1
TELEPHONE: 801-535-7775 FAX: 801-535-7789
RECYCLED PAPER
•
•
•
Project's Relationship to the Case Problem: Salt Lake City presented a case
problem to the members of the City Parks Forum relating to a historically significant
urban park that is currently underdeveloped and underutilized. Pioneer Park,named for
the Mormon pioneers who settled at the fort which originally stood on its site, is a ten
acre park block in the middle of an area of the City which was, until recently, surrounded
primarily by industrial and social service uses. For many years, the park was perceived
to be unsafe for families to visit due to crime, drug use, and transient activity and other
deleterious activities. Even today, some of these same perceptions continue to exist.
In the last five years, the area around the park has begun a transformation: buildings
surrounding the park have been renovated and opened to new housing and retail
development; the park has been the focus of increased police attention; infrastructure
improvements have been made within the park and surrounding area; and an effort is
underway to increase the programming within the park.
What is clear to all involved, however, is that the success of Pioneer Park depends on the
identification of a permanent use or uses within the park that will maximize the public
value of this park as an open space and community asset. Salt Lake City is seeking a
Catalyst Grant to fund, in part, the development of this necessary revitalization and use
plan for Pioneer Park.
What indicator(s) will be used to measure progress? What is the baseline
measurement(s) for the indicator? When will it be measured? Include any
benchmarks if applicable:
A baseline does not formally exist in which to measure progress against except to say that
the City currently has a park site that is vastly under-utilized. The city will use the
Catalyst Grant to hire a qualified consultant who will develop a schedule, including
timelines, for the development of the revitalization and use plan. The schedule will
include the number of, and proposed timeline for, meetings with City officials, planners
and other participating stakeholders within the community, and define the process
development steps that will be followed in moving toward a comprehensive use plan.
A list of milestones will be developed based on the determined project schedule. The
actual progress of the plan's development will be monitored by the project director and
measured for compliance with the original dates projected for each milestone. A status
report on these measurements will be prepared and submitted as directed by the City
Parks Forum.
•
The project schedule (milestones) designed by the project consultant would look similar
to this:
• Secure project funding
Catalyst Grant January 11, 2002
City/partners portion July 1, 2002
• Select a project consultant March 1, 2002
• Identify stakeholders/partners March 1, 2002
• Begin program development process March 15, 2002
• Conduct site inventory April 1, 2002
• Research other City experience June 1, 2002
• Produce draft use plan and distribute September 1, 2002
to stakeholders and community
leaders for feedback
• Hold public hearings October 1, 2002
• Adopt use plan November 30, 2002
List the partners involved in the project and the respective contribution of each:
Partner Contribution •
Mayor Ross C. Anderson oversight
Stephen Goldsmith Project Manager
Salt Lake City Planning Director
Rick Graham Project Manager
Salt Lake City Public Services Director
Salt Lake City Planning Division staff expertise
Max Smith, Architect in-kind contribution
Pioneer Park Revitalization Sub-Committee in-kind contribution
(Pioneer Park neighborhood business and
community representatives)
•
Rio Grande Community Council in-kind contribution
Neighborhood Social Service Agencies in-kind contribution
Salt Lake City Arts Council staff expertise
The Downtown Alliance in-kind contribution
Artspace (non-profit) in-kind contribution
Utah State Historical Society staff expertise
Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency staff expertise
Salt Lake City Police Department staff expertise
Salt Lake City Parks &Engineering Division staff expertise
Project Budget: The projected cost to hire a qualified consultant is $100,000. A
complete itemized cost breakdown is not known at this time. The budget does include all
costs associated with equipment use, materials and supplies, contractual payments and
travel. No capital costs will be incurred.
Project Time Line: See above for timeline schedule.
I hereby acknowledge that Salt Lake City Corporation is applying for The City Parks
Forum Catalyst Grant and will comply with the guidelines set forth in the application
instructions.
(C) . i /V '„1/1 N, All 441
Printed or typed name and title of Chief Executive Officer of the Applicant Organization
Signature of the Chief Executive Officer
RICHARD GRAHAM ^�,�'� '`` A` a�1`v T�Y.,{ G� �P�O e. II,ON
�� `+r '�+����� - ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON
PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES MAYOR
MEMORANDUM
TO: Michael Sears
Salt Lake City Council
Sherri Hansen
H.A.N.D. Capital Plannin
FROM: Rick Graham
Public Services D p ent
DATE: February 27,2002
RE: Budget Amendment#5, Pioneer Park
Revitalization and Use Plan Funding
Budget Amendment#5 requests that$25,000 be taken from CIP Contingency to fund the
development of a Revitalization and Use Plan for Pioneer Park. The City funds will be
added to a$35,000 Catalyst Grant that the City has received from the American Planning
Association(APA). The grant from the APA can only be used by the City to develop a
plan for the revitalization and future use of Pioneer Park in partnership with the APA and
representatives from local business, residents, community groups and agencies that have
a vested interest in the park and surrounding community.
In November 2001,Mayor Anderson,Rick Graham and Max Smith, representing the
Pioneer Park Community, attended the City Parks Forum, which is a program sponsored
by the APA. The mission of the forum is to advance the art and science of urban,rural
and regional land-use planning. Mayor Anderson made a presentation at the Forum on
the challenges the City is facing in discovering a long-term use plan for Pioneer Park. As
a result of the City's participation in the Forum,the City was given a Catalyst Grant of
$35,000. The City has committed to have the plan completed by November 30, 2002.
For more information relative to the description of the project and the plan development
process that the City would like to conduct,please refer to the attachment titled, Catalyst
Grant Application Form.
cc: Rocky Fluhart
Steve Fawcett
Greg Davis
Attachment
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 148, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1
TELEPHONE: 801-535-7775 FAX: 801-535-7789
®ncc.cco a.>cw
RICHARD GRAHAM s '` `1�a�;�cs' T1\!���R�O In.4.101.woolv
ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDEll.
PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES MAYOR
THE CITY PARKS FORUM
Catalyst Grant Application Form
Applicant Organization: Salt Lake City Corporation
Address: 451 South State Street,Room 148
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Project Contacts:
Name:Rick Graham Phone: 801-535-7774
Email: rick.graham@ci.slc.ut.us
Name:Stephen Goldsmith Phone: 801 535-7757
Email: stephen.goldsmith@ci.slc.ut.us
Project Name: Revitalization and Use Plan for Pioneer Park
Project Description: Salt Lake City will be retaining a consultant to guide the City and
other stakeholders,including private, public and neighborhood community leaders, in the
development of a plan for the revitalization and future use of Pioneer Park that will meet
the following objectives:
• Create a safe and welcoming place;
• Preserve open-space as much as possible;
• Maintain the park as a first rate destination for residents and visitors;
• Continue to develop more programming that will animate the park on a daily
basis; and
• Increase the residential population around the park and support surrounding
neighborhood businesses.
The revitalization and use plan would be phase-one of a two-phase process. The plan
would be based on input from a collaboration of many individuals within Salt Lake City
(stakeholders) who have a vested interest in the revitalization and future enjoyment of
this historic gathering place within the City, as well as the successful experience of other
communities throughout the country, such as Portland, Oregon who have developed
similar public spaces.
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 148, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1
TELEPHONE: 801-535-7775 FAX: 801-535-7789
Project's Relationship to the Case Problem: Salt Lake City presented a case
problem to the members of the City Parks Forum relating to a historically significant
urban park that is currently underdeveloped and underutilized. Pioneer Park, named for
the Mormon pioneers who settled at the fort which originally stood on its site, is a ten
acre park block in the middle of an area of the City which was, until recently, surrounded
primarily by industrial and social service uses. For many years, the park was perceived
to be unsafe for families to visit due to crime, drug use, and transient activity and other
deleterious activities. Even today, some of these same perceptions continue to exist.
In the last five years, the area around the park has begun a transformation: buildings
surrounding the park have been renovated and opened to new housing and retail
development; the park has been the focus of increased police attention; infrastructure
improvements have been made within the park and surrounding area; and an effort is
underway to increase the programming within the park.
What is clear to all involved, however, is that the success of Pioneer Park depends on the
identification of a permanent use or uses within the park that will maximize the public
value of this park as an open space and community asset. Salt Lake City is seeking a
Catalyst Grant to fund, in part, the development of this necessary revitalization and use
plan for Pioneer Park.
What indicator(s) will be used to measure progress? What is the baseline
measurement(s) for the indicator? When will it be measured? Include any
benchmarks if applicable:
A baseline does not formally exist in which to measure progress against except to say that
the City currently has a park site that is vastly under-utilized. The city will use the
Catalyst Grant to hire a qualified consultant who will develop a schedule, including
timelines, for the development of the revitalization and use plan. The schedule will
include the number of, and proposed timeline for, meetings with City officials, planners
and other participating stakeholders within the community, and define the process
development steps that will be followed in moving toward a comprehensive use plan.
A list of milestones will be developed based on the determined project schedule. The
actual progress of the plan's development will be monitored by the project director and
measured for compliance with the original dates projected for each milestone. A status
report on these measurements will be prepared and submitted as directed by the City
Parks Forum.
The project schedule (milestones) designed by the project consultant would look similar to this:
• Secure project funding
Catalyst Grant January 11, 2002
City/partners portion July 1, 2002
• Select a project consultant March 1, 2002
• Identify stakeholders/partners March 1, 2002
• Begin program development process March 15, 2002
• Conduct site inventory April 1, 2002
• Research other City experience June 1, 2002
• Produce draft use plan and distribute September 1, 2002
to stakeholders and community
leaders for feedback
• Hold public hearings October 1, 2002
• Adopt use plan November 30, 2002
List the partners involved in the project and the respective contribution of each:
Partner Contribution •
Mayor Ross C. Anderson oversight
Stephen Goldsmith Project Manager
Salt Lake City Planning Director
Rick Graham Project Manager
Salt Lake City Public Services Director
Salt Lake City Planning Division staff expertise
Max Smith, Architect in-kind contribution
Pioneer Park Revitalization Sub-Committee in-kind contribution
(Pioneer Park neighborhood business and
community representatives)
Rio Grande Community Council in-kind contribution
Neighborhood Social Service Agencies in-kind contribution
Salt Lake City Arts Council staff expertise
The Downtown Alliance in-kind contribution
Artspace (non-profit) in-kind contribution
Utah State Historical Society staff expertise
Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency staff expertise
Salt Lake City Police Department staff expertise
Salt Lake City Parks &Engineering Division staff ex ertise
Project Budget: The projected cost to hire a qualified consultant is St4W000. A
complete itemized cost breakdown is not known at this time. The budget does include all
costs associated with equipment use, materials and supplies, contractual payments and
travel. No capital costs will be incurred.
Project Time Line: See above for timeline schedule.
I hereby acknowledge that Salt Lake City Corporation is applying for The City Parks
Forum Catalyst Grant and will comply with the guidelines set forth in the application
instructions.
i
a SS V 'J44/, l ; 4 7V,
Printed or typed name and title of Chief Executive officer of the Applicant Organization
Signature of the Chief Executive Officer
Analysis of Ex cutiv Positions by Departm nt
Number of Executive Approximate Number of Employees to Budget Appropriation to
Employees Positions Biennial Budget Executive Positions Ratio Executive Positions Ratio
(w/Enterprise Funds) (#to one Executive) ($to one Executive)
Public Services 622 5 $ 121,220,701 124 $ 24,244,140
Police Department 587 5 $ 87,933,346 117 $ 17,586,669
Department of Airports 553 5 $ 328,814,200 111 $ 65,762,840
Public Utilities 400 5 $ 181,266,917 80 $ 36,253,383
Fire Department 365 3 $ 55,419,035 122 $ 18,473,012
Management Services 181 6 $ 162,933,006 30 $ 27,155,501
Community& Economic Development 129 6 $ 41,596,689 22 $ 6,932,782
City Attorney's Office 37 4 $ 12,722,559 9 $ 3,180,640
Note: The above graph does not include executive positions within the Mayor's Office (4), Office of the City Council (2), RDA Director(1), Olympic
Opportunity Director(1), or Justice Court Judges.
J o 0 2002
SAI; ' �4 'CITY"CORPO 'RATIOI I
MAX G. PETERSON, P.E. - � ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON
CITY ENGINEER COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR
ENGINEERING DIVISION
i/(/
TO: Mr. ROCKY FLUHART DATE: DECEMBER 4, 2001
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
FROM: RICK GRAHAM—PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR
REFERENCE: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign an interlocal agreement
between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Utah Department of Transportation for the
reconstruction of South Temple from Main Street to Virginia Street.
STAFF CONTACT: Rick Johnston, 535-6232 CA
RECOMMENDATION: The City Council schedules this item on its agenda.
DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution
BUDGET IMPACT: The funding for the local match requirement for this project
($869,849) has already been approved by the City Council through the 1999/2000 Capital
Improvement Program budget process. The cost center is 83-00041-2700: $728,849 & 53-
10201-2773.10: $141,000. The IFAS # is 83100013 and the activity code is 672.
57- 0/30/- 2773. /0.• / Soo, 000 jW,/y/oz
DISCUSSION: Federal Highway Surface Transportation Program funding has
been approved in the amount of$10,500,000 for reconstruction of this roadway. The project will
involve reconstruction of deteriorated roadway pavement, curb and gutter and installation of
improved storm drainage, traffic signals, streetscape landscaping and other historical streetscape
enhancements. This project has been reviewed with the appropriate community council
representatives and abutting property owners as well as the South Temple Advisory Committee
and the Historic Landmark Commission. The required local match of$869,849 has already been
budgeted. Design of this project is nearing completion with project bidding scheduled for this
February/March. Actual construction is scheduled to begin in the spring of 2002 and be
completed by the fall of 2003.
In November, 1998 Council directed a traffic study be added to our design process to identify
how traffic will be managed during construction of this project. That study, which was
completed by Korve Engineering includes numerous recommendations for managing traffic
during construction. The attached discussion paper outlines those recommendations.
Attachment
324 SOUTH STATE STREET, SUITE 310, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1
TELEPHONE: 801-535-7961 FAX: 801-535-6093
.A I'7� (�accvceo enrcw
RESOLUTION NO. OF 2002
AUTHORIZING THE APPROVAL OF AN
INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT
BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND
UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
'WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13, Utah Code Aim., 1953, 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, as
follows:
1. It does hereby approve the execution and delivery of the following:
A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT MODIFICATION 1, PRECONSTRUCTION
& CONSTRUCTION REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAM, BETWEEN THE
UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND SALT LAKE CITY
CORPORATION REGARDING THE SOUTH TEMPLE, STATE STREET TO
VIRGINIA PROJECT, LOCATED AT SOUTH TEMPLE FROM STATE
STREET TO VIRGINIA STREET, PROJECT NO. STP-2328(1)0.
2. Ross C. "Rocky"Anderson, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, or his designee, is
hereby authorized to approve said agreement on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation, subject to
such minor changes which do not materially affect the rights and obligations of the City
thereunder and as shall be approved by the Mayor, his execution thereof to constitute conclusive
evidence of such approval.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of
, 2002.
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
By:
CHAIRPERSON
,
SOUTH TEMPLE DISCUSSION PAPER
BACKGROUND
Engineering is in the final stages of design and bid document preparation for the South
Temple reconstruction project (Main Street to Virginia Street). This $11 million project
is an approved Federal Highway Administration STP project with 93% of funding to
come from FHWA funds and the remaining 7% coming from previously budgeted city
funds. In November,1998, Council approved an interlocal cooperative agreement
between the Utah Department of Transportation and Salt Lake City for allocation of
funding for this project, and a contract with RB&G Engineering for final design and
preconstruction services. Construction of this project was scheduled for the construction
years of 2000 and 2001, but was delayed for two years to allow for completion of the
University Light Rail project during the 2000/2001 time frame. During the approval
process for the above agreements, Council directed a traffic study be added to the
consultant agreement to identify where traffic will flow and how traffic will be managed
during the construction of this project. This study was completed by Korve Engineering,
a traffic subconsultant to RB&G Engineering.
With the University LRT project moving towards its fall, 2001 completion, and design
nearing completion for South Temple, Engineering is proposing the scheduling of South
Temple construction to occur from April, 2002 to November, 2003. This schedule will
coincide with the proposed schedules of two other street construction projects in the
general vicinity; University Medical Center LRT construction from the stadium to the
University Medical Center, and Guardsman Way reconstruction from 500 South to
Sunnyside Avenue. Concerns were raised in the community of the possible conflict
these project schedules would have on each other. These concerns were addressed along
with a project update of the above three projects at a community meeting held August 31,
2001. Community Council leaders, South Temple Advisory Committee members, Traffic
Advisory Committee members, South Temple property owners and representatives from
the University of Utah were invited to this meeting.
ANALYSIS
The South Temple Reconstruction Traffic Impact Analysis report completed by Korve
Engineering involved a detailed analysis of the traffic impact imposed by the project. The
report developed and studied numerous methods to minimize construction impacts on
abutting properties and businesses and to reduce impacts to traffic flow in surrounding
neighborhoods. In addition, RB & G Engineering has studied the constructability of this
project in light of the traffic impact analysis in an effort to develop meaningful and
realistic requirements for the construction contractor which will meet the goals of
minimizing construction impacts while ensuring a quality construction product. Based on
these efforts, the following measures are recommended for inclusion in the construction
contract specifications for the South Temple reconstruction project.
,
reCOrc� �
Project Number: STP-2328(1)0
Project Name: SOUTH TEMPLE; STATE STREET TO VIRGINIA
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT MODIFICATION-1
PRECONSTRUCTION & CONSTRUCTION REIMBURSEMENT
Program
(FEDERAL PARTICIPATION)
THIS Cooperative Agreement No. ,made and entered into this day of
,20_,by and between the Utah Department of Transportation hereinafter referred to as "UDOT",
and SALT LAKE CITY CORP., State of Utah, acting through its Mayor hereinafter referred to as "LOCAL
AUTHORITY", witnesseth that:
WHEREAS, the parties to this agreement desire to provide for the project, SOUTH TEMPLE;
STATE STREET TO VIRGINIA, financed in part from Federal-aid highway funds, said project located at
South Temple from State Street to Virginia(1350 East)and identified as project number STP-2328(1)0;and
WHEREAS, the LOCAL AUTHORITY agrees to pay all costs of the project, less the eligible
amount reimbursed to UDOT by the Federal Government,and that through their consultant selection process
has selected RB&G, hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT", as their Consultant Project Engineer to
perform Construction Engineering; and
WHEREAS, the LOCAL AUTHORITY agrees to comply with the applicable UDOT and Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA)Federal-aid Program Procedures and Standards for the project; and
WHEREAS,UDOT's Policy for Construction Engineering on Local Government Projects provides
that UDOT not perform construction engineering for local government projects,unless a hardship exists and
substantial savings can be realized by using UDOT construction engineering, and UDOT construction
resources are available; and
WHEREAS, by law,UDOT may not expend State Funds on any local government project:
NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows:
1. Description of Work Involved: The work covered by this agreement shall commence upon
advertisement of the project, and shall consist of the following:
a. UDOT shall:
(l) Award the project,with concurrence from the LOCAL AUTHORITY,using UDOT
procedures.
(2) Provide a Project Manager for the project.
(3) Provide Technical Assistance and Engineering Services to the CONSULTANT only
if such Technical Assistance and Engineerine Services are requested in writing from
the CONSULTANT and are not available from other private consultants.
(4) Charge appropriate costs for all Technical Assistance and Engineering Services to
the CONSULTANT.
(5) Charge appropriate costs for all project management to the project.
2. Liability: LOCAL AUTHORITY agrees to hold harmless and indemnify UDOT, its officers,
employees and agents(Indemnities)from and against all claims,suits and costs,including attorneys'
fees for injury or damage of any kind, arising out of the LOCAL AUTHORITY'S negligent acts,
errors or omissions in the performance of this project, and from and against all claims, suits and
Project Number: STP-2328(1)0
Project Name: SOUTH TEMPLE; STATE STREET TO VIRGINIA
costs, including attorneys'fees for injury or damage of any kind, arising out of Indemnities' failure
to inspect,discover,correct,or otherwise address any defect,dangerous condition or other condition
created by or resulting from LOCAL AUTHORITY's negligent acts, errors or omissions in the
performance of this project.
Any periodic plan and specification review or construction inspection performed by UDOT arising
out of the performance of the project does not relieve the LOCAL AUTHORITY of its duty in the
performance of this project or to ensure compliance with acceptable standards.
3. Financing of Project: The costs shown below are only ESTIMATES. Actual costs
exceeding any funds outside the Utah State Transportation Commission approved STIP
amount will be paid by the LOCAL AUTHORITY. The funding percentages match applies
to the Transportation Commission approved STIP amount only. Any request for
additional funding outside of that amount will require the LOCAL AUTHORITY to
make an official request to their 1VIPO or the Joint Highway Committee and the
Transportation Commission. An amendment may be required to the STIP with
advertisement to the public if approved by the Transportation Commission.
2
Project Number: STP-2328(1)0
Project Name: SOUTH TEMPLE; STATE STREET TO VIRGINIA
FEDERAL FEDERAL NON-
PARTICIPATING PARTICIPATING
Preliminary Engineering:
UDOT In-house Design Costs $ $
Consultant Design Costs $650,000.00
Right-of-way:
UDOT Review, Services,and Technical Assist. $50,000.00 $
Acquisitions and Appraisals $ $
Utilities/Historical Research $15,817.00 $
Construction Phase & Contract $9,630,000.00 $141,000.00
Public Utilities (Salt Lake City) $1,300,000.00
UDOT Construction Monitoring $100,000.00 $
Consultant Construction Engineering $700,000.00 $
ESTIMATE TOTAL:
PARTICIPATING/NON-PARTICIPATING COSTS $11,145,817.00 $1,441,000.00
GRAND TOTAL (Participating+Non-participating)
$12,586,817.00
Federal Funds 93.23% $10,391,245.00
Local Match 6.77% $754,572.00
Local Authority Non-participating Costs $1,441,000.00
Local Authority Match and Non-participating Costs $2,195,572.00
Less Local Match Already on Deposit for $39,872.00
Preconstruction Phase
Local Authority Deposit Required $2,155,700.00
3
Project Number: STP-2328(1)0
Project Name: SOUTH TEMPLE; STATE STREET TO VIRGINIA
NOTE: The Utah State Transportation Commission has approved $11,145,817.00 in total
funds for this project. Any additional participating project costs above this amount shall
be paid by the LOCAL AUTHORITY.
a. Payment of LOCAL AUTHORITY Match For Construction: Upon signing this agreement,
the LOCAL AUTHORITY will pay its matching share for construction phase estimated
at($2.155,700.00). The LOCAL AUTHORITY shall make a check payable to the Utah
Department of Transportation referencing the project number STP-2328(I)0. Payment
should be mailed to the UDOT Comptroller's Office, 4501 South 2700 West, Salt Lake
City, Utah 84119-5998.
b. UDOT Technical Assistance and Engineering Services: The CONSULTANT shall
pay all costs (both direct and indirect)for any Technical Assistance or Engineering
Service performed by UDOT relative to this project.
c. Construction: The LOCAL AUTHORITY shall pay all costs of construction and
construction engineering, less the eligible amount reimbursed to UDOT by the Federal
Government. The Joint Highway Committee limits federal participation in construction
engineering costs to 20 percent of the construction contract costs for local government
projects, provided that the average statewide cost for construction engineering does not
exceed the 15 percent limit required by the Federal Government. Construction
engineering includes UDOT Project Management and Consultant Construction
Engineering.
d. Consultant Construction Engineering: The LOCAL AUTHORITY shall submit four
copies of billings with attached supporting data for costs incurred to the UDOT Project
Manager. The LOCAL AUTHORITY and the UDOT Project Manager shall certify and
approve the billings and forward to the UDOT Consultant Services Accountant within
the Comptroller's Office. UDOT shall pay the Consultant for the LOCAL
AUTHORITY, by a separate Engineering Services contract for work covered by the
billing.
e. Under runs: If the deposited amount stated above exceeds the LOCAL AUTHORITY's
total share of project costs, UDOT will return the amount of overpayment to the LOCAL
AUTHORITY.
f. Overruns: If project costs exceed the estimated amount, the LOCAL AUTHORITY
shall pay its matching share for the overruns. Should the LOCAL AUTHORITY fail to
reimburse UDOT for costs that exceed the federal reimbursement, federal funding for
other LOCAL AUTHORITY projects or B&C road funds may be withheld until payment
is made.
g• Final Inspection and Acceptance: The UDOT Comptroller shall provide the LOCAL
AUTHORITY with a final invoice after final inspection and acceptance of the project by
the FHWA. If the deposited amount stated above exceeds the LOCAL AUTHORITY's
share of the project, UDOT shall return the amount of overpayment to the LOCAL
AUTHORITY. If the project overruns in costs, the LOCAL AUTHORITY shall pay its
4
Project Number: STP-2328(1)0
Project Name: SOUTH TEMPLE; STATE STREET TO VIRGINIA
share of the additional amount required for completion of the work within 90 days after
receiving the final invoice. Federal funds for future projects may be withheld until
payment is made.
UDOT shall furnish a quarterly statement to the LOCAL AUTHORITY and UDOT
Project Manager showing costs charged to the project.
4. Construction Change Orders: An authorized LOCAL AUTHORITY official shall approve all
construction change orders.
5. Certification of Consultant Selection Process: The LOCAL AUTHORITY certifies that the
consultant selection process used for obtaining the CONSULTANT for this project is in
conformance with UDOT and FHWA requirements. Failure to conform to these requirements
may result in loss of Federal funds for the project.
6. Maintenance: The LOCAL AUTHORITY shall properly maintain and restore each type of
roadway, structure and facility as nearly as possible in its original condition as constructed or
improved in accordance with State and Federal requirements. Future utility installations will be
made according to UDOT's "Regulations for the Accommodation of Utilities on Federal-aid and
Non Federal-aid Highway Right-of-Way."
7. Parking Regulation and Traffic Control: After the effective date of this agreement,no changes in
parking regulations and traffic control will be made on this project without prior approval of the
Federal Highway Administration unless the LOCAL AUTHORITY has a functioning traffic
engineering unit with the demonstrated ability, as determined by the UDOT,to apply and
maintain sound traffic operations and control. Any requests for revisions should be submitted
through UDOT's Region Director.
8. Inter-local Co-operation Act Requirements:
a. This agreement shall be authorized by resolution of the governing body of each party to
Section 11-13-17 of the Inter-local Co-operation Act, Utah Code Title 11,Chapter 13, as
amended(the "Act");
b. This agreement shall be approved as to form and legality by a duly authorized attorney
on behalf of each party, pursuant to Section 11-13-9 of the Act;
c. A duly executed original counterpart of this agreement shall be filed with keeper of
records of each party,pursuant to Section 11-13-10 of the Act;
d. Except as otherwise specifically provided herein, each party shall be responsible for its
own costs of any action done pursuant to this agreement, and for any financing of such
costs; and
e. No separate legal entity is created by the term of this agreement. To the extent that this
agreement requires administration other than as set forth herein, it shall be administered
by the mayor of the LOCAL AUTHORITY and the Region Director of UDOT, acting as
a joint board. No real or personal property shall be acquired jointly by the parties as a
5
•
Project Number: STP-2328(1)0
Project Name: SOUTH TEMPLE; STATE STREET TO VIRGINIA
result of this agreement. To the extent that a party acquires, holds, or disposes of any
real or personal property for use in the joint or cooperative undertaking contemplated by
this agreement, such party shall do so in the same manner that it deals with other
property of such party.
9. REPRESENTATION REGARDING ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR LOCAL AUTHORITY
OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES AND FORMER LOCAL AUTHORITY OFFICERS AND
EMPLOYEES:
UDOT represents that it has not: (1) provided an illegal gift or payoff to a LOCAL AUTHORITY
officer or employee of former LOCAL AUTHORITY officer or employee,or his or her relative or
business entity; (2) retained any person to solicit or secure this contract upon an agreement or
understanding for a commission,percentage,brokerage or contingent fee,other than bona fide
employees or bona fide commercial selling agencies for the purpose of securing business; (3)
knowingly breached any of the ethical standards set forth in the LOCAL AUTHORITY's conflict of
interest ordinance,Chapter 2.44,Salt Lake City Code; or(4)knowingly influenced,and hereby
promises that it will not knowingly influence,a LOCAL AUTHORITY officer or employee or
former LOCAL AUTHORITY officer or employee to breach any of the ethical standards set forth
in the LOCAL AUTHORITY's conflict of interest ordinance, Chapter 2.44,Salt Lake City Code.
6
+ r
Project Number: STP-2328(1)0
Project Name: SOUTH TEMPLE; STATE STREET TO VIRGINIA
IN WITNESS THEREOF,the parties hereto have caused these presents to be executed by their
duly authorized officers as of the day, month, and year first above written.
AUTHORIZED LOCAL AUTHORITY OFFICIAL: SALT LAKE CITY CORP.
By:
Title: Date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney's Office
Printed Name: ATTEST: Date 17 't6.-0
B
Deputy City Recorder
UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGION OFFICE:
By:
Title: Region Director Date:
UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION:
Project Management Administration signature required when the standard boilerplate agreement has been
modified.
0 Check box if Project Management Administration signature is required.
By:
Title: James C.McMinimee, Project Management Director Date:
By:
Title: Contract Administrator Date:
This form agreement has been reviewed and approved by the designated representative of the Attorney General.
7
Salt Lake City Council Office
Memo
To: Council Members
Front Michael Sears,Budget&Policy Analyst
CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson,Mayor Anderson,Rocky Fluhart,Jay Magure,Margaret Hunt,David
Dobbins,Luann Clark,Greg Johnson,Sandi Marler,Karen Wiley
Date: March 4,2002
Re: Mayor's Presentation of CDBG/ESG/HOME/HOPWA Budget Recommendations;
CDBG/ESG/HOME/HOPWA Budget History and Overview
File: CDBG/ESG/HOME/HOPWA 28th Year(FY2002-03)
On Tuesday, March 5, 2000, the Mayor will present his recommended budgets for the use of the
2002-2003 Federally allocated Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Emergency Shelter
Grant (ESG), HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) and Housing Opportunities for
People with AIDS (HOPWA) monies. After his presentation, Council Members will receive a
spreadsheet that shows each project that applied for funding,the funding request,the funding level
recommended by the Community Development Advisory Committee (CDAC) or Housing
Advisory and Appeals Board (HAAB), and the Mayor's recommended funding level. Council
Members will also receive comprehensive descriptions for each project that applied for funding.
The annual appropriations of CDBG, ESG,HOME and HOPWA are distributed to Salt Lake City by
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD. In 1995,Salt Lake City submitted
a five-year consolidated plan for the CDBG, ESG and HOME programs, which defined how Salt
Lake City planned to use its housing and community development resources to meet policy
objectives. Each year thereafter, the Mayor proposed a one-year action plan, or budget for these
programs, and reported on the past year's accomplishments in a Consolidated Annual Performance
and Evaluation Report(CAPER). The City Council then made the changes deemed necessary and
finalized the one-year action plan for submission to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development(HUD).
In FY2000-2001, a new five-year consolidated plan was prepared by the City and adopted by the
Council for submission to HUD, in addition to the one-year budget for each program. The
Consolidated Plan is available for review by Council Members.
Attached is an overview of the purpose, process, and funding requirements for the CDBG, ESG,
HOME and HOPWA program, as well as a history of the budgets approved by the Council for
these programs for the last eight years.
The City Council reviewed the policies that the Council has historically observed with respect to the
CDBG, ESG and HOME programs in February 2000. The HOPWA program was added in fiscal year 2001. The Council agreed to keep each of the following policies, but to reevaluate yearly as
needed:
• The Council will not consider awarding CDBG, ESG, HOME or HOPWA funding to any
organization unless an application for funding was received. This allows the City to meet
federal requirements that all programs/projects funded are the subject of a public participation
process.
• Due to limitations of future CDBG funds by the federal government,it is the intent of the City
Council that administrative and operational support not be increased for existing programs and
not be provided to new programs absent extenuating circumstances.
• It is the intent of the City Council to only consider CDBG-eligible projects and programs located
within the City's jurisdictional limits for funding.
During past briefings on the Council's historic CDBG, ESG, HOME and HOPWA policies,Council
Members raised several policy issues, each of which will be included in Council staffs analysis of
the Mayor's Recommended CDBG,ESG,HOME and HOPWA budgets:
• Council Members had expressed a concern that CDBG projects are funded for design,but never
get funded for construction. Council staff will include in the staff report a listing of those
projects that have been designed but not constructed, as well as a ratio of projects
recommended for design versus construction as requested by the Council.
• Council Members expressed an interest in knowing what percentage of the recommended
budget was allocated to administration or operating costs,versus one-time"bricks and mortar"
or capital projects. Council staff will include this analysis in the staff report.
• Council Members indicated a desire to know which projects submitted by City departments
were also on the City's inventory of capital needs. Staff will provide this analysis. Historically,
when CIP projects fall in CDBG-eligible areas, City departments have applied for CDBG
funding. If funding was not awarded, those projects then competed for funding within the
annual CIP budget.
• Council Members raised some questions about CDBG allocations being used to fund projects
submitted by City departments rather than from community or neighborhood groups. There is
no requirement or restriction from HUD regarding the allocation of CDBG dollars to projects
initiated by the administering agency. CDBG funding could be considered a way to augment
the City's dwindling resources in order to accomplish community goals and objectives. The
Council may wish to revisit the practice of funding City-initiated projects if this practice is of
concern to Council Members.
• Council Members asked whether the Council could commit multi-year funding in order to
finance large projects. While a current Council cannot legally bind a future Council by
appropriating future CDBG allocations (and because annual CDBG allocations are dependent
•Page 2
on the Federal budget), the Council has some tools with which to plan for the financing of
major projects. First, the Council can indicate its intent,which is not binding, to fund a project
over a period of years. The Council did this in 1998 and 1999 with the construction of the
Central City Senior Center, funding half of the project in 1998 and half of the project in 1999.
The City simply "holds" the first allocation until the entire budget is appropriated for
construction. Second, the Council can utilise Section 108 loans to fund large CDBG-eligible
projects. A Section 108 loan is similar to Motor Fuel Excise Tax (MFET) bonding, in that it
borrows against future CDBG allocations, like the City has borrowed against future Class C
allocations. The City must be able to prove that the City could finance the project and pay back
the loan in the event that future CDBG funding became limited.
The Council and Administration utilized this funding mechanism in 1989 in order to purchase a
property(the Canterbury Apartments)for the Salt Lake Community Development Corporation
(SLCDC), as they were at risk of defaulting on the bonds, which they used to purchase the
rental properties. The purchase of the building was deemed to be in keeping with the
community development and housing objectives of the CDBG program. In this instance, the
City borrowed against a portion of 5 years of future CDBG funding,purchased the Canterbury
and financed repairs at the Ben Albert Apartments. The rents from the Canterbury and CDBG
funds were used to pay off the Section 108 loan. The properties have now been deeded by the
City to the Housing Authority,who will begin(in 2006) to pay the City back, over a period of
10 years,for a portion of the original loan.
The City made this policy decision for two purposes: 1) to contribute to community housing
development, and 2)to solidify the CDC's bond situation,since to default would have reflected
negatively on the City's bonding ability.
Council staff will address each of the Council's policy issues within the analysis of the Mayor's
Recommended CDBG, ESG, HOME and HOPWA budgets. Council Members may wish to
communicate additional policy questions or requests for information to Council staff to be
addressed within the analysis. The Council is tentatively scheduled to hold a public hearing on the
Mayor's Recommended CDBG, ESG, HOME and HOPWA budgets on April 9. Briefings with the
Council on the Mayor's Recommended CDBG, ESG, HOME and HOPWA budgets are tentatively
scheduled for March 5,April 2,9 and 16. The Council may wish to consider approving the budgets,
with any desired revisions,on April 16,as the Administration will need to prepare a final document
to submit to HUD.
•Page 3
CITY COUNCIL CDBG/ESG/HOME/HOPWA FUNDING HISTORY
1994-2002
April, 1994 (20th Year CDBG): The City Council opted to use its legislative oversight in the
CDBG budget process at a level previously not experienced in Salt Lake City. The Council was
very concerned with funding dedicated to the Salt Lake Association of Community Councils and
adopted the following legislative intent statements to address the concerns:
• It is the intent of the City Council that the Salt Lake Association of Community Councils(SLACC)
provide quarterly reports to the City Council regarding SLACC activities. Further, it is the intent of
the Council that SLACC establish measurable goals and clear policies which outline the mission of
SLACC, services available to community councils, and other pertinent information. In addition, it is
the intent of the Council that future SLACC CDBG funding decisions be based on SLACC's efforts to
provide education, leadership training, and mediation support to meet community council needs.
• In keeping with the original appropriation of CDBG funding for SLACC, it is the intention of the
City Council that SLACC be strongly encouraged to seek a wide variety offending sources including
private contributions,public/private partnership opportunities, etc. to assure that CDBG is not the
sole source of funding, but is part of a strong funding mix.
The Council adjusted the Mayor's proposed CDBG budget as follows:
Program Mayor's Council Adopted
Recommended
Housing&Economic Development $720,065 $650,065
NHS Revolving Loan Fund 85,000 75,000
Utah Housing Coalition 20,000 0
200 South Median and Street Design 0 15,000
Washington/Jefferson Street Design 0 20,000
Alzheimer's Wildlife Grove 20,000 0
Euclid Street Improvements 20,000 0
Herman Franks Park Improvements 0 70,000
North Warm Springs Park 3,500 5,000
Hidden Hollow Park 4,000 10,695
Crime Prevention/Neighborhood Impr. 105,000 72,000
Utah Food Bank 12,000 25,000
African American Task Force 0 10,000
Visions of Altitude 7,000 0
RESCO/Fetzer Performing Arts 0 39,890
Odyssey House-Women/Children 14,800 0
Odyssey House-Adult Treatment 19,000 49,800
Listener's Community Radio of Utah 10,450 0
St. Mary's Driveway/Parking Impr. 34,940 0
Camp Kostopulos 6,695 0
Property Management Administration 13,430 46,430
TOTAL CHANGES $238,385
*HOME and ESG were not included in Council discussions or in the resolution adopted by the Council in 1994.
1
April, 1995 (21st Year CDBG): The City Council indicated concern with continued actions by
the federal government which signaled potential decreases in the CDBG program. As a result, the
City Council established a policy initiative which limited funding administrative and operational
support for new programs and limited increasing administrative and operational support for
existing programs. The Council further determined that funds should be used to complete existing
capital projects and to fund one-time needs of organizations. To achieve the new policy direction,
the Council adopted the following legislative intent statements:
• Due to proposed limitations of future CDBG funds by the federal government, it is the intent
of the City Council that administrative and operational support not be increased for existing
programs and not be provided to new programs.
•
• It is the intent of the City Council to only consider CDBG eligible projects and programs
located within the City's jurisdictional limits for funding.
• It is the intent of the City Council that funding provided for Community Councils and citizen
notification be administered by Salt Lake City Corporation.
The Council made the following changes to the Mayor's Recommended CDBG budget:
Program Mayor's Council Adopted
Recommended
NHS Revolving Loan Fund $90,000 $75,000
BSL Cleaning&Securing 15,000 0
SL Rape Crisis Center 22,340 10,000
Family Support Center 10,000 $5,000
Guadalupe Early Learning Center 28,626 20,000
Success by 6(new program) 40,000 0
"We're in this Together"(new program) 10,000 0
Centro de la Familia(new program) 10,000 0
Youth Steps of Success(new program) 10,000 0
BSL-Housing/Zoning Officer 30,000 25,900
Mobile Neighborhood Watch 15,000 23,000
Children's Center Elevatorl 0 23,950
Wesemann Memorial Park 0 10,000
Mid Block Street Lighting 40,000 73,116
TOTAL CHANGES $130,066
Although HOME and ESG were included in the resolution adopted by the Council, Council
discussions focused on CDBG recommendations. As required by HUD, the Council adopted the
5-year consolidated plan for CDBG, ESG and HOME programs.
2
April, 1996 (22"d Year CDBG): The Mayor's Recommended CDBG budget was developed
following the policy directives outlined by the City Council during the 21st Year CDBG process.
Specifically, administrative and operational support was not extended to new programs, nor was
funding associated with administrative and operational support increased for existing programs.
The City Council affirmed its continued commitment to the policy initiatives set forth during the
21d Year CDBG process, but wanted to modify one of the policy statements to read as follows:
• Due to the proposed limitations of future CDBG funds by the federal government, it is the
intent of the City Council that administrative and operational support not be increased for
existing programs and not be provided to new programs absent extenuating circumstances.
As a result of the slight change in policy direction, the City Council modified the Mayor's
proposed 22nd Year CDBG budget as follows:
Program Mayor's Council Adopted
Recommended
Camp Kostopulos $30,000 0
Utah Food Bank* 0 22,400
West Salt Lake Street Lighting 0 7,600
TOTAL CHANGES $30,000
*The Council's intent with Utah Food Bank funding was that Administrative staff would work with Food Bank
representatives to determine an eligible one-time capital/equipment need to be funded by the City's CDBG program.
Although HOME programs were included in the resolution adopted by the Council, ESG
programs were not included and the Council focused primarily on CDBG recommendations.
April 1997 (23rd Year CDBG): The Mayor's Recommended 23`d Year CDBG budget followed
the policy directives established by the City Council over the past years, with the exception of
increased operational funding for the Rape Crisis Center and to fully fund the City zoning
inspector. The Council determined that both operational increases possessed extenuating
circumstances, and re-affirmed its commitment to prior years' policy directives.
The Council chose not to fund the Lotus project (requested and recommended amount was
$12,000) and to decrease funding for sidewalk replacement in CDBG eligible areas by $26,000,
making $38,000 available for the Asian Association to purchase and rehabilitate property to
provide services to limited English speaking persons. The Council's intent in funding the Asian
Association was that such funds be contingent on a demonstration by the Association that the
remaining $57,000 necessary to complete the project was available from other sources.
Program Mayor's Council Adopted
Recommended
Lotus Project $12,000 $0
Sidewalk replacement $226,606 $200,606
Asian Association $0 $38,000_
TOTAL CHANGES S38,000
3
Although ESG and HOME funding recommendations were included in the resolution forwarded
to the Council for approval, these programs' recommendations had not been included in the
original paperwork for Council review. The Council delayed approval of ESG and HOME
funding to allow for adequate Council review time.
The Council ultimately approved the funding recommendations and approved the resolution
authorizing the Mayor to enter into an interlocal agreement with HUD for 23th Year
CDBG/ESG/HOME funding and adopted the following legislative intent language:
• It is the intent of the City Council that a similar process as is used to gather community input
and develop recommendations for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
program be used to gather input and develop recommendations for the Home Investment
Partnerships (HOME) and Emergency Shelter Grant(ESG)programs. Specifically, it is the
Council's intent that the Community Development Advisory Committee review and make
recommendations regarding ESG applications in conjunction with the Committee's review of
CDBG applications. Further, it is the Council's intent that the new housing board being
established by the Comprehensive Housing Plan review and make recommendations
regarding HOME applications in a manner similar to the CDAC review of CDBG and ESG
applications.
• It is the intent of the City Council that more detailed project descriptions be included in
paperwork provided to the Council for the CDBG, HOME, and ESG programs (similar to
detailed descriptions provided for CDBG projects in previous years).
• It is the intent of the City Council that all necessary paperwork to adopt the CDBG, HOME,
and ESG programs (including resolutions, CDAC recommendations, housing board
recommendations, and Mayor's recommendations etc.) be transmitted to the City Council
Office by the date that the Mayor delivers the CDBG budget address.
All three of these intents have been met by the Administration in the years following their
adoption.
April 1998 (246 Year CDBG): The Mayor's Recommended 24th Year CDBG budget followed
the policy directives established by the City Council over the past years, with the exception of
increased operational funding for the Rape Crisis Center. The Council determined that this
operational increase represented extenuating circumstances, and re-affirmed its commitment to
prior years' policy directives.
The Council approved the Mayor's proposed 24th Year CDBG/ESG/HOME budgets after the
following revisions:
Emergency Shelter Grant(ESG)
Increase Decrease
Travelers Aid Society $6,000
Interfaith Hospitality Network $6,000
TOTAL CHANGES $6,000
4
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Budget
Increase Decrease
NHS 600 West Block Redesign $20,000
South Central Street Improvements $15,000
Tennis Court Renovation Citywide $25,000
Crossroads Emergency Food Pantry $4,000
Rape Recovery Center $5,000
Guadalupe Early Learning Preschool *$18,075
Legal Aid Society $3,000
YWCA Building Improvements $40,000
Crossroads Food Pantry Remodeling $12,000
Central City Senior Center $50,000
Block 18 Street Lighting $1,500
Street Lighting Citywide $1,500
Contingency $2,075
TOTAL CHANGES $98,575
*The Council requested that Capital Planning staff work with the Guadalupe Early Learning Center Preschool to
apply the additional$18,075 toward a capital project.
Additionally, the Council adopted the following legislative intent language with regard to the 24th
Year CDBG program:
• It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration include in the next budget
amendment of fiscal year 1997-98 an allocation of $16,800 from the Police Asset
Forfeiture to the Urban Emphasis Program operated by the Greater Salt Lake Council of
the Boy Scouts of America. The funds are to be allocated for materials and supplies.
This allocation was accomplished in the final budget amendment of fiscal year 1997-
98. The Council had indicated that the Police Asset Forfeiture Account was a more
appropriate source of funding for this organization than CDBG funding, as the
organization was requesting new administrative funding.
• It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration utilize the Jordan River as a
primary source of water for the Riverside Park Irrigation Project. The Council also
encourages the Administration to look at other secondary sources of water for future
irrigation projects that are proposed.
The Engineering Division retained Landmark Design to study the feasibility of using
the Jordan River as a secondary source of water for the Riverside Park Irrigation
Project. The study was completed in May 1999 and recommended that water from
the Jordan River or the Water Treatment Plant not be used for irrigation for
Riverside Park for several reasons. First, the high salinity of water could result in
toxic levels unless leached properly, which would require watering often and in high
volumes. This amount of water could affect the "playability" of many parts of the
park. Second, toxicity caused by other minerals in the water could develop in the
soil and cause damage to surrounding trees. Finally, the additional cost from
pumping water from the river or reclamation plant could be prohibitive, although a
5
cost-benefit analysis was advised if irrigation water was to be pursued despite the
other considerations. A copy of the study is available in the Council Office.
• It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration extend the boundaries of the
Riverside Park Irrigation Project along the Jordan River from 700 North to 1000 North
on the land immediately east of the river from the Day Riverside Library.
The Administration indicated that the results of the feasibility study suggested that
the boundaries could not be extended as water from the Jordan River was not a
good option for irrigation. However, some work has been done on the south side of
the Day Library in conjunction with a private development.
April 1999 (25th Year CDBG): The Mayor's Recommended 25th Year CDBG budget followed
the policy directives established by the City Council over the past years.
The Council approved the Mayor's proposed 25th Year CDBG/ESG/HOME budgets with the
following legislative intent statement and revisions:
• It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration include in the next budget
amendment of FY99-00 an allocation of $20,250 from the Police Asset Forfeiture
Account to the Urban Emphasis Program operated by the Greater Salt Lake Council of
the Boy Scouts of America. The funds are to be used for materials and supplies.
This allocation was accomplished in the final budget amendment of fiscal year 1998-
99. The Council had indicated that the Police Asset Forfeiture Account was a more
appropriate source of funding for this organization than CDBG funding, as the
organization was requesting new administrative funding.
6
Amount Resulting
Requested Recommended Proposed Proposed Funding
Amount by Mayor Increases Decreases Level
CDBG
Jefferson Street Improvements
(designed last year under CIP) $152,000 $0 $152,000 $152,000
Sego/Ely Block Redesign
(600 East and 645 South) $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $0
Hayes Avenue Street design and
Improvements (application filed construction design only
by Glendale CC) $150,000 $15,000 $15,000 $0
Gateway Park Blocks $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $0
Bridges Project Street Subject to
Improvements terms*
(500 West 200 South) $250,000 $0 $250,000 , $250,000
Tennis Court Renovation Riverside and
(eliminate Jordan Park; fund Three parks Jordan Parks
Riverside Park at lower level) $200,000 $165,000 $65,000 $100,000
Jordan River Parkway Security
Lighting $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $0
Poplar Grove Boys and Girls Club
Building Improvements $95,000 $0 $95,000 $95,000
Central City Master Plan (not
completed yet) $18,200 $18,200 $18,200 $0
Contingency(CDAC balances
recommended$65,512) budget $93,512 $33,800 $59,712
Total $497,000 $497,000
Traveler's Aid $124,000 $84,978 $3,022 $88,000
SL Community Action (HORP) $30,000 $27,122 $3,122 $24,000
Our House Day Care $7,500 $6,782 $782 $6,000
SL Interfaith Network $15,000 $5,426 $626 $4,800
St. Vincent de Paul/Weigand Ctr. $10,000 $3,166 $366 $2,800
Valley Mental Health $30,000 $27,122 $3,122 $24,000
YWCA Residential Self-Sufficiency $25,000 $10,002 $5,998 $16,000
Odyssey House $11,000 $7,402 $1,002 $6,400
Total $9,020 $9,020
HOME .
Artspace, Inc. (Bridges Project) Subject to
terms*
$150,000 $0 $150,000 $150,00
SLC HAND Pilot Rent to Own $200,000 $158,550 $158,550 $0
SLC HAND Rehabilitation $563,000 $500,000 $8,550 $508,550
Total $158,550 $158,550
*The Council asked that members of the Council, Administration and Redevelopment Agency meet to
develop the terms of the City's CDBG and HOME allocations to the Bridge Projects.
7
April 2000 (26'h Year CDBG): The Mayor's Recommended 26th Year CDBG budget followed
the policy directives established by the City Council over the past years.
The Council approved the Mayor's proposed 26th Year CDBG/ESG/HOME budgets with the
following revisions:
Amount Resulting
Requested Recommended Proposed Proposed Funding
Amount by Mayor, Increases Decreases Level
YWCA L. E. Home $100,000 $30,000 $70,000 $100,000
(PSBI-14)
Children's Museum $7,500 $0 $7,500 $7,500
(PS-26)
Mailings to Comm. $28,398 $0 $28,398 $28,398
Councils in CDBG
Areas (ADM-7)
Urban Emphasis (PS- $25,000 $5,000 $20,000 $25,000
27)
Literacy Volunteers $16,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000
(PS-21)
Drug Free Zone Signs $4,000 $0 $4,000 $4,000
for Peoples Freeway
(PS-22)
Poplar Grove Boys and $35,000 $0 $20,000 $20,000
Girls Club (PSBI-2)
Bennion/Douglas $40,000 $0 $15,000 $15,000
Historic District
Nomination (PL-3)
Youth With a Voice(PS- $40,000 $20,000 $20,000 $0
11)
Family Support Center $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $0
(PS-13)
South Valley Sanctuary $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $0
(PS-29)
Allies for Youth (PS-33) $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $0
Volunteers of America $66,600 $30,000 $34,000 $64,000
Detox Center(PSBI-11)
Multi-Ethnic $10,500 $10,500 $5,500 $5,000
Corporation (H-10)
ADA $220,000 $220,000 $7,500 $212,500
Modifications/Parks (P-
1)
Playground $100,000 $100,000 $7,500 $92,500
Replacement
Sidewalks $300,000 $300,000 $20,000 $280,000
Current Year $133,745 $133,745 $46,137 $87,608
Contingency
Prior Year's $83,261
Contingency
8
Total Increases/Decreases $203,898 ($203,898J
Hayes Avenue $230,000 $0 Note Note 1
Imps.(ST-5/S-4)
Jordan Skateboard $25,000 $25,000 Note $25,000
Park(P-7)
April 2001 (27th Year CDBG): The Mayor's Recommended 27th Year CDBG budget followed
the policy directives established by the City Council over the past years.
The Council approved the Mayor's proposed 27th Year CDBG/ESG/HOME budgets with the
following revisions:
Amount Council Council Resulting
Requested Recommended_ Proposed Proposed Funding
Amount by Mayor Increases Decreases Level
CDBG
NHS Revolving Loan $175,000 $125,000 $50,000 $0 $175,000
Fund(CDBGH-3)
SL Community $90,000 $55,000 $35,000 $0 $90,000
Development
Corporation (CDBGH-5)
SL Community $300,000 $0 $150,000 $0 $150,000
Development
Corporation (CDBGH-6)
SL Community $200,000 $0 $100,000 $0 $100,000
Development
Corporation(CDBGH-7)
Utah Nonprofit Housing $40,000 $40,000 $0 $0 $40,000
Corp. (CDBGH-8)
Fenway Avenue Design $15,000 $15,000 $0 ($15,000) $0
(CDBGSD-1)
Strong Court Design $12,000 $12,000 $0 ($12,000) $0
(CDBGSD-2)
Physical Access Ramps $200,000 $180,000 $20,000 $0 $200,000
City-wide (CDBGSC-1)
800 West Median $700,000 $400,000 $0 ($400,000) $0
Islands (CDBGSC-2)
CDBG Sidewalk $300,000 $200,000 $82,500 $0 $282,500
Replacement City-wide
(CDBGS_1)
Poplar Grove Park $100,000 $150,000 $0 ($50,000) $100,000
Playground
Replacement(CDBGP-
1)
SLC Urban Forestry $30,000 $30,000 $0 ($10,000) $20,000
Tree Planting (CDBGP-
5)
Cannon Park(CDBGP- $77,000 $77,000 $0 ($32,000) $45,000
8)
9
Glendale/Jordan River $200,925 $100,000 $0 $0 $100,000
Community Park
(CDBGP-10)
West Temple Park $100,000 $23,000 $77,000 $0 $100,000
(CDBGP-11)
Urban Emphasis Boy $40,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Scouts (CDBGPS-23) HOLD HOLD
City/Trax Mural Project $60,000 $15,000 $0 ($15,000) $0
(CDBGPS-26)
South Valley Sanctuary $12,000 $6,000 $0 ($6,000) $0
(CDBGPS-29)
Volunteers of America $103,000 $80,000 $23,000 $0 $103,000
Adult Detox Center
(CDBGPSBI-1)
Poplar Grove Boys& $85,500 $0 $85,500 $0 $85,500
Girls Club(CDBGPSBI-
2)
SLC Special $35,000 $35,000 $0 ($28,000) $7,000
Contingency
(CDBGPSBI-3)
Fourth Street Clinic $100,000 $0 $100,000 $0 $100,000
(CDBGPSBI-8)
Salvation Army $48,000 $40,000 $0 $0 $40,000
(CDBGPSBI-10)
The Children's Museum $300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
of Utah (CDBGPSBI-11)
Community Legal $316,000 $250,000 $0 ($40,000) $210,000
Center(CDBGPSBI-12)
Bad Dog Rediscovers $200,000 $50,000 $0 ($50,000) $0
America(CDBGPSBI-
14)
Asian Association $20,000 $15,000 $0 $0 $15,000
(CDBGPSBI-16)
West Side Market $100,000 $65,000 $0 ($65,000) $0
Study(CDBGPL-3)
Contingency(CDBGC- $80,000 $85,907 $0 $0 $85,907
1)
Total $723,000 ($723,000)
ESG
Our House Child Care $20,000 $6,000 $1,000 $0 $7,000
&Education Center
(ESG-3)
St. Mary's Home for $11,500 $10,000 $0 ($10,000) $0
Men (ESG-6)
Residential Self- $25,000 $16,000 $9,000 $0 $25,000
sufficiency Program
YWCA (ESG-8)
Total $10,000 ($10,000)
HOME
SL Community $125,000 $0 $75,000 $0 $75,000
Development
Corporation (HOME-3)
SL Community $300,000 $0 $192,500 $0 $192,500
10
•
Development
Corporation (HOME-4)
SLC-HAND (HOME-7) $0 $75,000 $0 $75,000 $0
SLC-HAND (HOME-8) $0 $192,500 $0 $192,500 $0
Total $200,000 ($200,000)
11
�\ a rk'CMT�Y ( " REPO rle. 'IONI
DAVID DOBBINS ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON
DEPUTY DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR
COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
•
TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer DATE: March 1, 2002
FROM: David Dobbins/l /'
RE: A resolution adopting the One-year Action Plan for 28th Year Community
Development Block Grant funding, HOME Investment Partnerships Program funding,
Emergency Shelter Grant funding, and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS funding
for Fiscal Year 2002-2003 and an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City and
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD).
STAFF CONTACT: LuAnn Clark, Acting HAND Director
DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution
DISCUSSION: Salt Lake City is entitled to receive the following federal funds for
Fiscal Year 2002-03 from the U.S. Department of Housing&Urban Development:
• $4,854,000 in Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) funds
• $1,350,000 in HOME Investment Partnerships Program funds
• $171,000 in Emergency Shelter Grant(ESG) funds
• $421,000 in Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) funds
In addition, the City will reprogram $163,800.29 from prior year CDBG allocations. In order to
receive and reprogram these funds, the City is required to submit to HUD a One-year Action
Plan for CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA funds.
The Mayor will present his funding recommendations for the CDBG, HOME, ESG and HOPWA
programs to the City Council on March 5. Council staff has recommended the following
schedule for the public process. On April 9th there will a City Council public hearing and a
briefing(March 19th and April 2nd are potential dates for additional City Council briefings, if
necessary). The City Council will finalize its funding recommendations on April 16th
The One-year Action Plan will be provided to the City Council on March 5, 2002 when the
Mayor makes his funding recommendations to the Council for their consideration.
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1
TELEPHONE: SO1-535-6230 FAX: B01-535-6005
®RECYCLED PAPER
s j
RESOLUTION NO. OF 2002
APPROPRIATION RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ONE-YEAR ACTION PLAN FOR
28TH YEAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING,
HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM FUNDING,
EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANT FUNDING, AND
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS FUNDING
(2002-2003)
AND APPROVING INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT
BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY AND
THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, Salt Lake City is entitled under 24 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),
Part 91, et al., to receive Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds in the
amount of$4,854,000.00, HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) funds in
the amount of$1,350,000.00, Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) funds in the amount of
$171,000.00, and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) funds in the
amount of$421,000.00 from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) for program year 2002-2003; and
WHEREAS, Salt Lake City will also reprogram $163,800.29 from prior year CDBG
allocations; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the people of Salt Lake City that the City file
an application with HUD for said funds in accordance with 24 CFR Part 91; and
WHEREAS, the public notices, hearings, and other pre-submission requirements as
set forth in 24 CFR Part 91 have been accomplished by the City, including but not
limited to the following: A public hearing held Tuesday, April 9, 2002 to consider a
proposed list of CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA projects to be funded and to obtain
the views of citizens regarding the City's One-year Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council does now meet this April 16, 2002 to adopt the City's
Final One-year Action Plan for CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA funds;
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as
follows:
1. That Salt Lake City hereby adopts its Final One-Year Action Plan for CDBG,
HOME, ESG, and HOPWA funds as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a
part hereof by this reference.
2. That the Mayor, as the official representative of Salt Lake City, is hereby
authorized to submit the City's Final One-Year Action Plan for CDBG, HOME, ESG, and
HOPWA funds together with such additional information and certifications as may be
required under 24 CFR Part 91 to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
3. That the Mayor, as the official representative of Salt Lake City, is hereby
authorized to sign and execute the HUD Grant Agreement and any and all subsequent
agreements between the City and other public entities resulting from and consistent
with the HUD Grant Agreement, subject to final approval as to form by the City
Attorney.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this 16th day of April, 2002.
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
By
CHAIR
ATTEST:
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Att)orney's Office
Date /By
t ,
EXHIBIT "A"
Exhibit "A" — Funding Recommendations — is not final at this time. The final
Exhibit "A" will be the One-Year Action Plan adopted by the City Council on April 16,
2002 and will be provided to the Council on March 5, 2002 when the Mayor makes his
funding recommendations.