The URL can be used to link to this page

03/07/1989 - Minutes PROCARINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIO°, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 1989 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met as the Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, March 7, 1989, at 5:00 p.m. in Suite 300, City Hall, 324 South State Street. The following Council Members were present: Florence Bittner Alan Hardman Roselyn Kirk Wayne Horrocks Tom Godfrey Willie Stoler Councilmember Fonnesbeck was absent. Council Chairperson Stoler presided at the meeting. The Council interviewed Mr. agreed to help fill the fish flow Paul Osborn, prior to requirements last year but that it consideration of his proposed was a one-time agreement and Salt appointment to the Community Lake would not donate its water to Development Advisory Committee solve the problem again this year. (CDAC) . Council Member Stoler asked Mr. Osborn to review his Joe Novak, chief negotiator for interest in the Committee and his water users, said the commitments background. Mr. Osborn said he to maintain minimum fish flows in was a lifelong resident of Salt the Provo River were entered into Lake City, a graduate of the by the Bureau of Reclamation as a University of Utah, and currently part of the Central Utah Project, worked as an attorney in Salt and not by Salt Lake City or the Lake. He said his interest was Municipal Water District. He said sparked by an article concerning Salt Lake did what it could to urban forestry and after going to help maintain the flows, but they a few of the meetings he was asked could not afford to do the same if he would like to get involved. this year. Council Member Stoler He said he had been going to the asked if the Utilities Department CDAC meetings for three months and agreed with Lee King' s memo of looked forward to working with the March 6, 1989 . Mr. Hooton said he Committee. The Council thanked had met with Mr. King and they him for his time and his willing- agreed with the memo. ness to serve. Councilmember Bittner asked if Council Member Stoler asked the 100 cubic feet per second LeRoy Hooton, Director of Public (cfs) was enough to maintain the Utilities, to brief the Council fish flows and if this would be an on the resolution concerning fish ongoing problem. Mr. Hooton said flows in the Provo River that 100 cfs was sufficient and (resolution regarding stream they believed they could get by on flows, for 1989 and following, less. He said the problem could from Deer Creek Reservoir) . Mr. exist in future dry years but Hooton said the Council had asked would be lessened with the for a list of issues that would be completion of the Jordanelle Dam. of concern to the Council. He Council Member Bittner asked if it said the fish flow issue would be was a problem of water storage. one that might come up again next He said that last year the City year and said the resolution could help with the flows because stated that the Salt Lake Deer Creek reservoir was full but Municipal Water District had this year the City was trying to 89-60 PROCAPINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI'1'g", UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 1989 refill Deer Creek and couldn' t Lee King passed out the afford to let the water just run financial reports from the Olympic through. Committees. He said the figures were broken down by private and Council Member Godfrey asked public monies. if a study of the minimum flow requirements had been finished. Concerning the Class A liquor Mr. Hooton said the study showed license, Ms. Gust-Jenson said that that the fish flows could be the police were concerned about maintained with less than 100 cfs the time needed for enforcement but the Bureau of Reclamation had and if the time commitment became set their limit at 100 and was not a problem, they would come before going to change. He said it was the Council again for some adjust- really a Bureau of Reclamation ments in the fee structure. Ms. problem and the City should not be Bittner asked if the police were expected to solve the problem at no longer opposing the ordinance. the expense of the Salt Lake City Ms. Gust-Jenson said that they water users. He said it was less would come back to the Council if expensive for the Bureau to buy problems arose with enforcement. the water to fill the streams than to buy it from the City at its The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m. retail price. Louis Miller, Director of Airports, said two things needed to be done in relation to the Airport inducement bonds that had been passed last July. He said the bonds needed to be authorized and the scope of the project modified. Cheryl Cook, Bond Counsel, Erlich Bober, said that the calendar for issuing the bonds started with the official Council action and the airport needed to get the 30 day public hearing period started to keep the project on schedule. Ms. Gust-Jenson said that the TEFRA hearing needed to be held before the bond motions were passed. Cindy Gust-Jenson reviewed the agenda. She said that RSVPs were needed for the Scaffold Ceremony and for the NAHRO and Utah League of Cities conferences. She asked the Council to get answers to staff as soon as possible. She said the social with the Park City officials was set for March 29, and if there were no objections, staff would go ahead with making the arrangements. 89-61 PROCEOINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 1989 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in regular session on Tuesday, March 7, 1989, at 6:00 p.m. in Suite 300, City Hall, 324 South State Street. The following Council Members were present: Florence Bittner Alan Hardman Roselyn Kirk Wayne Horrocks Tom Godfrey Willie Stoler Councilmember Fonnesbeck was absent. Mayor Palmer DePaulis, Roger Cutler City Attorney, Kathryn Marshall, City Recorder, and Lynda Domino, Chief Deputy Recorder, were present. Councilmember Stoler presided at the meeting and Councilmember Horrocks conducted the meeting. OPENING CEREMONIES the RDA boundary since it would receive 100% of the tax increment #1. There was no invocation. which was generated by the arena to pay off the bond. He said he #2. The Council led the had talked with several legisla- Pledge of Allegiance. tors who, at the time they voted on this issue, were not aware of #3. Councilmember Godfrey the RDA boundary problem. He sug- moved and Councilmember Kirk gested that the Council and City seconded to approve the minutes of work with the legislature to get the Salt Lake City Council for the them to reconsider their action. regular meetings held Tuesday, February 21, 1989, and Thursday, He was concerned that there February 23, 1989, which motion would be no objectivity at the carried, all members present voted public hearings and expressed his aye. opinion that no further money (M 89-1) should be spent to analyze the two sites when in effect the site in the RDA boundary appeared to be COMMENTS the obvious choice. He also said that Mr. Larry Miller thought both #1. Ra Puriri, 258 North sites were in the RDA's 100-acre Main, talked to the Council about increment and said he thought the the two potential locations of the Legislature' s bill prejudiced the new sports arena. He distributed City Council. He mentioned that copies of a map showing that one the County' s feasibility study had site would be within the Rede- recommended the site outside the velopment Agency boundaries and RDA boundary. would receive more tax increment financing than the other location Councilmember Bittner said which was outside of the boundary. most of the City Council had been involved in the meetings about He expressed his concern that this issue and so were familiar the Council' s option would be with it. She said the study limited to only the site within covered the entire issue of the 89-62 PROCERINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE Cl1 , UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 1989 Salt Palace Convention Center and Legislature to add another 10 she said she thought the study was acres to the 100-acre tax incre- very valuable. ment boundary. He also said the City was not making the definitive She also said that Larry decision about the arena site Miller was a key player since he since there were others involved was financing $45 million. She in the site selection process. He said the decision would really be said one site would have $16 his based on the market. She said million for a subsidy and the that in order for Mr. Miller to other one would have $20 million get his funding the property and until they had all the infor- couldn't be tied up in time con- mation about land costs, parking straints and law suits and this costs, parking site availability, was his primary concern along with and developmental costs, the sites the cost competitiveness of both may be as equal as they could get. sites. Councilmember Hardman asked Mrs. Bittner said the remedy Mr. Turpin if the Council needed to the problem needed to come legislation in order to change the first from Mr. Miller and then the boundary. Mr. Turpin said the Legislature, who imposed the Council could adopt a plan alter- boundary on the city. ing the boundaries but this was a difficult process and would proba- Mr. Puriri reiterated his bly invalidate most of the action concern that there didn't appear in the downtown and preclude their to be an option. Councilmember ability to sell bonds to finance Bittner asked Mr. Puriri if he this arena. He said the most wanted the City to recall the bill practical means to change the and start over. He said if that boundary would be new legislation. was what it would take since a lot of public money had been spent and Councilmember Hardman also would be spent. asked who would make the final decision on the site. Mr. Turpin Councilmember Godfrey asked said his opinion was that the RDA Dick Turpin, Redevelopment Agency, would propose a package for each if the site outside of the tax site and then work with Mr. Mill- increment area was viable. Mr. er. Mr. Hardman thought it would Turpin said it was although this be in Mr. Miller' s interest to site would come up with less give him two viable options. Mr. increment, about $4 million less. Turpin said Mr. Miller had ex- He said when they started this pressed that he thought both sites process the increment from the were viable. arena was not necessary to fund the $20 million but after HB 390 Mayor DePaulis said at this was underway the school districts point the City' s position was to indicated that they needed money. make each site viable and then He said the RDA agreed to pay work with Mr. Miller. He said if $390,000 a year to the Salt Lake they needed more money for bonding City School District and because he thought the Legislature would of this the increment from the be willing to listen. He said arena became necessary. during various meetings everyone understood that one site was Mr. Turpin said there was a outside of the boundary and he group trying to work with the indicated that nothing would 89-63 PROCAINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI , UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 1989 change if the City took this back expected duties. He said Officer to the Legislature. Kirshaw was a friend and was invaluable to the school and the The Mayor said there were student body. business people working to get this issue back before the legi- Councilmember Godfrey said he slature and he suggested that Mr. was pleasantly surprised at this Puriri direct his energy towards testimonial and was impressed that supporting this effort. He said Officer Kirshaw had such an in- the City would not oppose the fluence on the students. He efforts but politically it would thought the Council and Mayor be difficult for the City to needed to listen and suggested oppose the current legislation that if Officer Kirshaw could stay after the fact. then the administration needed to (G 89-8) check into it. #2. Brad Rasmussen, student Mayor DePaulis said he would body president for Highland High, be glad to bring up this issue to talked to the Council about the the Chief and respond back to the proposed transfer of Officer Larry Council. He said he didn't know Kirshaw from Highland High. He the internal reasons for the asked that the Mayor and Council change but would be willing to consider letting Officer Kirshaw talk with the Chief. continue his excellent service to the community and the school and Councilmember Stoler said he said there was a lot of support applauded the school for support- from the school and the parents. ing Officer Kirshaw. He said Officer Kirshaw had given up He said Officer Kirshaw was chances for promotions in order to close to the students at Highland stay at the school. He said he High and he was more than just a supported keeping Officer Kirshaw police officer. He was a friend at the school if possible and said and counselor to the students and he had gone out of his way to many of them confided in him. Mr. solve problems at the school. Rasmussen said to have a new officer would be a complete change Councilmembers Kirk and God- in the school since Officer Kir- frey suggested that Mr. Rasmussen shaw had been there for many appeal to the Chief of Police years. He said it would be dif- directly since he had articulated ficult for a new officer to fully the issue so well. understand the problems in the (G 89-9) school. #3. Hermoine Jex, Land Use He said Officer Kirshaw and Natural Resources Chairman of communicated especially well with the Salt Lake Association of the difficult students and had Community Councils, made two talked students out of running requests of the Council. away from home or suicide. Mr. Rasmussen said this would also not First she asked the Council be a good time to change officers to send a letter to the Forest because of the recent integration Supervisor of the Wasatch-Cache of students from South High. He National Forest, the Salt Lake said Officer Kirshaw was profes- County Planning Commission, and sional and helped far beyond his the Salt Lake County Commissioners 89-64 PROCEIIINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIO, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 1989 requesting that the Boyne-Brighton with Salt Lake City. He explained Renovation Plan be denied or that he owned many rental proper- tabled until the canyon master ties and recently the water de- plan was complete. She said under partment put delinquent notices on the proposed plan, 23 acres of his tenants' doors for bills that trees would be removed and the ski were not over due. He also said terrain expanded. She said there the amount was very low ($6.44) was no concern for the watershed, and he suggested that the depart- traffic, parking or use conflicts. ment was not using good judgment in trying to collect the bill. He Second, she referred to First said he thought this was irrespon- Charter Development's request that sible and unresponsive. the property located at about 1800 East llth Avenue be rezoned from He also referred to his "R-1" to "R-lA", and expressed business license that he recently concern about development in this received for one of his units. He area. She asked the City Council said they had increased the number and Mayor to assist the neigh- of units drastically to what he borhoods by securing complete actually owned. He explained that plans and an environmental impact, over the years he had also dealt and requesting a delay in any with curb and gutter projects. On implementation of the First Char- one of them he had paid the total ter Development. She also re- bill when he got it but for sever- quested the adoption of the open al years he still received a bill. space master plan and accompanying He said he had also been billed ordinances. for top soil and sod on one job and there was no top soil or sod. LeRoy Hooton, director of He suggested that there needed to public utilities, said he had two be accountability. He said he was people attending the meeting to- spending an increasing amount of night regarding the Boyne-Brighton time with people whom he thought Renovation and said he would also were unresponsive, especially in attend. Councilmember Godfrey ex- the water department. pressed concern that the county was voting on canyon issues before Councilmember Godfrey sug- they had adopted the master plan gested that Mr. Parsons talk with and said he was interested in Anna Wilson in the water depart- doing something about this. ment. Councilmember Stoler asked Councilmember Stoler asked Mr. Hooton to respond back to the Mr. Parsons if his problems had Council on Thursday with infor- been resolved. Mr. Parsons said mation about this issue. Mr. they were resolved except for the Hooton said he could report to the charge for top soil and sod. Mr. Council on Thursday. Stoler asked Mr. Parsons if he felt that administration was not Mayor DePaulis suggested that responsive to his needs and Mr. a joint letter from the Council Parsons indicated that people were and Mayor may be appropriate. responsive to his needs but he (G 89-10) expressed frustration because of the time involved. #4. Bliss Parsons, Avenues resident, expressed his frustra- Councilmember Stoler referred tion because of recent dealings Mr. Parsons to Emilie Charles from 89-65 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CII, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 1989 the Mayor' s Office. Mr. Parsons at the shelter as opposed to expressed concern that administra- sending people four or five miles tion be responsive to all their away to seek employment. He constituents. Councilmember suggested that there needed to be Horrocks also suggested that Mr. statistics about peoples ' job Parsons meet with LeRoy Hooton, searches. director of public utilities. #5. Thomas Larson expressed CONSENT AGENDA concern with the attitudes of those in charge of administering Councilmember Godfrey moved the homeless shelter for men. He and Councilmember Kirk seconded to said he had been trying to get a approve the consent agenda, which job for almost a year and had been motion carried, all members unable to get help from govern- present voted aye. ment agencies. He made recommen- dations on how things could be #1. RE: Set a date for a better in terms of finding suit- public hearing to be held Tuesday, able employment for those in the March 21, 1989, at 6:20 p.m. to shelter and having someone as a obtain public comment concerning job developer on a full-time proposed amendments to the Fiscal basis. He said currently they had Year 1988/89 budgets. one person there to assist mainly (B 88-5) the veterans, who only consisted of about 40-50% of the people in #2. RE: Resolution 33 of the shelter. 1989 authorizing the execution of an Interlocal Cooperation Agree- He recommended that the ment between Salt Lake City Corp- Council or Mayor set up a seven to oration and Utah State University twelve week progress hearing on amending the agreement of March the shelters regarding the people 10, 1987, amending and enlarging who are in charge of administra- the scope of work to include a tion as well as what they had been comprehensive monitoring of water able to achieve in terms of em- quality in the Jordan River at ployment for those in the shel- several points, and payment there- ters. for. (C 87-75) Councilmember Godfrey said the shelters were not controlled #3. RE: Set a date for a by Salt Lake City and he said he public hearing to be held Tuesday, didn' t think they could set up a March 21, 1989, at 6:30 p.m. to program. He said he thought Job obtain public comment concerning Service was going to have someone general community development and available at the homeless shelter. housing needs in relation to the City' s Community Development Block Councilmember Kirk said she Grant allocation for July 1, 1989. thought there was a federal grant (T 89-7) for the shelter that would help people get jobs but she didn't #4. RE: Approving the know when it would begin. reappointment of Myron Richardson to the Salt Lake Arts Council. Mr. Larson said he thought (I 89-7) the residents also needed to be informed about services available 89-66 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CII, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 1989 #5. RE: Approving the Construction had done the first reappointment of Frank C. Jackson phase on Pierpont Avenue. He said to the Mosquito Abatement District he had received comments from the Board. businesses on Pierpont Avenue that (I 89-8) they were extremely delighted with the work. #6. RE: Resolution 35 of (Q 88-3) 1989 authorizing the execution of an application for an Interlocal #2. RE: A resolution con- Cooperation Agreement between Salt cerning the City' s position on Lake City Corporation and the U.S. minimum stream flows for 1989 on Department of Housing and Urban the Lower Provo River, from Deer Development for an Urban Homestead Creek Reservoir. Program grant. (T 89-6) ACTION: Councilmember God- frey moved and Councilmember Hard- man seconded to suspend the rules NEW COUNCIL BUSINESS and on first reading adopt Reso- lution 36 of 1989 as amended by #1. RE: A resolution autho- transposing the words businesses rizing the Salt Lake City Engi- and inhabitants on page two, item neering Office to award the con- one, which motion carried, all tract for West Temple Street Curb members present voted aye. & Gutter Special Improvement District, Phase II, Project No. DISCUSSION: Councilmember 38-830-1 to the low bidder, upon Stoler asked that the resolution official determination of such. be amended on page two, item one, second to the last sentence. He ACTION: Councilmember God- wanted the sentence to read, " . . . frey moved and Councilmember Hard- not compromised or the inhabitants man seconded to suspend the rules and businesses. . . " ; he didn't want and on first reading adopt Reso- the word businesses to come before lution 34 of 1989, which motion inhabitants. carried, all members present voted (R 89-4) aye. DISCUSSION: Mark Morrison, UNFINISHED BUSINESS engineering department, said they received four bids (Lowell Con- #1. RE: A resolution autho- struction, Workman Construction, rizing the issuance and confirming Geneva Rock Products, and Allstate the sale of not more than Builders) which they tabulated $35,000,000 aggregate principal and determined that Lowell Con- amount of Airport Revenue Bonds, struction was low bidder with a Series 1989, of Salt Lake City total bid of $986, 212. 80. He said fixing the maximum aggregate the engineer' s estimate was principal amount of the bonds, the $1,215,000. maximum number of years over which the bonds may mature, the maximum Councilmember Hardman asked interest rate which the bonds may if the $1 million was previously bear and the maximum discount from designated in the budget for this par at which the bonds may be project. Mr. Morrison said the sold; authorizing publication of a funds had been budgeted. He said notice of bonds to be issued; this was a good bid and Lowell amending Resolution No. 84 of 1988 89-67 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIl, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 1989 relating to the bonds; and related Corporation and certain other matters. cities and counties; and authoriz- ing and directing the publication ACTION: Councilmember Kirk of a Notice of Bonds to be issued moved and Councilmember Godfrey with respect thereto. seconded to adopt Resolution 32 of 1989, which motion carried, all ACTION: Without objection members present voted aye. Councilmember Horrocks pulled this (Q 88-4) from the agenda. (Q 89-1) #2. RE: An ordinance amend- ing Section 6.04.040, 6.08.040, #4. RE: An ordinance adopt- and 6.08. 110 pertaining to Class A ing the Uniform Fire Code with retail licenses in hotels. various deletions and additions. ACTION: Councilmember God- ACTION: Councilmember God- frey moved and Councilmember Kirk frey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adopt Ordinance 8 of seconded to amend the ordinance by 1989, which motion carried, all adding the following to Section members present voted aye. 4. 103(b) , " . . .provided that the said fee approximates the actual DISCUSSION: Councilmember cost of the regulation and does Godfrey said the last time the not exceed the sum of five hundred Council discussed this he asked dollars for each permit, certifi- that it be tabled because he was cate, or inspection. " , which concerned about the possibility of motion carried, all members the city losing the hotel tax, present voted aye. which would have limited their ability to monitor these points of Councilmember Bittner moved distribution. He said staff and Councilmember Hardman seconded checked into this and indicated to adopt Ordinance 9 of 1989 as that there would be a $10.00 fee amended, which motion carried, all for each refrigerator in addition members present voted aye. to the regular license fee. He said he thought this would gener- DISCUSSION: Councilmember ate enough money to monitor these Stoler referred to Section 4. 103 and if not then the Council could (b) and said he was concerned that consider increasing the fees. He the fire chief had the authority recommended approval. to establish permit fees. He (0 88-35) asked the Council if they wanted to give away that authority to the #3. RE: A resolution autho- administration. rizing the issuance and confirming the sale of $36, 400, 000 of Hospi- Cam Caldwell, Council Staff, tal Revenue Refunding Bonds, said that under the current ordi- Series 1989-A ( IHC Hospitals, nance the administrative depart- Inc. ) to be issued by Salt Lake ment had the authority to set the City Corporation for the purpose fees. He said when the original of refunding certain revenue bonds ordinance was submitted they previously issued by Salt Lake talked about this issue and sug- City Corporation to finance cer- Bested that this authority remain tain health care facilities of IHC with the department. He said at Hospitals, Inc. located within the that time they didn' t get any boundaries of Salt Lake City feedback from the Council to the 89-68 PROC INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIO, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 1989 contrary. tions and he said he wanted this penalty clause to remain and not Councilmember Stoler said he be subject to the cap. didn' t like the idea of having the Mr. Cutler added that regula- administration set fees and the tory licenses which exceeded the Council being held accountable by approximate cost of regulation the public. were an illegal tax and could be challenged so he told the Council Councilmember Godfrey said he that they would check the figures didn' t feel he was in a position to make sure they could be defend- to determine these specific fees ed. and he thought it made more sense (0 89-2) to let the fire chief determine the fees. PUBLIC HEARINGS Roger Cutler, city attorney, #1 RE: A public hearing said ordinarily fees were a legi- scheduled for 6:00 p.m. to obtain slative function and couldn't be comment concerning the proposed delegated to the administration issuance of not more than without standards. He said fre- $35,000,000 aggregate principal quently delegation would specify amount Airport Revenue Bonds, that the department could assess a Series 1989. fee equal to the cost of regula- tion which in no event would ACTION: Councilmember Stoler exceed a specified amount. He moved and Councilmember Hardman suggested that the Council add a seconded to close the public sentence that the fee would equal hearing, which motion carried, all the cost of regulation and not members present voted aye. exceed a specified amount. Or he suggested that they consider set- DISCUSSION: Louis Miller, ting the fee although in this director of airports, said in July context they were dealing with a of last year the Council approved highly specialized area. He an inducement resolution for a suggested it would be better to parking structure and roadway set a standard. improvements at the airport. He said tonight they wanted to amend George Sumner, fire depart- the inducement resolution to ment, said he had no problem include some roadway realignment adding Mr. Cutler's suggested projects that were necessary for wording and mentioned that the the smooth and uncongested flow of original ordinance had listed a traffic into the airport. limit of $250.00 but he had been directed to take it out. Mr. He showed a map of the air- Cutler suggested that the Council port and explained that close to amend the section to state that the airport entrance was an at- the fee would be set to approxi- grade intersection which was mate the cost of regulation but in dangerous. He said that because no event would be more than of the location of the Delta $500.00. He said he suggested reservations center, the north $500.00 so the department would support area, and the golf course have flexibility for inflation. there would be a lot of traffic crossing the roads. He said the Mr. Sumner pointed out that master plan called for a grade the fee doubled for late applica- separation by building bridges so 89-69 PROC•INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIl, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 1989 the road in question passed over the entrance roads. He said this project would also provide access to the north of the airport with- out forcing the traffic in front of the terminal area. He said these projects had been added and there were federal improvement grant monies allocated to help pay for a portion of this in addition to the bonds. Mr. Mil- ler also showed the Council a rendering of the proposed parking structure. Councilmember Godfrey asked if the parking structure was taller than the terminal. Mr. Miller said it was much taller but they were handling it very care- fully so it didn't overwhelm the terminals. He said it wouldn't just be concrete but would tie into the terminal and there would also be landscaping in front. No one from the public spoke. (Q 88-4) The meeting djourned at 8: 10 p.m. COUN L CHAIRPER N C T D R 89-70 on 1b 1€Oe f- Cons rnemr k sALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER • SUITE 300, CITY HALL 3214 SOUTH STATE STREET Tuesday, March 7, 1989 °pof Ran F- 3 6:00 p.m. C� hold -rc-WA l'anr ber-tr , 6440 A. BRIEFING SESSION: 5:00 - 5:55 p.m. , Suite 300 City Hall, 3214 South State. urn - 1 . Report of the Executive Director. rG wtil B. OPENING CEREMONIES: I 1 . Invocation. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Approval of the Minutes. C. COMMENTS: 1 . Questions to the Mayor from the City Council . 2. Citizen Comments to the Council. D. CONSENT: 1 . Budget Amendment No. 14. Set a date for a public hearing to be held Tuesday, March 21 , 1989, at 6:20 p.m. to obtain public comment concerning proposed amendments to the Fiscal Year 1988/89 budgets. (B 88-5) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Set date. 2. Interlocal Cooperation Agreement Amendment - Utah State University. Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah State University amending the agreement of March 10, 1987, amending and enlarging the scope of work to include a comprehensive monitoring of water quality in the Jordan River at several points, and payment therefor. r. (C 87-75) , 'iSlc fee $ Igi7x STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt. (- l d f&' 0 I! se1uICe3 3. General Housing and Community Development Needs. Set a date for a public hearing to be held Tuesday, March 21, 1989, at 6:30 p.m. to obtain public comment concerning general community development and housing needs in relation to the City's Community Development Block Grant allocation for July 1 , 1989.(T 89-7) C D& hearir (D - re U red Gnnuali9 In t'e B' STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Set date. proce5 Enables rnaLier Consider pubilL camped Pr»'' ID rna1-Vj 116 r c(cth - �COmr rll D. CONSENT Cont 'd. 4. Salt Lake Arts Council - Reappointment. Consider approving the reappointment of Myron Richardson to the Salt Lake Arts Council. (I 89-7) ` STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. 5. Mosquito Abatement District - Reappointment. Consider approving the reappointment of Frank C. Jackson to the Mosquito Abatement District Board. (I 89-8) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. 6. Urban Homesteading Program Application, Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution of an application for an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for an Urban y` Homestead Program grant. pH-�"(1uS u•fhQrlorrL v"�catin'YL14 1 Il Z � STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt SIG s Q(��}- IZS, • grant -trvm E. NEW COUNCIL BUSINESS: L U tD. 5 h omes) ryeI6DPi Woo d admtnib ( e. . 1 . Special Improvement District 38-830-1 , West Temple - Bid Opening. og(min , n 4rum Adrnd a, Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the Salt Lake City Engineering C&s office to award the contract for West Temple Street Curb & Gutter Special Lt Qd Improvement District, Phase II, Project No. 38-830-1 to the low bidder, upon106 official determination of such. (Q 88-3) 13* STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Suspend Rules, Adopt on First Reading. 2. Lower Provo River - Minimum Stream Flows. Consider adopting a resolution concerning the City's position on minimum stream flows for 1989 on the Lower Provo River, from Deer Creek Reservoir. (R 89-4) Oh tt STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Suspend Rules, Adopt on First Reading. 14 F. UNFINISHED COUNCIL BUSINESS: V ikl`teed lb hold Tt-F(Z1 1 '�.�1 Pest 1 . Airpor RevenueBonds - Parameters a d Thducement Resolution. Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the issuance and confirming the sale of not more than $35,000,000 aggregate principal amount of Airport • Revenue Bonds, Series 1989, of Salt Lake City fixing the maximum aggregate principal amount of the bonds, the maximum number of years over which the bonds may mature, the maximum interest rate which the bonds may bear and the 414. maximum discount from par at which the bonds may be sold; authorizing publication of a notice of bonds to be issued; amending Resolution No. 84 of 1988 relating to the bonds; and related matters. (' (Q 88-4) M i e if Liu) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adop . S F. UNFINISHED COUNCIT BUSINESS Cont'd. 2. Class A Retail Licenses in Hotels. Consider adopting an ordinance amending Section 6.014.0140, 6.08.0140, and 6.08. 110 pertaining to Class A ret it licenses in hotels. (0 88-39) , h e J4 / dI( CI t4ir /77d1V (O (.G/2,U l�l6? e%? tee` �eo• (6011J WOO -UN �( P /9d �� /6„ fr STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt . a j�r" l�ix,7 f/mac/ LVi/� 3. Bond Sale Resolution - IHC Revenue Refunding Bonds. %v�`� �Gv�L� // MO/ay f/ I(,95P G pad `' ) Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the issuance and confirming the /170TP sale of $36,1400,000 of Hospital Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1989-A (IHC Hospitals, Inc. )' to be issued by Salt Lake City Corporation for the purpose of refunding certain revenue bonds previously issued by Salt Lake City " Corporation to finance certain health care facilities of IHC Hospitals, Inc. located within the boundaries of Salt Lake City Corporation and certain other cities and counties ; and authorizing and directing the publication of a Notice of Bonds to be issued with respect thereto. V1U (Q 89-1) °� herC l \� Q00sih( 5 k hGts �� ft� STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt. SydA04 aSk U 4. Uniform Fire Code. U i wi 11 malr 111) '" c Consider adopting an ordinance adopting the Uniform Fire Code with various deletions and additions. (0 89-2) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt. G. PUBLIC HEARINGS: � 1 . Airport Revenue Bonds. bQ C nctuap q ,�,,11�G� Obtain public comment concerning the proposed issuance of not more than $35,000,000 aggregate principal amount Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 1989. (Q 88-4) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Close Hearing. H. ADJOURNMENT. ** FINAL ACTION MAY BE TAKEN AND/OR ORDINANCES ADOPTED CONCERNING ANY ITEM ON THIS AGENDA DATED: March 3, 1989 BY: `d'//.�/ f > _ . CI REtT,ER STATE OF UTAH ) COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) ss. On the 3rd day of March, 1989, I personally delivered a copy of the foregoing notice to the Mayor and City Council and posted copies of the same in conspicuous view, at the following times and locations within City Hall, 324 South State Street , Salt Lake City, Utah: 1 . At 5:00 p.m. in the City Recorder's Office , 5th Floor; and 2. At 5:00 p.m. in the Newsroom, Room 336. (---A.1.4..47:44,---J CIT ECO Subscribed and sworn to before me this 3rd day of March •89. otary Public residing •`g'i" State of Utah < My Commission Expires: cg.24.4' APPROVAL: EXECU VE DI CTOR z:oo ?.'A.t • SALT LAKE CITY OLYMPIC BID FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED FEBRUARY 28, 1989 SALT LAKE CITY OLYMPIC BID SUMMARY CONSOLIDATING BALANCE SHEET AS OF FEBRUARY 28 , 1989 ASSETS OLYMPIC OLYMPIC TOTAL BID BID ALL (PUBLIC) (PRIVATE) (FUNDS) CASH $28 , 234 . 80 $21 ,675. 98 $49, 910 . 78 TOTAL ASSETS $28 , 234 . 80 $21 , 675 . 98 $49, 910. 78 LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE ACCOUNTS PAYABLE - $ 365 . 42 $ 365 . 42 FUND BALANCE $28, 234 . 80 21, 310. 56 $49 , 545 . 36 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE $28, 234 . 80 $21 , 675 . 98 $49 , 910. 78 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement -1- • SALT LAKE CITY OLYMPIC BID COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE PUBLIC FUNDS EIGHT MONTHS ENDED FEBRUARY 28, 1989 JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1989 1989 TOTAL REVENUES, GOVERNMENTAL COLLECTIONS $30,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0 00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $30,000.00 TOTAL REVENUE $30,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $30,000.00 EXPENDITURES: BID PRESENTATION $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,112.18 $0.00 $0.00 $1,112.18 HOSPITALITY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $81.02 0-00 0.00 581.02 POSTAGE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OTHER 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 72.00 0.00 72.00 i TOTAL EXPENDITURES $0.00 $0.00 S0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,693.20 $72.00 $0.00 $1,765.20 f ` REVENUES OVER <UNDER> EXPENDITURES $30,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ($1,693.20) ($72.00) $0.00 $28,234.80 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 S30,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $28,308.80 $28,234.80 $28,234.80 ENDING FUND BALANCE $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $28,306.80 $28,234.80 $28,234.80 $28,234.80 • The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement • - SALT LAKE CITY OLYMPIC BID COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE PRIVATE FUNDS EIGHT MONTHS ENDED FEBRUARY 28, 1989 i. JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY 1988 1988 1988 1968 1988 1988 1939 1989 TOTAL REVENUES: CASH DONATIONS $0.00 10.00 $0.00 13.03 $0.00 $510.00 $17,023.00 $5,000.00 122,533.00 NON-CASH DONATIONS 0.00 0.00 0.00 G.DO 0.00 1,200.00 3,357.50 9,617.76 14,175.26 TOTAL REVENUE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 10.00 $0.00 $1,710.00 120,380.50 $14,617.76 S36,708.26 EXPENDITURES: BID PRESENTATION $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 1S..DD $0.00 $1,200.00 13,613.50 $4,618.18 19,431.68 • HOSPITALITY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 12.39 5,910.50 $5,922.89 I POSTAGE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0.00 OTHER 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.13 0.00 $43.13 1 • , i. TOTAL EXPENDITURES $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 50.00 50.00 $1,200,00 13,669.02 $10,528.68 115,397.70 REVENUES OVER <UNDER> EXPENDITURES $0.00 $0.00 $0,00 10.00 10.00 $510.00 $16,711.48 14,089.08 S22,310.56 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 1510.00 117,221.48 $17,221.48 ENDING FUND BALANCE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $510.00 $17,221.48 $21,310.56 121,310.56 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement SALT LAKE CITY OLYMPIC BID OLYMPIC DID ACCOUNT (PUBLIC FUNDS) ACCOUNT/BUDGET STATUS TOTAL ANNUAL BUDGET/ACCOUNT STATUS (09-00422) ACCOUNT ACCOUNT VOUCHER CHECK 2580 2580 REMAINING DATE DESCRIPTION NUMBER NUMBER (BUDGET) (ACTIVITY) BUDGET COMMENTS 7-01-88 Budget Opening N/A N/A $30,000.00 Establish budget for 1988-89. 1T-19-88 Jill Remington E0F001 692257 142.42 150 Christmas cards-USOC. .r19-88 The Bistro EOF002 692258 26.10 Lunch-Winter Games Executive Committee. 12-20-88 Utah Travel Council EOF003 692205 412.50 150 Calendars-USOC. 12-20-B8 Fotheringham & Associates EOF004 692260 1,112.18 Printing charges-Letters, etc. 1-21-89 Alta Ski Lifter EOF006 694636 72.00 Ski passes-Chuck Foster (USOC). • 1 CURRENT BALANCE $1,765.20 $28,234.80 SALT LAKE CITY OLYMPIC BID PAGE 1 PRIVATE DONATION ACCOUNT ACCOUNT/BUDGET STATUS ANNUAL BUDGET STATUS (77-05000) CURRENT ACCOUNT STATUS (77-05000) VALIDATED REMAINING RECEIPT VOUCHER CHECK ACCOUNT ACCOUNT ACCOUNT ACCOUNT CASH DATE DESCRIPTION NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER 1895 2590 1895 2590 BUDGET COMMENTS 2-28-88 Harris H. Simmons 11141590 0176 01-018283 N/A $500.00 5500.00 $500.00 Cash Donation. =2-29-88 Douglas Dansie 13026229 0074 01-018284 N/A 10.00 10.00 10.00 Cash Donation. '-03-89 Chapman and Cutler 13025933 0036 01-018155 N/A 2,023.00 2,023.00 2,023.00 Cash Donation. 1-09-89 Mike Zuhl N/A 77 A00001 693503 256.00 1-25-89 DoubleTree N/A 77 A00002 694903 12.39 1-25-89 Leucadia, Inc. 13028520 0164 01-018610 N/A 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 Cash Donation. 1-26-89 The Bistro N/A 77 A00003 695263 43.13 Finance Committee lunch. 1-27-89 Zion Bancorporation 11144128 0065 01-018622 N/A 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 Cash Donation. 2-01-89 Boyer-Gardner 13029303 0113 01-018628 N/A 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 Cash Donation. 2-22-89 51orr'is Ask Mr. Foster N/A 77 A00004 697106 545.50 Airfare for Harvey Glance Carol Brown of the USOC. BALANCE $22,533.00 $22,533.00 $22,533.00 $857.02 $21,675.98 SALT LAKE CITY OLYMPIC BID PAGE 2 PRIVATE DONATION ACCOUNT ACCOUNT/BUDGET STATUS • ANNUAL BUDGET STATUS (77-05000) CURRENT ACCOUNT STATUS (77-05000) VALIDATED REMAINING RECEIPT VOUCHER CHECK ACCOUNT ACCOUNT ACCOUNT ACCOUNT NON-CASH DATE DESCRIPTION NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER 1473 2399 1473 2399 BUDGET COMMENTS 12-88 Capital City Rank N/A JE N/A $700.00 $700.00 $700.00 $700.00 Donation (4 nights Corp. Condo 12-88 Craig Badami N/A JE N/A 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 Donation (8 meals). 1-89 Little America i N/A JE N/A 656.00 656.00 656.00 656.00 Donation (8 Room nights). 1-89 Double Tree Hotel N/A JE N/A 120.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 Donation (2 Room nights). 1-89 Prospector Square N/A JE N/A 196.00 196.00 196.00 196.00 Donation (2 Room nights). 1-89 Hertz N/A JE N/A 220.00 220.00 220.00 220.00 Donation,(6 Days Car Rental). 1-89 National • N/A JE N/A 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 Donation (2 Days Car Rental.. 1-89 Ski Resorts N/A JE N/A 1,540.00 1,540.00 1 1,540.00 1,540.00 Donation (103 Ski Passes). • 1-05-89 Morris Travel N/A JE N/A 230.50 230.50 230.50 230.50 Donation (1 Airline Ticket). 1-13-89 Morris Travel N/A JE N/A 315.00 315.00 315.00 315.00 Donation (1 Airline Ticket). 2-89 Delta N/A JE N/A 3,816.00 3,816.00 3,816.00 3,816.00 Donation (6 Airline Tickets). 2-89 Stein Erickson Lodge N/A JE N/A 4,140.00 4,140.00 4,140.00 4,140.00 Donation (3 Nights Condo). 2-05-89 Tom Welch N/A JE N/A 436.76 436.76 436.76 436.76 Donation (Meals). 2-11-89 Deer Valley Ski Resort N/A JE N/A 1,225.00 1,225.00 1,225.00 1,225.00 Donation (35'Ski Passes). Carol Brown of the USOC. BALANCE $14,175.26 $14,175.26 $14,175.26 $14,175.26 $0.00 a SALE'! 4L;VaG�'RPig OFFICE OF ;THE CITY COUNCIL -SUITE 300. CITY HALL' • 324 SOUTH STATE STREET_ SALT LAKE CITY, UTA H 84111 535-7600 TENTATIVE AGENDA SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING. DATE: Thursday, March 9, 1989 TIME: 5:00 p.m. PLACE: City Council Conference Room Suite 300, City Hall 324 South State Street 5:00 - 5:05 The City Council will interview Paulette Mounteer prior to consideration of her proposed appointment to the Urban Forestry Board. 5: 05 - 5: 15 The City Council will interview Karen Wikstrom prior to consideration of her proposed appointment to the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board. 5: 15 - 5:45 The City Council will consider a motion to enter Executive Session to discuss property negotiations. 5:45 - 6:00 The City Council will discuss a proposed resolution of support for a light rail system. 6:00 - 6: 15 Dinner. 6:00 - 6:45 Karen Hashimoto, Director of Human Resources, will review departmental policies and goals for the coming year with the City Council. 6:45 - 7: 30 Pete Pederson, Fire Chief, will discuss the Fire Department's Master Plan and Goals with the City Council. Joint Resolution of the Mayor and Salt Lake City Council In Support of Light Rail Transit Systems Along the I-15 Corridor WHEREAS The Salt Lake City metropolitan area is home to more than one million people, and its population is expected to increase substantially by the year 2000. This growth will place an increasing strain on the Salt Lake Valley's transportation systems. As the commercial core of the State of Utah, Salt Lake City needs to maintain an orderly flow of workers, shoppers, residents and tourists. In its review of transportation options the Utah Transit Authority and Wasatch Front Regional Council have confirmed that a light rail transit system would be the most effective and economical means of transporting people throughout the Salt Lake Valley. A light rail system would be more cost effective than expanding or renovating freeway systems. It would carry more communters per dollar spent than would a freeway, would help reduce air pollution, _ and would lessen downtown parking problems. As a transportation solution a light rail system is a logical choice. As demand increases additional light rail cars can be added to the schedule to meet those needs. Because of its geography and transportation patterns, the Salt Lake Valley is an ideal site for a light rail system in the Western United States. As such, the proposed system would serve as an excellent model for other communities in addition to helping to resolve an important transportation priority. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED The Mayor and Salt Lake City Council strongly urge the State of Utah, the Wasatch Front Regional Council, and the Utah Transit Authority to proceed immediately with plans and construction to build a light rail transit system from downtown Salt Lake City to the southern end of the Salt Lake Valley. Council Staff Report Executive Summary March 9, 1989 Human Resource Management Policy Meeting * The Department of Human Resource Management (HRM) is proposing the establishment of a "true merit" performance based compensation plan for all City employees. Council staff support the concept of performance based compensation, but perceive several specific hurdles which need to be overcome prior to implementing the specific proposal submitted by the Department. We recommend that Council direct the Administration to 1) establish a pilot program under controlled conditions, 2 ) propose interim performance based incentives for City employees during the coming year, and 3) lay the foundation for implementing a future performance based system while addressing the yet unresolved concerns identified by Council staff. * The Department has proposed that an in-house training program be initiated for first-line supervisors. Council staff strongly support this in-house training concept as both economical and effective. We recommend that the Department be encouraged to broaden the scope - of this training program to include non- supervisory employees. We also recommend that the Department be encouraged to develop a program that uses capable in-house staff as trainers for other courses 1) for which those staff are qualified, and 2 ) which meet identified City training needs. * The Department is in the process of implementing many of the recommendations included in the Risk Management Audit for the Risk Management function. * It may be timely for Council to request the Administration to provide an evaluation of the options, advantages and disadvantages in locating the Risk Management function in the Finance Department, Department of Human Resource Management, or the City Attorney's Office. -1- Council Staff Report Human Resource Management Policy Meeting March 9, 1989 Council has received the packet prepared by the Director of Human Resource Management (HRM) which identifies three policy issues. The following is the staff response to these three issues. Discussion of Issues Pay for Performance Program The program proposed by the Director is intended to redirect the focus of the City's compensation system on recognizing and rewarding true performance. It is generally acknowledged that the current compensation system is a longevity based system. Philosophically, the Council staff support the intent of the Director in proposing this change in focus. We note, however, several substantial hurdles which impede making this change, as proposed, at this time. First, departments and divisions differ substantially in the extent which they possess the capability to formalize their objectives and measure performance. A number departments, such as Public Works, have refined their goal setting and cost accounting systems to a degree that reflects great attention to both management effectiveness and performance details. Unfortunately, several departments have not formalized their goals and objectives to the extent of Public Works. Without well defined and measurable goals, departments may have a difficult time equating individual employee performance with the goals of their department. Second, the mechanism proposed to measure performance is very general and is not likely to apply to all employee positions. It is possible for a well- trained supervisor to adapt this evaluation process to make it position specific. This assumes that a great deal of time is spent in training supervisors to conduct an interview, to develop performance goals with employees, and to explain how performance will be measured. However, the City's training resources are expected to be meager for the coming fiscal year. Without adequate training, the City can predictably expect to generate a great amount of organizational discord and cries of favoritism if it attempts to implement a true merit system without preparing the organization's supervisors and managers to implement that system. Council staff concur with the Director's assessment that one of the keys to a successful merit based pay system is top quality training of supervisors in the delicate art of evaluating employees. We strongly support providing the training for supervisors and managers to make a merit system work. We are pessimistic that the proposed program will achieve its purpose if that training is not completed before this program begins. Third, the program is based upon a major change in the City's multi-stepped pay plan. According to the Director, the City would negotiate a change in the pay plan system with its respective unions and simply administratively modify its pay plan for nonunion employees. The current multi-step plan -2- disproportionately equates time employed by the City with the ability to assist in achieving organization objectives. At the same time, it is unlikely that the unions will give up their current pay plan. Before establishing pay ranges the City should also develop clearly defined criteria for determining range breadth, and the Council should take part in helping to define that criteria if Council deems that this is a policy issue. Finally, the Department suggests that it would "enhance organizational culture" to implement a system that rewards performance and productivity. The Council staff fully supports the ideal proposed by the Department. There are numerous programs that communicate the commitment to rewarding an employee's contribution to achieving organization goals. Staff recommends that the Department come back to the Council with a less ambitious proposal that can be implemented during the coming year. In the interim, the Administration can then lay a proper foundation for the full implementation of a true performance based compensation system. In addition, Council may wish to encourage the Department to identify opportunities to pilot test the proposed merit plan. Such a pilot program could include 1 ) training of both supervisors and affected subordinates, 2 ) clearly identifying how the employees' performance plan incrementally achieves increased productivity, and 3) establishing an equitable reward incentive. Management Development/Training Initiatives At the time that the Council formally approved upgrading Human Resources from a division status to a department, it did so with the condition that increased efforts be made to improve the City's training and organization development capacity. The proposed training program is an in-house program for first-line supervisors. It proposes to utilize an outside consultant, who will simultaneously train in-house staff who will then continue the training for. other City employees. Evaluation of the trainees' learning gain will be based upon their respective supervisors' perception of their ability to apply the training received to a specific department project. The City's training plan is the product of a Training Committee which has conducted a survey which sought input from employees, supervisors, and mid- management personnel. Council staff endorses this low cost but practical approach to staff training. Council may also wish to encourage the Department to utilize in-house staff to conduct a broad variety of other training courses, perhaps for a small honorarium. There are a multitude of excellent training courses, such as the International City Management Association ( ICMA) green book series, Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) courses, and other timely topics, which a large number of City staff could conduct. Using qualified in-house instructors in this way would enable the City to increase productivity and achieve identified training goals. Risk Management Realignment The Director has been responsive to many of the suggestions for improving the City's Risk Management function which were outlined in the management audit. According to the Director, the Information Management System needs of the Department should be resolved by July, 1989. The Department has proposed to -3- hire a Loss Control Coordinator to serve as a consultant to individual City departments in developing loss control plans. Training for first line supervisors is a component of the City-wide first-line supervisor training course, according to the Director. The proposed Safety Committee recommended in the management audit has been incorporated in a Risk Management Committee. With the recent completion of the Finance Audit, it might be appropriate for the Council to review the appropriate placement of the Risk Management staff. Council is aware that the Finance audit proposed that the Risk Management function be transferred from HRM to the Finance Department. A case might also be made to move Risk Management to the Attorney's Office. Staff Recommendations 1 ) Defer support of the proposed Performance Program but encourage the Department to a) establish a pilot program under conditions recommended in the staff report, b) come back to the Council with additional win/win productivity incentives, and c) work with employee groups to set the stage for the potential future implementation of this program. 2) Endorse the proposed in-house training concept. 3) Encourage the Department to develop additional in-house training proposals that enable qualified employees to serve as trainers for other in-house training programs that achieve City training goals. 4) Request the Administration to provide an evaluation of the options, advantages and disadvantages in locating the Risk Management function in the Finance Department, Department of Human Resource Management, or the City Attorney's Office. -4- Department of Human Resource Management Policy Goals - 1989/90 Executive Summary The Department of Human Resource Management is proposing three initiatives for fy 89/90 . The three issues for policy review with the Council will address (1) A Pay for Performance Program, (2) Management Development/Training Initiatives and ( 3 ) Risk Management Realignment. In preparation for policy discussion, Human Resource elected to construct its presentation in the following manner . First , we described how each program responds to an organizational need . This information was derived either by direct measurement instrument or direct feedback from administration and/or Council . Secondly , we provided the goals and objective which respond to the organization needs. Finally, we propose to evaluate the progress made in the three program areas . I . Pay for Performance - To provide a system which will dif- ferentiate pay based on performance measures rather than time of service. Will require performance based evaluation system, restructured pay plan and training . II . Management Develop- ment/Training - With the City-Wide Training needs assessment completed, the curriculum is being developed. First training session to be conducted in May, 1989 . Training decision will be coordinated through the City-Wide Training Committee. They will include the incorporation of skills (feedback, goals clarification, and other related activities) training for pay- for-performance program. III . Realignment of Risk Management - The restructuring of the Risk Manage- ment function will now provide a more concentrated focus on risk management including the preparation of the Risk Management Annual Report, establishment of a data base management program that will help to track worker ' s comp , loss control and other risk management assessment. SALT'LAKE GITY`GORPORATIONf HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT KAREN SUZUKI-HASHIMOTO SUITE 530 PALMER DEPAULIS DIRECTOR 324 SOUTH STATE STREET MAYOR SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATORS: (801) 535-7844 ALAN BRIDGE, M.O.B. PATRICIA CAMPBELL, C.C.P. FRANK FRASER JANE ERICKSON, A.R.M. 24 February 1989 W.M. "Willie" Stoler 324 South State Street Suite 300 Salt Lake City Council Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 - Dear Chairman Stoler : In preparation of the policy presentation to the Salt Lake City Council on 9 March, please find the attached policy issues for the Department of Human Resources . I look forward to the opportunity to confer with the Council regarding the proposed programs . Thank you for your attention regarding this matter . If there are any questions or comments , please advise. Sincerely, Karen Suzuki-41ashimoto , Director KSH/k cc: Mayor DePaulis Cam Caldwell attachment DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES PROGRAM PROPOSALS FY 89-90 The following represents the three (3) major initiatives to be pro- posed for fy 89-90. The format for presentation will outline the organizational need, program response and objectives, and evaluation of success. PAY FOR PERFORMANCE PROGRAM Organizational Need: According to a management survey administered in preparation for the Second Annual Mayor ' s Management Conference , the number one need identified by top management was to address the issue of "unfair" rewards. Currently, economic constraints may restrict salary incentives beyond a one-step merit increase. Secondly, the merit increases have been awarded, not on the basis of merit but rather as a yearly entitlement. There is no method by which a manager can differentiate between the average and outstanding employee, based on compensation. As the City experiences declining revenues reductions in personnel may be necessary. Layoffs may be required to provide the necessary resources . Greater demands with less employees will require more productive employees . A mechanism must be found and established to recognize and reward employees based on performance and merit. Program Response: The Department of Human Resources proposes a Pay for Performance Program that will provide management with a system to differentiate pay based on performance , rather than calendar considerations . The program will require a system approach, rather than merely establishing a program without the necessary support and preparation to succeed. 1 . Develop/modify performance based evaluation system. This performance evaluation component is critical to the success of the Pay for Performance. The City ' s current 300 series evaluation program may be applicable with some modification, but more important than the instrument used, is the need to establish specific expectations that evaluations are truly measuring performance, and that such measures will be compensated accordingly. 2. Restructure current pay schedules to provide for ranges rather than steps and providing the necessary flexibility. The flexibility provided will help to maintain budgetary limits . For example, the department may be provided only a 2 . 75% increase overall , yet that 2 . 75% may be dispersed at a higher percentage for high performance and a lower rate for standard performance. 3 . Provide supervisory training program to enhance management skills to effectively provide feedback and motivation for productivity (2nd Departmental Proposal) . Supervisors need to be trained on a variety of areas. If we require our employees to be more productive, we also need to train our supervisors to be more effective. In light of the pay for performance program, the role of the supervisor is critical . 4 . To enhance organizational culture by rewarding outstanding over average performance. When the corporation, through established programs , differentiates between standard and outstanding performance, productivity will increase because of higher rewards , more productive employees will be retained. Evaluation: One year after implementation, the Department of Human Resource will review a representative sample of performance evaluations and will also analyze compensation awarded basedon a pay for performance to ascertain and measure program results . This review will provide information regarding supervisors who utilize the pay for performance program, and they in turn will be evaluated on their performance as it relates to this program. It is also projected to evaluate any increased productivity as a result of this program. MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT/TRAINING INITIATIVES Organizational Need: There is currently, no corporate management development program. Supervisors are generally promoted based on technical , rather than management skills. Managers are required to manage their human resource with principally on-the-job, or by experi- ences based on how they were managed. This provides a "seat of the pants" approach and may result in an inconsistent form of management. Greater resource demands with less dollars will require improved management skills to manage with less people, and be more productive. Program Response: An extensive city-wide training needs assessment was conducted to gather valuable information regarding organization needs within a management development context . This program is targeted to first-line supervisory personnel. The curriculum development is based on the needs assessment data . This data was received from three levels of the Corporation. It was compiled from employees, first line supervisors and their supervisors . This three tiered approach provided a comprehensive view of supervisory needs within Salt Lake City Corporation. The curriculum is currently being developed. The first phase is scheduled for May, 1989 . The intent is to provide the first phase using an outside consultant, but that future training programs will be taught by trained City employees. The supervisory training program is the first tier of a comprehensive management development program. The annual Mayor ' s Management Confer- ence highlights key management issues directed to top level manage- ment. Other training initiatives will be developed for clerical , customer service, writing skills or other staff development needs identified by the City ' s Training Committee. Sponsoring City-wide training events provides for maximum training impact in a cost-effective way. The approach is to broach training from a corporate, rather than individual way. This adds to the City' s ability to broker training at maximum participation and cost savings . For example, it is less expensive to hire a consultant to do writing training for $1000 and have 25 participants, than it would be to pay $200 per person to attend the same workshop. The difference is a 400% or $3000 ! Current economic constraints require well trained management and employees to provide optimal services to the citizens we are charged to serve. Evaluation: The first-line supervisory training program has a built- in evaluation component. The supervisor ' s supervisor evaluates trans- fer of skills learned from the training program to the work site in a project the student completes. Other training events will have specific evaluations at the conclusion of each event, as well as a cost benefit analysis of training in Salt Lake City Corporation. RISK MANAGEMENT REALIGNMENT Organizational Need: A recent audit conducted by the Salt Lake City Council indicated that greater emphasis should be targeted to the Risk Management function. Although the audit was prompted by an inquiry to determine if Risk Management should be contracted out, the audit clearly stated that it would not be in the City' s interest nor would it be cost effective. The employee benefits component was transferred to the Compensation and Classification Division thereby focusing the Risk Management function to protection against losses of property and assets of the City. Program Response: The Risk Management Division has set forth programs which will help to further fulfill its obligation to reduce the City ' s liability in both life and property. 1 . Meet with department heads to revised purpose and under- standing of risk management. 2. Place special emphasis on performance measures regarding corporate safety andworker compensation. Information derived will provide a base line information, and will enable the tracking of the impact of safety programs to :reduced worker ' compensation claims. Additionally, high frequency areas of claims filed will also be addressed. 3 . Reevaluation of City insurance coverage. - This will determine if there current level of insurance is adequate. 4 . Inspection of Fixed Assets in excess of $50, 000 . 5 . Complete Risk Management Manual including information and procedures addressing Worker ' s Compensation, Safety, Insurance and other related areas. 6 . Create corporate Risk Management Committee comprised of departmental representatives to address safety, hazardous materials communications (required by federally madated "Right to Know" legislation, and control, risk assessment. 7 . In conjunction with IMS, build data resource regarding worker ' s compensation, vehicle accident reporting, governmental immunity, etc. 8 . Develop training for first line supervisors regarding risk management issue. 9 . Develop "Light Duty Policy" regarding employees injured on the job. 10 . Prepare annual report regarding previous risk management activities. Evaluation Build a data base file to assess cost savings and current risk management profile on an annual basis. Completion of Risk Management Report to the Administration. Executive Summary - Council Staff Report Fire Department Policy Meeting March 9, 1989 * The number of engine company fire prevention inspections has dropped substantially due to the large amount of time required to perform the fire risk analysis. The Fire Department has been working for over a year on the development of its fire risk analysis program. This program is one element of the Master Plan process. * The Council may wish to request the department to develop a way to increase the number of engine company fire prevention and Uniform Fire Code permit inspections, while continuing the fire risk analysis program.. * The Council may want to provide feedback to the department about the need to establish a Master Plan Task Force, including whether it would like that task force to include community residents. The Council may also want to request the department to establish a time frame for completing the Master Plan. *. The Council may wish to provide feedback to the Fire Department regarding the detail level provided about department service levels and programs in order to assist the Council in the budget process. * The Council may wish to request the Fire Department to provide Council with a list of the tasks to be accomplished to complete • the consolidation of Police and Fire dispatching, including the expected time frames for the completion of each task. * The Council may wish to indicate to the Fire Department its interest in the timing of the implementation of the Uniform Fire Code inspection program. Council Staff Report Fire Department Policy Meeting March 9, 1989 At the Fire Department Policy Meeting last September, the Council asked the Fire Department to report to the Council regarding 1 ) the status of the Fire Department Master Plan, and 2 ) its goals for the year. In the Hughes Heiss report the audit suggested that the Fire Department involve the Council in the planning process for these two key areas. Council has received a report from the Fire Department, which accompanies this staff analysis. It includes an explanation of the fire risk analysis program, the goals and mission of the department, the status of the consolidated dispatch program, and the plans for the Uniform Fire Code permit program. Discussion of Issues Fire Risk Analysis • The Fire Department ;has been working for over a year on the development of a fire risk analysis, as part of the development of a master plan. The Fire Department 's response to the Hughes Heiss audit states: . . the Department agrees that there is a need to develop a • master plan to map out the City's long range fire protection needs. The master plan should include the following: a city-wide risk and hazard analysis; a formula or equation which can be employed to determine the appropriate level of fire resources; an analysis of the Department's facilities' needs for the next five years; training and information management needs within the department; and fire protection needs in the City. The Department suggests that a task force be established comprised of representatives from the Department, the Council, the Mayor's Office, and other City departments to develop the master plan. " (Fire Department Response to the Hughes Heiss Report (FDRHHR), dated May 17, 1988, Executive Summary, Page 3-4. ) The department is the process of inventorying target locations which have been identified as high risk hazards. About one thousand risk analysis inspections were conducted as part of this program in 1988, with a total of nearly 2, 000 inspections conducted by station engine company staff. The department anticipates inspecting one thousand additional high hazard locations in 1989. Department management reports that the station engine companies had inspected 5,000 to 6,000 locations per year in prior years. The current hazard analysis inspection process assesses each location in terms of its water flow requirements and fire risk characteristics. This past year, -2- these inspections have not included assessing the extent to which these properties comply with Uniform Fire Code permit inspections. The Fire Department management does not intend to include that assessment in inspections to be conducted this year. As a result, the Fire Department inspections conducted by station engine companies are not anticipated to be a source of permit inspections by the Fire Department this year. The policy impact of the department's fire risk analysis inspection program is to reduce the level of these fire code compliance inspections during the period in which the fire risk analysis survey is conducted. Council may wish to provide the Fire Department with feedback about the two policy options: 1 ) To conduct hazard inspections as currently being undertaken, at a level- of 1, 000 to 2, 000 inspections per year. 2) To identify an inspection process that will allow the department to conduct more inspections. Staff recommend that Council ask the department to identify how it might increase the number of fire prevention and Uniform Fire Code inspections conducted by station engine companies while continuing its fire risk analysis program. As noted by the department, the Master Plan components include far more than the fire rik analysis alone. The department has provided a time line for the development of its Master Plan. A key element of that plan is the establishment of a task force to formally begin the development of this plan. Both the Hughes Heiss report and the department respons indicate that the task force should include knowledgeable representatives from a number of City departments. According to the National Fire Protection Association, the master plan process should also be community-based and should include citizen representatives. Task forces in many cities also include fire union representatives. Council may wish to provide specific feedback to the Fire Department regarding the establishment of this Master Plan task force. The fire risk analysis process has been lengthy to date, and the department has been involved in it since prior to the completion of the Hughes Heiss study. The Council may wish to suggest a time frame for the department in which to complete this process. Department Goals In its response to the Hughes Heiss report, the Department also writes "The Department acknowledges that an updated, formal understanding of goals and objectives is needed. "( FDRHHR, Main Report, Page 2) The goals provided by the Fire Department address many important issues. The development of an improved records management system and the development of the fire risk analysis program are given major emphasis. At the same time, the goals formalized by the department seem to be less detailed than Council may require to fully understand policy options and their service level ramifications. For example, goals seem to be extremely limited in the -3- following important areas: hazardous materials, mid-management and supervisory training, employee relations, fire suppression and ENS response times, fire loss and fire containment, community relations, vehicle and property maintenance, and cost containment. These goals are directly related to the Council 's budget and policy responsibilities. Although the department recognizes the importance of communicating its goals to the City Council, its goals may be of greater value if they were sufficiently complete and detailed to reflect the major service indicators and management priorities of the department. The need for specific service level information is identified as a key factor in Council policy making in the Hughes Heiss report. Council may wish to request that the Fire Department provide it with more detailed information about departments goals, including specific goal statements that reflect results to be achieved and expected completion dates. Equating specific service level goals with accomplishments of prior years would make it simpler for the Council to make budget decisions regarding levels of funding. Consolidated Dispatch/Public Safety Communications The Fire Department consolidated dispatch program is progressing as noted in the department's staff report. The E-911 system is dependent upon valley-wide implementation, and is not expected to occur prior to Nay. Cross training of staff is underway. The department has proposed the establishment of a career ladder program to provide promotional opportunities for dispatchers. The department has not provided information regarding the tasks yet to be completed in the consolidation of the dispatch function. In September, Council requested that the department provide Council with a formal update on the technical issues required to implement a fully consolidated dispatch system in July, 1989. Council may wish to ask the department to provide it with a list of the remaining consolidation tasks to be completed and their projected time table. Councilmember Alan Hardman has also requested Council staff to arrange a presentation about dispatch trunking, in order to educate the Council about this technical element. Council staff are working with the Fire Department administration to determine the scope of this presentation and the participants who will take part. Uniform Fire Code Enforcement/Fire Prevention Bureau The Fire Department has established the goal of generating $22, 500 in permit revenue through Uniform Fire Code inspections. At that point the department intends to hire another Fire Inspector from the revenue generated. Council authorized the department to hire an additional Fire Inspector last June. At that time the Council also formalized a legislative intent that the department generate enough revenue from hazardous materials inspections to fund this position. This position continues to be vacant and the revenue to fund it has not been generated by the department. According to Battalion Chief Sumner, a newly hired Fire Inspector could conduct six to eight Uniform Fire Code permit inspections per day. At an -4- average cost of $40 to $50 per inspection, a new Fire Inspector could generate about $1,000 per week in permit inspection fees. Options available to the Council include the following: 1) Support the goal of the department to implement the proposed pilot program with the present staff. 2) Encourage the department to immediately hire a new Fire Inspector and request that the department immediately expand its permit inspection program. 3) Request the department to expand the role of the engine companies in Uniform Fire Code permit inspections. The advantage of options two and three is that they enable the City to reduce existing fire hazards while generating additional inspection revenue. Staff Recommendations 1) Encourage the Fire Department to implement its Fire Risk Analysis and Master Planning process, and to formally establish a Master Plan Task Force. Council may wish to previd€ feedback to the department regarding the possible composition of that task force and the time frame in which it would like to see the plan completed. 2) Request the Fire Department to expand the use of engine companies in fire prevention and Uniform Fire Code permit inspections, and to report on its goals for those inspections as part of the budget process. 3) Request the Fire Department to provide more specific information about department goals, including specific information about service levels and priorities, as part of the budget process. The purpose of providing this information is to assist the Council to equate service levels with funding for the department. 4) Request the Fire Department to provide an update regarding the tasks to be accomplished to complete consolidation of the public safety dispatching process, together with expected time frames for those tasks. 5) Authorize the Fire Department to immediately hire an additional Fire Inspector to conduct Uniform Fire Code permit inspections. -5- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY With this document the fire department administration presents its mission, goals and performance objectives. We also present a sketch of fire risk analysis and show the ties to master planning. The department's communication division gives a brief progress update and outlines this year's communication intents. Lastly, the fire prevention bureau describes it's "fee for permit program. " • • • -1- MISSION & GOALS I. The mission of the Salt Lake City Fire Department is to protect the lives and property of the Citizens of Salt Lake City from fire, hazardous materials and medical emergencies. Mission accomplished by: A. Fire Suppression, hazard mitigation and Rescue. B. Emergency Medical and Rescue. C. Fire Prevention, Code Enforcement, Arson Investigation, Public Education. II. Goals: A. DEVELOP AN ORGANIZATION TO EFFECTIVELY ADMINISTER AND MANAGE THE RESOURCES OF THE DEPARTMENT BY: 1. Developing a cost efficient organization by maximizing resource utilization and identifying additional income sources. 2. Improving communications both vertical and horizontal by: a. Interdepartmental ( 1 ) Improving activity reporting and information management tracking (March 89) (2) Increasing visits to stations by administrative staff, improving communication and labor relations. (January 1989) b. Council Districts ( 1) Developing quarterly risk and hazardous materials inspection reports. Which identify needed suppression resources and hazard mitigation. (January 90 - December 90) ( 2) Developing quarterly activity reports of stations by council districts. (July 89) 3. Maintaining Master Calendar, which lists for the 1989 Calendar Year all activities, training programs, in-service programs and management training activities. 4. Developing a career ladder that is compatible and addresses needs of Police and Fire dispatch personnel. 5. Optimize the Police/Fire Dispatch system by cross training dispatch supervisors. -2- B. DEVELOP A SYSTEM FOR MINIMIZING THE IMPACT OF DISASTERS AND "OTHER" EfERGENCIES ON LIFE AND PROPERTY 1. Master Planning with Fire Risk Analysis a. Develop Fire Risk Analysis System (task force) ( 1 ) Identify system components (a) Mayor/City Council (b) Other City Departments ( 2 ) Identify needs, responsibilities and priorities of each component. ( 3) Identify existing and needed resources. (4) Develop Program establishing milestones & time-lines with available, or projected resources. ( 5 ) All additional objectives are iterated in the Fire Risk Analysis Plan. 2. Continuing to enhance the new computer aided dispatch system. 3. Bringing the Enhanced 9-1-1 system on line. C. MAINTAIN AN EFFECTIVE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE (EMS) BY: 1. Analyzing fee structure and impacts for "Pay Paramedic Service" and preparing a feedback report to Mayor/Council. (December 1989) 2. Tracking training hours, certifications and proficiency levels of individual members, by utilizing enhanced information management systems. (July 1989) 3. Provide ACLS recertification training testing. (April 89) 4. Implement mega code simulation training and testing. (July 89) 5. Maintain EMS grant to the Department for recertification, new equipment, and continuing education. -3- D. PROVIDE AN EFFECTIVE FIRE PREVENTION AND PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM BY: 1. Increase FPB revenue by $20,000 each year for three years with the implementation of fee for service (permit) inspections. 2. Developing and implementing mail-out self inspection program for all priority five inspections. (December 1989) • (Pilot Program will start April 89) 3. Implementing computerized premise record keeping system for monitoring overall work load, scheduling and tracking inspection work. (July 1989) • • • -4- FIRE RISK ANALYSIS Fire risk analysis is an objective process comparing the resources required to fight a fire with the resources which are available. The information for this comparison revolves around two pieces of information: First, the amount of water required to extinguish a fire in a specific building. Second, the capability of the Fire Department and built in fire protection systems to deliver that amount of water. If the Fire Department and other existing fire protection systems are unable to deliver the required water, the building is at risk. BENEFITS TO THE CITY The analysis will determine the amount of fire protection the City has and if that protection can be delivered rapidly enough to be effective. Fire risk analysis will make the different city and state departments aware of their fire protection responsibilities. This analysis will define the fire protection burden that the private businesses must assume. It will identify the buildings and businesses at risk. It will also show the risk from close exposure to these buildings. It will determine the possible impact of lost life and lost value to the community. Short and long range planning can be based on fire risk criteria. BENEFITS TO THE COUNCIL Fire risk analysis will show the existing fire suppression systems and help identify additional needed systems in each council district. Identified risk allows evaluation of impact in areas of life, economics and community values in each council district. Knowledge of impact identifies degree of risk in each council district. Planners then rank protection programs according to cost and degree of risk in these districts. -5- IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR FIRE RISK ANALYSIS_ OBJECTIVE #1 Fire Administration will develop a master planning task force. This task force will identify the city department's risk analysis responsibilities and needs. The task force will coordinate with the following Departments: City Council/Mayor Municipal Airport Building Department Engineering Department Water Department Planning and Zoning Department Police Public Shops Private Developers OBJECTIVE #2 The task force will isolate program requirements and identify cost and time impact on staff resources. The task force will prioritize Needs and establish time lines and program milestones. OBJECTIVE # Crews will complete all target inspections in their response districts and will then help complete remaining inspections .in other districts. Reports will notify response chiefs and department administration of completed inspections by each fire crew. The administration will evaluate the quality of target inspections during the quarterly station inspection. OBJECTIVE #4 When crews complete the target inspections, the administration will identify the fire management areas. The homogenous quality of the targets and the number of targets will define the size and scope of these areas. (This allows the department to assign an average needed fire flow for the area) Fire management teams will analyze risk for the entire fire management areas by inspecting and evaluating a representative sample of these targets. OBJECTIVE J5 Fire administration will develop quarterly risk reports. These reports will define risk in council and response districts. These reports will include average needed fire flow for the Fire Management Areas, the existing and needed fire suppression resources (Staffing, apparatus & response times) and the existing and needed "built in" suppression resources. (Sprinkler systems, code enforcement, enclosed stairways and etc. ) When the program is completed, the administration will give summary reports with impact analysis. -6- OBJECTIVE #6 Fire administration will develop a committee from fire prevention and - operations personnel. This committee will develop inspection criteria for life risk analysis. They will also identify the level of code knowledge required for these inspections. The administration will review these provisions and inspection needs. They will develop a plan to provide the fire risk analysis teams with the needed resources. This is a critical issue because of the code knowledge needed and the limited fire prevention resource. Operations personnel may require extensive training. OBJECTIVE_47 Administration will select three teams to pilot the Fire Risk Analysis Program. These teams will coordinate with the provision committee and evaluate inspection methodology. It is estimated that the pilot program will exist 12 months before the Fire Risk Analysis program begins. The administration will evaluate the program. OBJECTIVE #8 The fire department will begin Fire Risk Analysis Program with continued evaluation from the master planning task force. • OBJECTIVE 49 The provision committee will present reports to the master planning task force identifying risk and needed code legislation. Where Risk cannot be mitigated, responsible agencies and the task force will plan contingencies. OBJECTIVE #10 The task force will analyze risk impact and identify the amount of risked value and will report this to City Administration. -7- Time Lines 1989 I 1990 J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D A E A P A U U U E C O E A E A P A U U U E C O E N B R R Y N L G P T V C N B R R Y N L G P T V C URCI EYUTOEEURCI EYUTOEE AUHL SEBMMAUHL SEBMM R A TMEBBRA TMEBB Y R BREEYR BREE Y E RRY E R R R R #1 Identify Needs • I I #2 Prioritize Needs I I #3 Complete Targets I I #4 Identify Fire Management _ Areas I I #5 Develop Risk Reports I I #6 Committee to identify inspection provisions for Life Risk I I #7 Pilot Fire Risk Program I I #8 Fire Risk Program • I I #9 Identify needed Code legislation I I • #10 Risk Impact Analysis -8- Public Safety Commmunications • The physical move of Fire and Police Dispatch and Communications to 315 East 200 South is complete. All systems are functional on the new site including a recently purchased Computer Aided Dispatch system. Software to support that system is still in the developmental stages, but the basic program is up and running. The Enhanced 9-1-1 system is in the final stages of installation. It should be noted that. other 9-1-1 factions in the valley will hold us up. The system cannot come on line until all portions of it are in readiness. My best estimate is that completion of the County Sheriff, South Valley (VECC) and Data Base proofing will not occur until May 1989 or later. Until then the present 9-1-1. system must remain in place. The move toward streamlining Police/Fire Dispatch is well under way. Through attrition the number of dispatch supervisors were reduced by three people. This brings the number of first line supervisors to four. These remaining four are cross training to provide expertise in both Police and Fire Department matters. Simple arithmetic shows that five supervisors are needed to provide 24 hour supervision and cover vacations and other leaves of absence. E9-1-1 needs and cross training personnel, are presenting some interesting challenges. These challenges will be best met, in part, by establishing a new career ladder. The career ladder must address the priorities of the Police and Fire Departments while being compatible with both. In first level of expertise entry level personnel train as E9-1-1 Operator/Call Takers. The second level train as either Police or Fire Dispatchers. The third level cross train into their counterpart, Police/Fire area. Cross training is a necessary prerequisite for becoming a Dispatch Supervisor. * The intended end result will reduce costs by using common supervisors and having cross trained dispatchers who fill in where they are most needed. To that end, a senior Police Dispatcher is presently training in the Fire Dispatch area. She will help us identify possible problems so they are • properly addressed. The attached organizational chart reflects an overview of the intended structure. * This scenario is slightly different than the one proposed a year ago. The adjustments compensate for the training time frames. Also, research shows that this configuration is working well for many major cities. -9- FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU SUMMARY: Fire Prevention Bureau ( FPB) revenue is presently $6, 000. 00/year. By using a permit process to regulate selected businesses, and charging a fee for service for permit inspections, the Fire Prevention Bureau expects to increase revenue at the rate of $20,000.00 per year over a period of three years. Planning has been completed for a pilot group of permits, and implementation has begun. The FPB projected annual revenue from these permits is $22, 500.00. Completion date for this pilot program is December 31, 1989. There is no specific plan for further permits. Planning for further permits will be done concurrently with implementation of the pilot group. The FPB goal is to increase revenue at a rate of $20,000. 00 per year, by enacting new permits. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION In January through March, 1988, Battalion Chief Sumner was a member of the Regulatory Fee ad hoc committee. This committee was chaired by Patrick Sorensen of the Mayor 's office. The committee identified costs of services provided to specified types of businesses in Salt Lake City. The cost information was then used to establish the amount of regulatory fees charged to each of the types of businesses. Some of the cost of inspection services provided by Salt Lake City Fire Department, therefore, is being recovered through regulatory fees. To provide equity and consistency in fee for service, it was decided to charge fees for Fire Department service by regulating selected businesses through a permit process administered by the Fire Prevention Bureau. A permit from the Fire Department would be required to operate certain types of businesses identified in the Fire Code. To obtain a permit, the business would be required to pay a permit fee and pass an inspection. Permit fees, like regulatory fees, would be based on the cost of the service provided. The Fire Department's decision to charge reasonable fees for inspections was reinforced by the City Council's legislative intent. A fee schedule was included in the 1988 Uniform Fire Code when it was presented for adoption. On December 16, 1988, the UFC was submitted for Council Action. On January 10, 1989, Council referred it back to the Fire Department, City Attorney, and Council Staff to make changes in the language concerning permits and permit fees, and to add back permits that had been deleted by amendment. The Ordinance has been revised to the satisfaction of the Fire Department, City Attorney, and Council Staff. -10- The Fire Marshal plans to begin at once to implement selected permits, as a pilot project to establish procedures and gain experience in using permits in fire prevention regulation. The implementation process for each permit will follow the same sequence: 1. Rules and administrative procedures will be written, detailing procedures for permit application and subsequent inspection and approval. 2. Businesses and Buildings requiring the permit will be identified, and notified of the permit requirement. 3. Permit applications will be received and processed according to the Rules and administrative procedures. 4. The regulatory process will be evaluated and revised as necessary. It is estimated that implementation of all the permits in the pilot project will be under way within calendar year 1989, and that by December, 1989, Fire Prevention Bureau revenue will be sufficient to meet the cost of another FTE in the Fire Prevention Bureau. With this experience and revenue, the Fire Department will then be prepared to propose further permit _ fees, make further revenue projections, and request additional staffing to meet the increased service level. -11- • S V D GITY(G,;ORPO I,OI OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL SUITE 300, CITY HALL 324 SOUTH STATE STREET - SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 535-7600 March 6, 1989 MEMORANDUM TO: Council Members FROM: Lee King RE: Cost of Provo River Fish Flow Solution Several of you had questions pertaining to the cost of the Provo Fish Flow problem. When Salt Lake City and the Metropolitan Water District agreed in November 1988 to cooperate in a onetime solution to assist the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation in meeting minimum stream flow obligations in the Provo River it did not cost the City any dollars. However, if Salt Lake City and the Metropolitan Water District were to agree to maintain a 100 cfs next winter, the only way to accomplish this would be to conserve water during the summer months. It has been suggested by sports/environmental groups that water users conserve up to 10 percent of their water, which equates to approximately $2 million annual loss in revenue to Public Utilities. Additionally, the Metropolitan Water District would lose a minimum of $500,000. The only way to makeup this shortfall would be to raise water rates. Salt Lake City and the Metropolitan Water District consider this an unacceptable alternative. Public Utilities has taken the position that the City is not responsible to provide water for the fish flows (even though they made extraordinary efforts to resolve the issue last year) and that the responsibility lies with the Bureau of Reclamation, which has the requirement as part of the Central Utah Project. The purpose of the resolution in your packets is an effort to urge the Bureau of Reclamation, Central Utah Water Conservancy District, and the Salt Lake County Water Conservancy District to acquire the necessary water to meet the minimum stream flows until the Jordanalle Dam and Reservoir is constructed and able to provide the water to meet the minimum flow requirements. When meeting with Congressional delegations, you may wish to make the following points: a. Salt Lake City is sensitive to the concerns of sports/environmental groups, but does not feel that it is our responsibility to provide water for maintaining the fish flow at the expense of city residents. b. The agreement signed in November 1988 was a onetime solution. c. If required to implement conservation measures to meet minimum fish flows, the financial impact to Salt Lake City and Metropolitan Water District could be as much as $2, 500,000 annually in lost water sales. d. The impact to the City also includes the potential loss of business development if we cannot guarantee sufficient water supplies in the future. e. We urge the early completion of the Central Utah Project such that the responsibilities of the Bureau of Reclamation and the Central Utah Water Conservancy District to meet minimum fish flows can be accomplished in a timely manner. cc: Cindy Gust-Jenson Emilie Charles LeRoy Hooton PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1989 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met as the Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, February 21, 1989, at 5:00 p.m. in Suite 300, City Hall, 324 South State Street. The following Council Members were present: Florence Bittner Alan Hardman Roselyn Kirk Wayne Horrocks Tom Godfrey Willie Stoler Sydney Fonnesbeck Council Chairperson Stoler presided at the meeting. Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Councilmember Horrocks asked what Director, reviewed the schedule the benefit of such a meeting for the Council/Staff retreat on would be and Councilmember February 25, 1989, asking the Fonnesbeck said that even though Council to highlight problems or the bid would be submitted under suggestions they had regarding the Salt Lake City' s name, it would be retreat. a partnership with other cities. She said that because Park City Councilmember Bittner informed the would host so many activities, it Council that Mike Chitwood, Rede- might be nice to get to know each velopment Agency (RDA) Director, other better. Councilmember wanted to call an extra meeting of Bittner said she didn' t have a the RDA Board of Directors on problem with a get together as March 2, 1989, to discuss funding long as it was on a social level for a new sports arena. Coun- and not an official meeting to cilmember Godfrey suggested wait- discuss venues. ing until the scheduled meeting of March 9 since the Legislature Mr. Lee King informed the Council would have decided the issue by that he had distributed materials March 2. from different Olympic committees to the Council and that the synop- Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that sis of the Technical Committee' s Park City' s City Council wanted to report on venue selection was meet with the Salt Lake City important. He said the Communica- Council in order to become more tion Committee had prepared a involved in the Olympic bid pro- question and answer sheet of the cess and to get to know the Coun- most commonly asked questions cil on a more informal basis. She about the bid. suggested an informal gathering over breakfast or lunch. Coun- Ms. Gust-Jenson said the position cilmember Bittner said it might be of Community Relations Coordinator more appropriately handled by the had been advertised and the formal official Olympic Committee. She hiring process had begun. She said the City Council didn't have then reviewed the agenda. an official role in the bid pro- cess and shouldn't act as though Mr. King reviewed the changes made they did. Councilmember Stoler to the early retirement ordinance said the Council needed to be saying that the ordinance reflect- careful not to offend other gov- ed the Mayor' s current policy for ernment agencies involved such as the most part. He said Section E Ogden and Summit County. of the ordinance corresponded with 89-46 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1989 "Plan D. 1" of the policy and that Councilmember Godfrey asked why Section F of the ordinance corre- the position needed to be a perma- sponded with "Plan D. 2" of the nent FTE. Mr. King said that the Mayor' s policy. He said that the supervisor would take responsibil- substantive changes were made in ity as the maintenance supervisor relation to the early retirement at the Airport course when needed. policy for public safety employees Councilmember Godfrey asked if the and said employees with fewer than same person hired during the 20 years of service would be construction phase would take over offered two early retirement the supervisor position. Steve windows: one at 20 years and one Fawcett, finance department, said at 25 years. He said it would be the person hired would. a two-month window starting on July 1 and not on the hiring date. Mr. Godfrey asked if the qualifi- Mr. King then reviewed the pro- cations for construction phase of posed ordinance by section. He the project were right for a said employees who had more than maintenance supervisor once it was 20 years service at the time the in operation. Mr. Stoler said bill was enacted would be able to they were compatible because the retire under the current executive maintenance supervisor needed to order. be involved from the very begin- ning. Councilmember Stoler asked if the ordinance stated that the early Mr. King said there was $227, 000 retirement plan was not a collec- in the contingency fund and the tively-bargained agreement. Roger Treasurer' s Office wanted to Cutler said paragraph two stated transfer $200, 000 into their fund that the provisions of the ordi- to pay for costs of increasing nance were not employee benefits enforcement on delinquent of- and the Council had the right to fenses. Buzz Hunt, City Treasur- amend the ordinance in the future. er, said that due to a court decision lifting a 45-day limit on Mr. King then reviewed the budget filing court action against delin- opening. He said the Treasurer' s quent offenses, it was profitable Office requested one full time to increase the number of court equivalent (FTE) in the form of filings against these offenders. two part time employees in order He said that while costs increased to increase license enforcement. for the program the return also He said the Council should monitor increased in the form of success- these positions so they wouldn't ful court judgments. roll into next year' s budget as a permanent FTE. Mr. Cutler said the costs for filing were recovered in the Mr. King said the Parks Department judgment. He said the cost of the had requested one additional program was high this year to make permanent FTE for an irrigation up for an error in last year' s supervisor for the new construc- budget which resulted in a defi- tion at the Mountain Dell and cit. Airport golf courses. He said the supervisor would work with the Councilmember Hardman asked if the construction team to put in the contingency fund would be left irrigation system and the equip- with only $27, 000 and Coun- ment for the cross country ski cilmember Kirk asked how they course at Mountain Dell . planned to rebuild the fund. Mr. 89-47 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1989 Fawcett said the Finance Depart- ment was confident they could rebuild the fund through internal savings from fleet costs. Mr. King said the goal was to increase contingency funds to $500, 000. Councilmember Bittner asked where the $20, 000,000 requested by the Airport was coming from, where it was going, and if it represented a surplus. John Wheat, Deputy Director of Airports, said the money was not surplus since it came out of the operations budget and by using the money now, the Airport was able to begin next year' s work. He said that by bidding the projects in the off- season they got better prices and could take advantage of the entire construction season by having contracts in place before spring. Councilmember Bittner said she wanted more time to discuss the proposed changes in the Class A liquor license and Councilmember Stoler suggested they discuss it during the regular meeting. The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m. 89-48 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1989 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in regular session on Tuesday, February 21, 1989, at 6:00 p.m. in Suite 300, City Hall, 324 South State Street. The following Council Members were present: Florence Bittner Alan Hardman Roselyn Kirk Wayne Horrocks Tom Godfrey Willie Stoler Sydney Fonnesbeck Mayor Palmer DePaulis, Roger Cutler,City Attorney, Kathryn Marshall, City Recorder, and LaNita Brown, Deputy Recorder, were present. Councilmember Stoler presided at the meeting and Councilmember Bittner conducted the meeting. OPENING CEREMONIES CONSENT AGENDA #1. The invocation was given Councilmember Kirk moved and by Barbara Bush, South Valley Councilmember Godfrey seconded to Unitarian Universalist Church. approve the consent agenda, which motion carried, all members voted #2. The Council led the aye except Councilmembers Fonnes- Pledge of Allegiance. beck and Hardman who were absent for the vote. #3. Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk #1. RE: Resolution 28 of seconded to approve the minutes of 1989 authorizing the execution of the Salt Lake City Council for the an interlocal agreement with Salt regular meeting held Tuesday, Lake County for a flood control February 14, 1989, which motion permit for the installation of a carried, all members voted aye new pump house at the city' s 6200 except Councilmembers Fonnesbeck South pump station. and Hardman who were absent for (C 89-75) the vote. (M 89-1) #2. RE: Resolution 29 of 1989 authorizing the execution of an interlocal agreement with the COMMENTS United States Army Corps of Engi- neers for a permit to discharge There were no citizen comments. earth fill on five acres of wet- land for construction of new sludge drying beds; and to grade, excavate and redistribute fill to construct a wetlands ecosystem to demonstrate the use of treated wastewater for enhancement of wetlands. (C 89-76) 89-49 PROCEEDINGS uF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1989 NEW COUNCIL BUSINESS ACTION: Councilmember Bittner referred this item to the #1. RE: An ordinance super- consent agenda without objection. seding Executive Order 3. 11 .300 (I 89-8) and establishing an early retire- ment incentive program. #6. RE: The appointment of Bonnie Sucec to the Salt Lake Art ACTION: Councilmember God- Design Board. frey moved and Councilmember Horrocks seconded to suspend the ACTION: Councilmember rules and on first reading adopt Bittner referred this item to the Ordinance 6 of 1989 regarding the Committee of the Whole without Early Retirement Incentive Program objection. for eligible employees of Salt (I 89-9) Lake City Corporation, which motion carried, all members voted UNFINISHED BUSINESS aye except Councilmember Fonnes- beck who was absent for the vote. #1. RE: An ordinance amend- (0 89-6) ing Section 6.04.040, 6 .08.040 and 6 .08. 110 pertaining to Class A #2. RE: The appointment of retail licenses in hotels. Dan Bethel to the Salt Lake City Planning and Zoning Commission. ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember ACTION: Councilmember Horrocks seconded to table the Bittner referred this item to the ordinance until March 7, 1989, to Committee of the Whole without enable the Council to evaluate the objection. fiscal impact of legislation (I 89-5) rescinding the innkeeper' s tax, which motion carried, all members #3. RE: The appointment of voted aye. Karen Wikstrom to the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board. DISCUSSION: Councilmember Godfrey said the Council received ACTION: Councilmember a letter from the police depart- Bittner referred this item to the ment which indicated that they had Committee of the Whole without some objections to the ordinance objection. because it would create added (I 89-6) responsibilities to the police department, especially in the area #4. RE: The reppointment of of vice. He said one paragraph in Myron Richardson to the Salt Lake the letter stated that this change Arts Council. would dramatically increase the calls and needs for police servic- ACTION: Councilmember es. Mr. Godfrey said he was Bittner referred this item to the concerned about this information consent agenda without objection. plus the potential impact of (I 89-7) legislation rescinding the hotel tax that Salt Lake City levied. #5. RE: The reappointment of Frank C. Jackson to the Mosquito He said at this time the Abatement District Board. Council needed to consider the financial impact if the city lost $700,000 of hotel tax and said it 89-50 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1989 was interesting that the Utah try and tie it up in committee or Hotel/Motel Association was lobby- fight it. He said he had not yet ing to rescind the hotel tax while received a report as to the suc- asking Salt Lake to approve this cess of the negotiations. ordinance. He said tourists had an impact on the city and if Salt Mayor DePaulis said he had a Lake lost $700, 000 then the Coun- call from several of the legi- cil needed to consider the resi- slators and this action was not dents of Salt Lake since they out of Rules. In response to a would be negatively impacted. compromise he said he replied that the city had not been offered He said if the Council ap- anything yet that would entice proved this ordinance without Salt Lake to support the pro- looking at the financial impact ponents position. He said Salt then ultimately the residents of Lake offered a compromise but had Salt Lake would be hurt. He asked not received their support. He the Council to table the ordinance said he was holding firm that until after the Legislature was there was no compromise and the through so the Council could see city' s position was to fight this what the financial impact would action and keep it in Rules if be. possible. He said there was no sense of cooperation on their part Councilmember Horrocks ex- and he couldn't recommend their pressed the same concerns about compromise. He said the city was the budget impact and said on one holding firm and his concern was hand the Hotel/Motel Association that the city be involved in the wanted Salt Lake City to help them process rather than just have the make more money but on the other tax taken away. hand were lobbying against the hotel tax which would deprive Salt Councilmember Fonnesbeck also Lake City of needed revenue. said in a related matter that the issues the city requested for more Councilmember Kirk asked flexibility in the Redevelopment Roger Cutler, city attorney, to Agency were taken out and she report what was happening in the thought the Council needed to also Legislature regarding this issue. consider this in regards to the Mr. Cutler said they were negoti- proposed ordinance. ating with the committee and pro- (0 88-35) ponents of the amendment to come up with language which would allow #2. RE: A resolution supple- the city to continue the tax but menting Resolution 24 of 1989 of restrict its use to tourism, Salt Lake City $366, 000 Special conventions and fine arts. He Assessment Bonds, Series 1989, said the tax money could be used West Side Interchange Special to pay off some bonds, the city' s Improvement District No. 38-763, commitment to the Salt Palace, and providing for pricing and terms of supporting the fine arts. He the bonds, approving supplementa- indicated that this would not tion of the Official Statement and impact the budget since the city Bond Purchase agreement, and would use hotel tax money for related matters. these purposes instead of the general fund. He said if they ACTION: Councilmember didn' t accept these amendments Horrocks moved and Councilmember then the city' s intention was to Kirk seconded to adopt Resolution 89-51 PROCEEDINGS Ur' THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1989 26 of 1989, supplementing Resolu- hearing, which motion carried, all tion 24 of 1989 of Salt Lake City members voted aye. $366, 000 Special Assessment Bonds, Series 1989, West Side Interchange Councilmember Kirk moved and Special Improvement District No. Councilmember Godfrey seconded to 38-763, providing for pricing and adopt the proposed amendments to terms of the bonds, approving the Fiscal Year 1988-89 Budgets. supplementation of the Official (no vote was taken) Statement and Bond Purchase agree- ment, and related matters, which Councilmember Stoler moved motion carried, all members voted and Councilmember Hardman second- aye. ed a substitute motion to adopt (Q 84-6) Ordinance 7 of 1989 amending the Fiscal Year 1988/89 Budgets with #3. RE: A resolution supple- the exception of moving $200, 000 menting Resolution 25 of 1989 of from contingency, which motion Salt Lake City $148,000 Special carried, all members voted aye Assessment Bonds, Series 1989, except Councilmembers Fonnesbeck Special Improvement District No. and Kirk who voted nay. 38-813, Non-Contiguous Streets, providing for pricing and terms of DISCUSSION: Steve Fawcett, the bonds, approving supplementa- finance department, briefly out- tion of the Official Statement and lined the proposed amendments. He Bond Purchase agreement, and said the first item was a request related matters. from the fleet maintenance inter- nal service fund to appropriate a ACTION: Councilmember Kirk portion of fund balance and moved and Councilmember Godfrey additional revenue received from seconded to adopt Resolution 27 the sale of surplus vehicles to of 1989, supplementing Resolution purchase three dump trucks that 25 of 1989 of Salt Lake City were requested in a prior fiscal $148, 000 Special Assessment Bonds, year (the funds lapsed and fleet Series 1989, Special Improvement was unable to make the purchase) . District No. 38-813, Non-Contigu- He said they had made the purchase ous Streets, providing for pricing order in the current year but they and terms of the bonds, approving needed the appropriation to cover supplementation of the Official the budget. Statement and Bond Purchase Agree- ment, and related matters, which He said the impact to the motion carried, all members voted general fund was an increase in aye. both revenues received and expen- (Q 87-4) ditures of $90, 447. The airport enterprise fund requested an PUBLIC HEARINGS increase of $20, 044, 100 for capi- tal improvement projects, which #1 RE: A public hearing was something they did yearly. scheduled for 6:20 p.m. to obtain He said the golf fund requested an comment concerning proposed amend- increase in FTEs ( full time em- ments to the Fiscal Year 1988/89 ployees) for a golf maintenance Budgets . supervisor during construction at the new golf courses. He said ACTION: Councilmember this position would remain after Godfrey moved and Councilmember construction as the golf mainte- Kirk seconded to close the public nance supervisor for the new golf 89-52 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1989 course at the airport. He said didn't realize the city was fund- they also requested an increase in ing anything for R/UDAT and he their capital outlay budget of asked who received the money and $33, 000 to purchase needed golf how it was spent. Mr. Fawcett carts before the season and fund- said the CBID was a special fund ing would come from present funds created by a special license fee available from the sale of surplus for down town businesses and they property. had a board of directors that approved their expenditures and He said the health insurance budgets. He said the city fol- trust fund requested a $1, 018, 000 lowed this fund as a matter of appropriation to correct an over- accounting and because the funds sight during the budget process on were handled by the licensing their revenue and expenditure side department. for increased premiums applied to the retirees. He said they were In reference to the R/UDAT receiving the revenue but the expenditure, Craig Peterson, appropriation did not get budgeted director of Development Services, originally. He said there was an said the CBID was the primary accounting transfer between the sponsor of the R/UDAT and the capital improvement fund and the purpose of the money was to con- miscellaneous grant funds relating tinue funding for the staff to to the Canterbury Apartments, insure that R/UDAT was implement- which was strictly an accounting ed. He said some funds would be situation moving the appropriation for staff and some would be for to the capital improvements fund promotional-type activities. since that was more appropriate. Councilmember Godfrey asked He said there was a decrease if the city had the McKinney Act in miscellaneous grant funds of funds. Rosemary Davis, Capital $653, 932, which was made up of Planning and Programming, said increases in the RDA program they had been notified that all income and there was an accounting the city had to do was submit the transfer reappropriating fund application. balance that lapsed at the end of the fiscal year for miscellaneous Councilmember Stoler asked grants. He said they were re- for more clarification about the quired to reappropriate the funds funding for R/UDAT and asked if so they could spend them. He said this would be perpetual funding. they had a new shelter grant that Councilmember Fonnesbeck said the needed to be appropriated and a funds used for this were CBID minor program income from the funds not city funds and said this Capitol Hill revolving fund. was the committee' s own money and they were asking to spend it. He said the Central Business Councilmember Stoler asked where Improvement District requested an CBID got the funds. Mr. Fawcett amendment of $40,000 in order for said the CBID members paid an them to continue their R/UDAT additional business license fee contribution as well as create a that went into the fund. He said Christmas ad for next season and finance didn' t scrutinize the use he said there were funds in their as long as the CBID didn't exceed fund balance for these items. the funds available. Councilmember Hardman said he Councilmember Kirk said the 89-53 PROCEEDINGS Ur THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1989 CBID was going do to a television departments which had been identi- ad for Christmas, they also used fied. Mr. Fawcett indicated that money to continue on the R/UDAT was possible although the funds process, they did the down town would transfer across departmental banners, and they did the Christ- lines. He said the savings was mas lighting. Councilmember mostly in fleet maintenance which Hardman asked why the city was crossed several departmental lines involved in the CBID budget. Mr. and he didn't know if they were Fawcett said it was because the prepared at this meeting to take city assessed the license fee and portions of funds out of different collected it. Councilmember budgets. Stoler asked about the amount of the CBID budget and Mr. Fawcett In reference to using contin- said it was approximately $115, 000 gency funds to pay for additional to $120, 000 a year in new funds costs associated with increasing and they spent probably $80, 000 to the enforcement on delinquent $100, 000 each year. He said offenses, Councilmember Horrocks remaining money was used for indicated that the city wasn't special purposes such as R/UDAT. sure they had a rate of return. Councilmember Stoler asked what Mr. Fawcett said they weren' t CBID funding paid for in R/UDAT. positive if they were returning Mr. Peterson said they viewed the cost of enforcing on the themselves as the implementation delinquencies but he said they team to promote the R/UDAT recom- were gaining $400, 000 per year in mendations. revenue by enforcing delinquent parking notices. He said they Councilmember Hardman asked weren't sure if there would be to discuss the contingency fund enough increase to cover the cost, and asked how much money was however, the Council had to originally earmarked for contin- consider the ramifications by not gency. Mr. Fawcett said they enforcing the issue. originally earmarked $250, 000 of which $50, 000 was tentatively set Roger Cutler, city attorney, aside for additional water needs pointed out that the cost of at the parks department if neces- enforcement encouraged people to sary. Mr. Hardman said there was pay voluntarily and if people knew a request for $200,000 from con- the city didn't enforce parking tingency which would leave a fund tickets then at some point the balance of $27, 000 in contingency. uncollectables would increase. He said there was also an equal Councilmember Hardman asked protection argument that the city about savings earmarked from the shouldn' t let people not pay in departments. Mr. Fawcett said fairness to those citizens who did because they were concerned about pay voluntarily. When the city being low in the contingency fund, changed parking from a criminal to they decided to set a level of a civil issue, Mr. Cutler said $500, 000 for contingency as a their commitment was that they margin of safety. He said they would enforce this vigorously. came up with several different scenarios to cover this fund if Councilmember Fonnesbeck necessary. Councilmember Hardman asked why they were using contin- suggested that rather than spend gency rather than savings from $200, 000 from contingency they departments. Mr. Fawcett said take the necessary funds from that the attorney' s office was 89-54 PROCEEDINGS (Jr THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1989 showing a large deficit in that motivation to come up with the line item of the quarterly finan- savings rather than use contingen- cial report and they were going to cy and he concurred with this transfer those expenditures to the concept. Lee King, Council Staff, treasurer' s office because it made said whether the money was taken more sense. But transferring the from contingency or moved from expenditure without an appropria- fleet now, they still had the tion would cause the treasurer' s problem of a deficit in the trea- office to show a deficit. He said surer's office. He said it would by the end of the fiscal year they be easier to take the money from would have to make an adjustment contingency now, since that is to cover the deficit. what it was for, and then give Council Staff the instructions to Councilmember Hardman sug- capture the departmental savings. gested to amend the budget and take the money from departments Mr. Cutler said he thought rather than contingency. Mr. administration needed to know that Fawcett said the savings was in the Council was aware of the all the departments and it would deficit and would take whatever be a matter of having to identify action necessary to make the the savings by department and then budget whole, including using the reduce each department' s budget to contingency fund if necessary. Or produce the $200, 000. if the money was not found in the Councilmember Godfrey suggested it departmental savings, would the might be better to wait until the Council want this service discon- next budget opening and then tinued. He said he didn't see how transfer the money. the finance department could continue to incur expenses without Mr. Fawcett said that fleet a commitment from the Council that anticipated a savings in their their budget would be made whole budget but they didn't have it "in and if that understanding was not the bank" . Councilmember Hardman there, then he thought the depart- was concerned about the money ment needed to consider ceasing being transferred from contingency further service until the funds and then not being replaced with were appropriated. savings from departments. Mr. Fawcett said the next major budget Councilmember Hardman said he opening would be in June and by strongly supported the enforcement then fleet would have captured the program but said he thought when funds. administration had identified approximately $500, 000 in depart- Councilmember Godfrey asked mental savings then the Council how the Council could give finance should use that money first before direction to make sure savings using contingency. Councilmember would go to contingency. Mr. Fonnesbeck said she was concerned Fawcett said the contingency that they would need to use the appropriation lapsed at the end of contingency for an emergency and the fiscal year; it was not the then the city would have a same as fund balance and if it $200,000 deficit. She was also wasn' t used it lapsed. concerned that a department was spending money they didn' t have. Councilmember Stoler suggest- ed that Mr. Hardman was perhaps No one from the audience trying to give departments the spoke on this issue. (B 88-5) 89-55 PROCEEDINGS UI THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1989 The meeting adjourned at 7: 15 p.m. COUNCIL CHAIRPERSON CITY RECORDER 89-56 PROCEEDINGS Ur' THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT i,AKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1989 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in regular session on Thursday, February 23, 1989, at 5: 15 p.m. in Suite 300, City Hall, 324 South State Street. The following Council Members were present: Florence Bittner Alan Hardman Wayne Horrocks Tom Godfrey Sydney Fonnesbeck Roselyn Kirk Councilmember Stoler was absent from the meeting. Mayor Palmer DePaulis, Roger Cutler, City Attorney, Kathryn Marshall, City Recorder, were also absent. Council Vice Chair Hardman presided at the meeting and Councilmember Bittner conducted the meeting. NEW COUNCIL BUSINESS UNFINISHED COUNCIL BUSINESS #1 . RE: A resolution autho- #1. RE: A resolution autho- rizing the execution and delivery rizing the issuance and confirming of the amendment to interlocal the sale of $36, 400, 000 of Hospi- cooperation agreement, amending tal Revenue Refunding, Series the interlocal cooperation agree- 1989-A ( IHC Hospitals, Inc. ) to be ment dated as of December 1, 1985, issued by Salt Lake City Corpora- among Salt Lake City Corporation, tion for the purpose of refunding Sandy City, Murray City, City of certain revenue bonds previously Orem, Salt Lake County and Millard issued by Salt Lake City Corpora- County, providing for the refund- tion to finance certain health ing of certain revenue bonds care facilities of IHC Hospitals, issued to finance certain health Inc. located within the boundaries care facilities of IHC Hospitals, of Salt Lake City Corporation and Inc. located within the boundaries certain other cities and counties; of Salt Lake City Corporation and and authorizing and directing the the other cities and counties publication of a Notice of Bonds which are signatories to said to be Issued with respect thereto. interlocal cooperation agreement. ACTION: The Council pulled ACTION: Councilmember this item and no action was taken Godfrey moved and Councilmember due to unfavorable interest rates. Hardman seconded to suspend the (Q 89-1) rules and on first reading adopt Resolution 30 of 1989 authorizing the execution and delivery of the PUBLIC HEARING amendment to interlocal coopera- tion agreement, which motion #1. RE: A public hearing carried, all members present voted scheduled for 5:00 p.m. to obtain aye except Councilmember public comment on the issuance of Fonnesbeck who was absent for the Hospital Revenue Refunding Bonds vote. by Salt Lake City Corporation and (C 89-79 ) 89-57 PROCEEDINGS Of THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1989 consider a resolution approving Councilmember Fonnesbeck said the issuance of said bonds. the neighborhood was approached about using the old hospital ACTION: Councilmember Kirk (Primary Children' s ) as an office moved and Councilmember Godfrey building and the neighborhood was seconded to close the public reluctant. She said as she remem- hearing, which motion carried, all bered the bonds had nothing to do members present voted aye except with the renovation of the old Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was hospital and Mr. Matsumori said absent for the vote. this was correct. She said, however, there was an agreement Councilmember Kirk moved and with a restrictive clause as to Councilmember Godfrey seconded to the use of the old hospital and adopt Resolution 31 of 1989 ap- she asked if this would continue proving the issuance of the bonds, to be attached to the bonds. Mr. which motion carried, all members Matsumori said he would double present voted aye except check to make sure it was. Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent for the vote. She said the neighborhood had no problem with funding for the DISCUSSION: Jim Matsumori, new Primary Children' s Hospital Smith Capital Marketing, said this but didn't want the money used to was a required hearing being held rehabilitate the old Primary to consider approving the refi- Children' s Hospital into an office nancing of the debt issued in building. Mr. Matsumori said he 1985. He said in 1985 Salt Lake had checked on that question and City issued bonds for and in was assured funds would not be behalf of Intermountain Health used for that purpose. She said Care for hospital improvements, if the restrictive agreement was expansions, and projects within attached then that would solve the Salt Lake City as well as without situation. (therefore necessitating the interlocal agreement with various Councilmember Horrocks asked entities ) . He said this was fi- what the neighborhood wanted to do nanced with variable-rate bonds with the building. Councilmember since long-term debt was prohibi- Fonnesbeck said they wouldn' t care tively high at that time. if the building was torn down and used for housing or if it was used Councilmember Fonnesbeck for a geriatric center. She asked what this would specifically reiterated that the agreement was finance at LDS Hospital. Mr. the building had to be used for a Matsumori said the proceeds would less-intensive use and had to work be used for Primary Children' s with the master plan. She said Hospital and not LDS Hospital. He the neighborhood didn't think an said this did not authorize new office building met the criteria bonds but was for what was autho- and their fear was that if the old rized in 1985. Councilmember hospital became an office building Fonnesbeck asked if the agreements then the neighborhood could lose signed at that time would go with Shriner' s Hospital to an office the new bonds . Mr. Matsumori said building. (At this point this was correct. She asked him to Councilmember Fonnesbeck left the double check since it was impor- meeting) . tant to her neighborhood. Mr. Matsumori said the vari- 89-58 PROCEEDINGS (,, THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT L KE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1989 able rates over their life, up until this point, had averaged 5 . 5% so at the time this was a wise move. However, short-term rates had risen dramatically and the intention was to replace the variable-rate debt with fixed-rate bonds and eliminate the short-term interest rate risks. It was not to add any new projects. He assured the Council that he would make sure the agreement (referred to by Councilmember Fonnesbeck) was attached. No one from the public ad- dressed this issue. (Q 89-1 ) The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m. COUNCIL CHAIR CITY RECORDER 89-59 D SALT I"��C MY( �. . J DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, 5TH FLOOR LANCE T. BATEMAN, CPA OF DIRECTOR OF FINANCE SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111 PALMER DEPAULIS (801) 535-7676 MAYOR February 24, 1989 TO: W.M. "Willie" Stoler Chairman, Salt Lake City Council RE: SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING - MARCH 21, 1989 BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 4 I respectfully request that the City Council set a date for a budget amendment Public Hearing during their March 7 meeting. I request that the hearing to amend the Fiscal Year 1988-89 Budget be set for March 21, 1989. Funds received by the City from the Housing Authority as a payment in lieu of taxes need to be appropriated and an appropriation be made from the City to the Housing Authority in the same amount. The funds will be used as matching money for a federal housing grant they are receiving to provide transitional housing. Thank you for your assistance. Linda Hamilton Director of Finance LH/hd 3..I ; LEROY W. HOOTON, JR DIRECTOR WENDELL E. EVENSEN, P.E. IUPERINTENDENT _IL Q Tt RP Imo® j WATER SUPPLY & WATERWORKS , 11 E. TIM DOXEY SUPERINTENDENT ;'DEPARTMENT ,OF<PUBLIC UTILITIES WATER RECLAMATION `WATER SUPPLY& WATERWORKS PALMER DEPAULIS JAMES M. LEWIS, C.P.A. c WATER.RECLAMATION.4,.,' MAYOR CHIEF FINANCE& ACCOUNTING OFFICER •153O+SOU7:H WEST TEMPLE GEORGE JORGENSEN, P.E. SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84115 CHIEF ENGINEER February 15, 1989 TO: Salt Lake City Council RE: Agreement amendment between Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah State University Foundation, Project No. 29-R-3 Recommendation: That the Council approve the agreement and forward to the Mayor for execution in behalf of the City Availability of Funds: Budget Discussion: To have Foundation initiate a comprehensive program of monitor- ing the irrigation water quality of the Jordan River at principal diversions during the time period of April 1987 to September 1987 , April 1988 to Sept. 1988 and April 1989 to September 1989. Foundation will be paid a fixed fee of $14 ,720.00 for rendering all basic services for the period of 1989. 1 . Please return two copies of the agreement to this office for further processing. Submitted by: .t-A, titi+1'0 LEROY W. JSOTON, JR. Director Department of Public Uti ities :1 of Attachments 69-10-3 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO LABORATORY SERVICES CONTRACT SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION and UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION THIS AGREEMENT AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of the day of , 1989 , by and between SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a municipal corporation of the State of Utah, hereinafter "City" , and UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION, hereinafter "Foundation" , wherein the parties desire to, and do hereby, amend that certain laboratory services contract between them dated March 10, 1987 , by amending the first subparagraph of Article I . , Subparagraph A. and Article III . , Subparagraph A. both of which are to read as follows: ARTICLE I . , A. "To have Foundation initiate a comprehensive program of monitoring the irrigation water quality of the Jordan River, Salt Lake County, Utah, at principal diversions during the time period of April 1987 to September 1987 , April 1988 to September 1988 and April 1989 to September 1989 . " ARTICLE III. , A. "Fees. Foundation shall be paid a "fixed fee" of $11, 593 . 00 for the period of April 1987 to September 1987 ; $12 , 820. 00 for the period of April 1988 to September 1988 ; and $14 , 720. 00 for the period of April 1989 to September 1989 , for rendering all basic services rendered and/or obtained hereunder. A breakdown of said fee by Task for each period is attached as Exhibit "B" . Payment for "additional or special services" shall be only pursuant to the provisions of Article III (B) (2) , or as otherwise prior agreed to in writing by the parties. " EXCEPT as modified hereby, said agreement between the parties of March 10, 1987 , shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this Agreement Amendment to be effective as of the day and year first above written. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION Palmer A. DePaulis Mayor ATTEST: City Recorder UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION M.K. p s Jee Busines ager/Treasurer T T: Ti Kent W. Henderson Division Director STATE OF UTAH ss. County of Salt Lake On , personally appeared before me, PALMER DEPAULIS and KATHRYN MARSHALL, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the MAYOR and CITY RECORDER, respectively, of SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a municipal corporation of the State of Utah, and said persons acknowledged to me that said corporation executed the same. NOTARY PUBLIC, residing in Salt Lake County, Utah My Commission Expires : STATE OF UTAH ss. County of Cache On the &'-(', day of (e,//,y;4 (�_ , 1989 , personally appeared before me, M. K. JEPPESEN and KENT W. HENDERSON, the signers of the foregoing instrument , who, being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the BUSINESS MANAGER/TREASURER and DIVISION DIRECTOR, respectively, of the UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION, and said persons acknowledged to me that they executed said instrument for the UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION. NO ARY PU IC, residing_ 1i7 Cache Cou y, Utah My Commission Expires : EXHIBIT "B" Amendment No. 2 April 1989 to September 1989 BUDGET LABOR J. J. Jurinak (132 hours @ $40. 33/hour) $ 5, 324 Carl Topper (100 hours @ $16. 42/hour) 1, 642 Secretary ( 40 hours @ $ 6. 00/hour) 240 TOTAL LABOR $ 7 , 206 BENEFITS Benefits are calculated at sixteen percent of salary, and represent only those benefits mandated by law (FICA, Workman' s Compensa- tion, Unemployment, etc. ) ( . 16 X 7 , 206) 1, 153 TOTAL BENEFITS 1 , 153 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS Irrigation Water Quality 1, 620 Heavy Metals 400 TOTAL CHEMICAL ANALYSIS 2 , 020 TRAVEL Travel will be limited to ten round trips from Logan, Utah to Salt Lake City, Utah, and vicinity. (10 trips @ 250 miles/trip @ . 21/mile) 525 TOTAL TRAVEL 525 INDIRECT COSTS (Overhead) The indirect cost rate for the Utah State University Foundation is calculated at thirty-five (35%) percent of total costs. ( . 35 X $10, 904) 3 , 816 TOTAL PROPOSAL $14 ,720 RESOLUTION NO. OF 1988 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13, U.C.A. , 1953, as amended, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, the attached agreement has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: 1 . It does hereby approve the attached agreement generally described as follows : An amendment of the City and University Agreement of March 10, 1987 to amend and enlarge the scope of work to include a comprehensive monitoring of water quality in the Jordan River at several points, and payment therefor. 2. Palmer A. DePaulis, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby authorized to execute said agreement on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation and to act in accordance with its terms . Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989 . SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER RLM: rc smarmA CORPVW A IONt DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ROSEMARY DAVIS Capital Planning and Programming DIRECTOR 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 240 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 535-7902 February 28 , 1989 TO: THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL RE: HOLDING HUD REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING ON GENERAL HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS Overview: In order for Community Development planning to proceed it is necessary to hold a public hearing to solicit citizen input from effected community organizations, neighborhood councils, and interested citizens about general community development and housing needs. Availability of Funds: The City ' s CDBG allocation for July 1, 1989 is $3 , 947,000. Discussion: This public hearing is required by HUD to obtain citizen input on general housing and community development needs including housing rehabilitation, street and sidewalk improvements, development of parks , public buildings, planning and public services. Comments regarding the overall performance of the City ' s CDBG program are also solicited at this time. The hearing is scheduled so that citizens ' and community organizations ' comments can be considered by the Mayor before he makes his recommendation for annual CDBG funding to the Council. The public is invited to the hearing through a CDBG Announcement sent to 250 organizations and individuals by Capital Planning and Programming, a display ad in the newspaper , and by the Council ' s regular meeting notices. Recommendation: That on March 7, 1989 the Council set a public hearing to meet HUD CDBG requirements and solicit input on housing and community development needs for Tuesday, March 21 , 1989 . Sincerely, Rosemary Davis / / Director RD/SL . . fr - , C _.....,.. ./ -= SF-1.•=,:•!sKy rs BF-jE;•Is c.' OFFICE OF TEE MAYOR .' 4 o 1988 324 South State Street Suite 500 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 ,-.,.,,017,4 ^, ••-r:7 . 535-7704 A,.t.5,1_;,-.:.-: ,.4-2-.0 . .... . .,.:..:.,-.: Nene: 0Y211-E-ILEVIE2501i---------------L. 11,--11 Address: 7 Cp `D .., Street 1, . - 3 . , 56.4_7-- tiKg C1,Tr tY-t0=3 ti City Zip Council District Phone: 5-ints2 ,4-2-6)&1 pt Borne Work -.4 Ccoupation: 7AcR1411-F7 . . . A . . ., . .ii Ccumittee(s) , Board(s) , Comission(s) or Authority in which you are interested: • - . , :. )y\-19 cr ArF5645 l',"' '' • prersc,DILLA a, . . - , .t Reason for your interest in this particular comittee/boArd/comnission or • authority: • -i -5- WAS 72'Gt<EZ) I3Y A ivt/ KA5F_f __Thri i )76,c4D oF s IQ tiE5n/IN.1 - MIr)m7Acrr. , • Are you currently serving on any other city ,,,mm;ti-0.? If so, which committee(s)/board(s)/commission(s)/authority: Have you had previous contact with the mamittee/hcard/commission/authority for which you are asking application? // --5 If so, when, and circumstances: ' "The QA/1 ff121;: r. "---ED A CLIE-QT 4WcRIDcris,4974,,Ls tiNl. 161N ANJO jRECZIVEP Ac -is.,\•loRz..i5( - tiLlin • c k. (OVER) • "A .1 . • SALTI {AKE 6ITY CORPORATION DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ROSEMARY DAVIS Capital Planning and Programming DIRECTOR 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 240 , (LI\ \\ SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 _n \w 535-7902 Q `� W \C)'‘)(-V) February 28, 1989 :`s- 6(3\ ,,,bS ) \CP \t? 3 TO: Willie Stoler , Chairperson c \c' ' ,\ Salt Lake City Council RE: URBAN HOMESTEAD PROGRAM APPLICATION RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign an application for a $125 , 000 grant from HUD for the Salt Lake City Urban Homestead Program. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS : No funding action is required. If the application is successful , HUD will grant funds to the City and a program account will be set up after the application is approved . DISCUSSION: New funding limitations have reduced the initial City program to $125 , 000 , or approximately 5 homes. These homes may be acquired from either FHA or the VA within designated Central City and Westside neighborhoods. However , since the intent of the program is to produce a demonstrated impact, it is proposed that a limited geographic area be initially targeted. The selection of the target area will be made by assessing the availability of suitable properties at the time the program is approved. As new funding is available, other neighborhoods will be targeted as part of a coordinated neighborhood improvement plan that includes upgrading community services and facilities. Both public and private funds will be used to rehabilitate the properties as needed . Because the RDA has staff and expertise and is the only qualified agency to administer the program in any neighborhood, they have been selected as the Local Urban Homestead Agency for the City and will acquire properties and match applicants with appropriate dwellings and improvement commitments . Program administrative cost will be absorbed into the current RDA operating budget. We feel that processing the application as it is and receiving the grant for the first five houses, will qualify us to participate in any recaptured Urhan Homestead funds as well as the new allocation expected this fall . Salt Lake City' s program can then be expanded to better address the needs and concerns of our neighborhoods. Sincerely, Rosemary Davis Director ,) RD/RMB<ap>9026 APPLICATION FOR .- OMB Afaproval lifo.03A9-oo4 • j 2.DATV.SLIDNITTED l',OPi ant Identilxx I FEDERAL ASSISTANCE 1. TY7>E Ots SUBMISSIOBE2.DATE_RECEIVED BY STATE State Application Id ntifesr Application Prpap net,uion 0 Construction ® Constructiorn 4.DATE RECEIVED BY FEDEEIA6 AGENCY Feral Idonhfior tt) Ion-Construction 0 Non-Constiect on — S. APPLICANT INFOt1MATlON Legal Name. Salt Lake City Corporation ar�,n'aatx 'un`. Capital Planning and Programming Address(give City, county,state. and zip code): , Name and telephone nurnter of the psrson to be contacted o71 matters involving 324 South State Street, Room 240 this appIrcation (grvo erne code) (801 ) 535-7902 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Rosemary Davis , Director 324 South State Street, Room 240 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 e. EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER(EIM): 7. TYPE OF APPLICANT: Confer appropriate letter in box) ❑ A. State H Independent Schoot Dist. 8 7 ®' 6 ,0 , 0 0 2 7 9 8 County I.' State Control!vd Institution of Highef Learning 6 TYPE OF APPLICATION C Municipal - J. Private Unrversiry D Township K Indian Tribe New 0 Continuation 0 Roinsion E. Interstato " L. Individual F Inttsrmunicip.I M Profit Organization If Revision,enter appropriate tettorts)in box(es): ® D G Special District N.Other(Specify) A Increase Award 8 Decrease Award C Increa=i Duration D. Decrease Duration Other (specify): 9. NAME OF FEDERAL AGENCY: Housing and Urban Development le. CATALOG nr FEDERAL DOMESTIC tt. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF APPLICANTS PROJECT: ASSISTANCE NUMBER: rqL T- TITLE. Urban Homestead Program Salt Lake City Urban Homestead Program (See Attached Project Description) C. 12. AREAS AFFECTED BY PROJECT(cities. counties, states. etc.): Salt Lake City Utah 13. PROPOSED PROJECT: 14. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF: Start Date Ending Date a. Applicant b Protect 3/89 2nd - 2nd Is.ESTIMATED FUNDING: 16.IS APPLICATION SUDJECT TO REVIEW DY STATE EXECUTIVE ORDER 12272 PROCESS? a. YES THIS PREAPPLICATIOWAPPLICATION WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE a Federal $ 250,000 .00 STATE EXECUTIVE ORDER 12372 PROCESS FOR REVIEW ON • b. Applicant 2 .OD DATE c State $ .003 b NO ❑ PROGRAM IS NOT COVERED BY E 0 12372 d Local .00 175,000 0 OR PROGRAM HAS NOT BEEN SELECTED BY STATE FOR REVIEW e Other S .00 I Program Income $ .00 17. tS THE APPLICANT DELINQUENT ON ANY FEDERAL DEBT? ❑ Yes If 'Yes.' attach an explanation ❑ No g TOTAL $ .00 425,000 `. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF ALL DATA IN THIS APPLICATION PREAPPLICATION ARE TRUE AND CORRECT.THE DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DULY JTHORIZED BY THE GOVERNING DODY OF THE APPLICANT AND THE APPLICANT WILL COMPLY WITH THE ATTACHED ASSURANCES IF THE ASSISTANCE IS AWARDED a Typed Name of Authorized Representative . b Title . c Telephone number Palmer A. DePaulis Mayor (801) 5.35-7902 e Dare Signed d Signature of Authorized Representative _____a._. ......,...... — Standard Form .24 * RESOLUTION NO. OF 1989 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN APPLICATION FOR A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND THE U. S . DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS , Title 11, Chapter 13 , Utah Code Annotated, 1953 , as amended, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services ; and WHEREAS , the attached agreement has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council. of Salt Lake City, Utah; 1 . It does hereby approve the attached application generally described as follows, including such modifications thereto as may be determined necessary to comply with all applicable statutes, rules or regulations: AN APPLICATION FOR AN URBAN HOMESTEAD PROGRAM GRANT UNDER SECTION 810 OF THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1974 (PUBLIC LAW 93-383 ) , AS AMENDED, BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND THE U. S . DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT. 2. Palmer A. DePaulis , Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah is hereby authorized to execute said application and subsequent agreements to establish the program within the local jurisdiction, including such modifications thereto as may be determined necessary to comply with all applicable statutes, rules or regulations, on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation and to act in accordance with its terms. Passed by the City Council of Salt lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989 . SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL CHAIRPERSON ATTEST CITY RECORDER URBAN HOMESTEAD PROGRAM DESCRTPTTON OVERVIEW OF LOCAL HOUSING NEEDS As an indication of the City' s historic commitment to improved housing conditions, in 1980 Salt Lake City Housing Element was adopted to provide direction for an aggressive program of revitalizing older neighborhoods and promoting new housing opportunities in the City. The goals and policies of this plan were grouped into nine general objectives : 1 . Address current deficiencies in the housing stock. 2 . Improve the quality of neighborhood living. 3 . Encourage diversity of housing. 4 . Coordinate and improve housing relocation programs for people who are displaced due to housing demolition. 5 . Annually review and update the Housing Element. 6 . Improve neighborhood services and environmental conditions. 7 . Foster Federal, State, and local government action to provide increased housing funding. 8 . Promote innovative housing programs . 9 . Foster cooperation between government and the private sector . The 1986 Housing Element Update reviewed the substantial progress made in achieving the initial goals and objectives and then examined other current housing problems in the City, particularly conditions related to neighborhoods impacted by proximity to, and encroachment by, commercial and industrial uses. The extent of this problem was demonstrated by statistical comparisons that showed 42% and 45% of the housing was deteriorated in commercial and industrial zones in contrast to 16% in residential districts . A primary measure of the stress on housing i.n particular neighborhoods was the change in the number of residential units . According to the report, in the decade preceding the Housing Element Update, 2, 700 housing units had been torn down in the City, the majority of which were located in the older residential areas near the central business district. Several conditions were identified that operated counter to adopted housing preservation objectives and perpetuated the loss of inventory: * Most of this housing is owned by nonresident investors , many of whom have a strong speculative interest in the underlying land. Such housing is often demolished to make way for new development. * Much of the housing located in such areas is deteriorated due to age and lack of maintenance. * General blight and neighborhood decline become self- fulfilling : investor and homeowners will not substantially rehabilitate housing as long as neighboring structures remain in deteriorated conditions . Breaking this cycle of decline is very difficult . * It is widely held , though an undocumented belief , that mortgage and home improvement financing are more difficult to obtain for housing in areas where property values are unstable. * Among the few residents who are homeowners , the majority are elderly people who purchased their homes before the area became dominated by nonresidential uses . * Residential qualities and support services such as public parks and landscaping are often lacking. PROGRAM OBJECTIVES A recognition of the problems of maintaining inventory as identified in the Housing Element Update, has led to specific emphasis in the City' s neighborhood improvement programs . For example, targeting priorities of the Community Development Block Grant program and other public assisted housing initiative have been assigned to the East Central , West Side and Northwest sectors of the City where the greatest loss of inventory has occurred . These concerns are reflected in the language used to describe the primary goal of the most recent Community Development Plan, "to revitalize, redevelop and preserve neighborhoods" , and in the following specific CD objectives: * the prevention of slums and blight and the elimination of blighting influences; * the elimination of conditions detrimental to health, safety and public welfare; * the conservation and expansion of housing stock; * the expansion and improvement of the quantity and quality of community services; * a more rational utilization of land and other natural resources; and * the alleviation of physical and economic distress through the stimulation of private investment and community revitalization. Tmplementat.inn programs and projects to meet these objectives have been introduced through housing rehabilitation, infrastructure improvements, and social service supports . Fundamental to each initiative is either a direct or implied element incorporating a recognition of the importance of infusing neighborhoods with owner occupied housing that contributes to social stability and solidarity. Since the Urban Homestead program is specifically directed at supporting long-term commitments to neighborhood and housing preservation, it can be an important element in perpetuating community housing and neighborhood objectives . Accordingly, the proposed development of an Urban Homestead program in Salt Lake City is particularly directed to the following purposes: * Reinforcing the broad goals of CDBG and other neighborhood and housing improvement programs. * Providing a specific program which emphasizes the need and value of owner-occupied housing . * Providing housing for socially and economically disadvantaged members of the community . * Reducing the stock of available housing in the federal- owned inventory. CENSUS MAP AND NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARY MAP NETGTTBORTTOOD SELECTION AND PROGRAM GOALS The procedure for identifying potential Urban Homestead neighborhoods in Salt Lake City has been structured to identify conditions in geographic areas where the program objectives can be realized. Selection of individual neighborhoods for inclusion in the program requires qualification by way of a three point need assessment: (1) Examine housing conditions to identify areas where there is existing evidence, or there are potential conditions, which lead to deterioration in neighborhood social fabric: ( 2) Identify and examine current efforts to retain or regain neighborhood vitality through local government and community based intervention which will be complemented by the Urban Homestead program: (3 ) Examine historic HUD and VA repossession records to define areas where there has been higher than usual repossession rate. In accordance with the established qualifying criteria , the following geographic areas are being proposed for inclusion in the Homestead program. The Jackson/Onequa Area and the Guadalupe Area - Census Tracts 6 and 1 Geographic Boundary The Jackson and Onequa areas are part of the larger Northwest Community that includes all of the City north of North Temple and west of I-15 . Jackson is the district outh f 600 South and east of 10th West to I-15 (which is immediately east o while Onequa matches those north and south boundaries and extends west generally to Redwood Road. The area is approximately the same as Census Tract 6 and has a similar boundary to the 1980 Neighborhood Statistical Areas (NSA) 12 and 23 . Guadalupe extends the same 600 North and North Temple boundary eastward from Interstate 15 to the Union Pacific Railroad tracks. This district includes all of statistical area 21 and lies in the southern portion of Census Tract 1 . Housing Conditions and Population Characteristics According to the 1980 Census, 59 . 3% of the housing in the Jackson area was built before 1940 and of the 798 occupied units , 56% were inhabited by owners and 44% by renters. Of. the 447 owner- occupied housing units, 85 . 5 % were occupied by White householders, 6 . 7% by Blacks, 0. 2% by Native Americans , and 11. 2% by householders of Spanish Origin. The percent of minority population is substantially higher than the Neighborhood Publication Area average of 95 . 5% White household occupation. (Neighborhood Publication Area, or NPA, refers to the total geographic area that includes a set of neighborhoods having special demographic characteristics that are of interest to service providers of disadvantaged populations . The boundary of the Salt Lake City NPA is included in this report . ) In 1980 , approximately 100 of all residential units in the Jackson area were vacant. City-wide vacancies have doubled since 1980 , hence the percent of vacancies in the three neighborhoods under consideration has likely also increased . The age of housing , vacancy rate, and the percent of minority occupation for the Onequa area is considered comparable to the Jackson district . According to the Polk Profiles of Change completed just prior to the last U . S . Census , approximately 80% of the housing in the combined Jackson/Onequa area was single family, but only about 62% of the total housing was owner- occupied . In the Guadalupe area , 40% of the 320 dwelling units were single family and 32% of the total housing stock was owner-occupied . The 64% ethnic population here is the highest of all City neighborhoods and the number of female head of household with children is 16 . 5% or about twice the City average. Ethnic background and head of household characteristics, along with average income, percent of elderly population, and number of substandard and vacant housing units were the principal criteria used to identify the Guadalupe area as a CDBG target area in 1982. Neighborhood Improvement Program At the time the Jackson neighborhood was identified as a potential CDBG target area in 1978 it was described as being "particularly well suited for a concentrated, coordinated program designed to improve the neighborhood" . With the long-range objective for the Community Development program being to "preserve and enhance residential character through rehabilitation and conservation of its housing stock, and revitalization of older neighborhoods" , the following housing related strategies were adopted along with nine other utility and infrastructure improvement objectives : * Land Writedown Program - acquisition of vacant land by the Redevelopment Agency for resale at a reduced price to families or developers to build moderately priced housing . The program is to encourage young families to move into the neighborhood * Housing Rehabilitation - the program administered by the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency, provides grants and low interest loans to enable residents to bring their dwellings up to code. * Emergency Home Repair - a grant program that makes emergency repairs to homes that affect the health, safety or welfare of the occupants . Approximately one hundred homes have been rehabilitated through the Redevelopment Agency in Jackson at a cost of $600 , 000 since 1979 . Land write-down by the Redevelopment Agency during the same period was $328 , 000 and resulted in the construction of 15 new residential units. Tn addition , over $1 , 000 , 000 in Community Development Block Grant funds have been invesLed in neighborhood physical improvements and infrastructure including approximately $500 , 000 to enhance the delivery of various social programs. While CDBG target status is being phased out of the Jackson neighborhood , the Guadalupe will continue to be a candidate for funding and the Onequa area is expected to be designated as a target area and be eligible for CDBG investments beginning as early as 1989 . The substantial commitment in physical improvements and social programs to the Northwest Communities through CDBG funding will continue to be reinforced with RDA housing programs. Homestead Program Objectives The background information on the Jackson/Onequa and Guadalupe area indicates a district of maturing housing stock occupied by a relatively high ethnic minority and low/moderate income population. Generally, the structures within the district are of sound construction and if properly maintained can be expected to remain in service for many more years. Except along the major transportation routes which are at the perimeter of the district, there is no eminent threat of substantial land use change in the near future, provided the quality of the housing stock and the integrity of the neighborhoods remain sound . The home rehabilitation and owner-occupied aspects of the Urban Homestead program are consistent with other district programs aimed at neighborhood reinvestment. The Urban Homestead program is unique in that it requires a physical and social commitment by the homesteader and in doing so, provides significant support to the integrity of the neighborhood. Based on survey information indicating the availability of 8 program-qualified HUD and VA homes over the past two years in the Jackson/Onequa and Guadalupe areas , it is estimated that the Urban Homestead program could place at least 15 units in these three neighborhoods over the next 5 years. West Side Neighborhoods - Census Tracts 26 , 27 and 28 Geographic Boundary The West Side Community area , between North Temple and 2100 South, east of Redwood Road to I-15 , includes the Neighborhood Statistical Areas 2 , 15 , 19 , 24 , 30 , 35 and 36 . Within this community is the Westside CDBG Target Area extending from I-80 to 900 South between I-15 and the Jordan River , the Euclid Community Development Target Area bounded north and south by North Temple and I-80 , from I-15 to 1100 West, the Poplar Grove neighborhood from North Temple to the railroad tracks at 900 South between the Jordan River and Redwood Road, and the Glendale neighborhood including all of the area east of Redwood Road to I-15 from California Avenue ( 1300 South) to the south City boundary at 2100 South. Housing Conditions and Population Characteristics According to the 1.980 census , there were a total of 5 , 533 housing units in this district . Only 46 . 7% were occupied by owners compared to 50 . 1% in the NPA. Because vacancy rates throughout the City are currently higher than reported in the 1980 census , it is estimated that the present number of vacant rental units in the West Side neighborhoods is perhaps two to three times greater than the rental vacancy rate reported on 1980 which ranged by NSA from 3 . 0% to 12 . 5%. A further indication of the extent of the vacancy problem is evident from the Housing Vacancy Survey compiled as of January 1987 by the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle. Zip Code 84104 which includes all of the West Side neighborhoods from 400 West had a multi-family vacancy rate of 15 . 4 percent. This area also currently has the largest number of vacant and repossessed HUD and VA homes in the City. The housing east of the Jordan River is generally older than the area west of the river . In the NSAs east of the river , 16% to 52% of all units were constructed pre-1940 compared to 5 . 5% and 5 . 9% west of the river . The exception is the western NSA 36 which had about 24% of the housing stock constructed before 1940 . All of the neighborhoods have a higher minority population than the NSA average of 4 . 5%. Statistical Areas 15 and 19 have the highest minority population at approximately 17% with those of Spanish origin dominating. Neighborhood Improvement Programs Both the Euclid and Westside neighborhoods (Statistical Areas 5 and 35 ) have been designated as CDBG Target Areas . In 1988 , $400 , 000 in CDBG funds were programmed in the Euclid neighborhood for street and utility work to counteract the threat of commercial/industrial encroachment and improve the residential environment. Recent zoning changes have also been made to enhance and perpetuate the traditional residential uses . Since 1983 the Euclid neighborhood has been eligible for housing rehabilitation funds through the Pedevolopment Agency and many properties have been improved through the program. The Westside target area was initially designated in the 1979 - 1982 Community Development Plan and has been maintained in the program since. In the 5th, 6th and 7th CDBG years $300 , 000 was programed for expenditures on housing rehabilitation and neighborhood revitalization, approximately $250 , 000 for utilities , and $785 , 000 for neighborhood facilities including parks . Beginning in 1982 (CDBG 8th year) the Salt Lake Neighborhood Housing Services expanded their program to include the Westside and Poplar Grove areas for assisted housing rehabilitation. During the 8th, 9th and 10th years total programmed CDBG funding directed to the Westside exceeded one million dollars and since the 10th year an additional million dollars has been committed to various physical improvement and social service programs . Urban Homestead Program Objectives The appropriateness of the Urban Homestead program in the Westside district can be observed by examining neighborhood conditions . In the Glendale area , commercial and industrial encroachment along the arterial highways on the east, south and west neighborhood boundaries makes the older housing stock particular susceptible to displacement . Efforts are required to maintain the viability of these areas by demonstrating a public commitment to preserving housing. And even though a casual examination does not seem to imply an adverse housing market at the interior of the community, a trend to neighborhood disinvestment may be indicated by the HUD and VA repossession rate. The foreclosures are seen as an indicator of a lack of commitment to the neighborhood , and concerns about this trend has recently prompted planners to nominate the Glendale area for CDBG target designation. The value of the Urban Homestead program will be to decrease the number of vacant homes in the neighborhood, and in addition, enhance social stability through commitment to the neighborhood while providing new housing ownership opportunities . The aggregate of all Homestead program eligible properties for the area over the past two years was 18 . It is estimated that over the next five years at least 28 units be placed . Central_ C_i ty,_ South Central and Peoples Freeway Neighborhoods - Census Tracts 19 , 20, 21 , 23, 24, 29 , 30, 31, and 32. Geographic Boundary The Peoples Freeway and Central City neighborhoods proposed for Urban Homestead participation are located generally east of 1-15 and West of 700 East from 2100 South to North and South Temple streets. Neighborhood Statistical Areas 4, 6, 18, 29, and 33 are included in this boundary. The boundary also encompasses the Peoples Freeway CDBG target area, the South Central target area and the western portion of the now inactive Central City target area . Housing Conditions and Population Characteristics Using 1980 Census counts there were 11 , 068 housing units in the combined neighborhood area. This area is dominated by older homes, with much of it being constructed as tract development about the turn of the century. Statistics indicate, for example, that in each of the NSA survey units, more than 50% of the housing was constructed before 1940 . In area 18, which is from North Temple to 900 South between 400 West and I-15 , no new housing has been constructed since 1940 . In these same neighborhoods, the ratio of renter to owner occupied housing is very high with all neighborhoods reporting more that 60% of the housing occupied by renters and the two areas west of downtown having more than 96% of residents in rental units . The other census tracts that exceed the NSA average 49 . 9% renter occupied ratio are 21, 29 , 31 , and 32 . There is a correspondingly high number of minority residents in each of the NSA neighborhoods and in every instance the percent of minorities living in single family homes exceeds the NSA average. Neighborhood Improvement Programs The People' s Freeway neighborhood has participated in housing rehabilitation programs through the Redevelopment Agency since 1981 . In addition, there have been extensive CDBG investments in reconstruction of street and utility infrastructure. A park and two storm water detention basins have also been constructed at a cost of approximately $l million with CDBG monies. The Central City and South Central neighborhoods were selected as Redevelopment Rehabilitation Areas in the mid-1970s and over 500 hundred of homes have been improved under this program. Because of the proximity to the central business district and the continual threat of commercial and industrial use encroachment, CDBG funds have been used to fortify the residential integrity of these neighborhoods since inception of the program. A community center has been constructed, three parks built, and streets and infrastructure improved. Nine block redesign projects have been undertaken to protect fragile inner-block housing on substandard streets. There remains, however , a persistent need to not only protect the existing housing stock, but also to minimize the negative impact of land speculatinn for nonresidential uses by promoting opportunities for owner-occupied home acquisition. Homestead Program Objectives The CDBG program and the residential rehabilitation programs are having, and will continue to have significant positive impact in these areas . The Urban Homestead program would not only complement current efforts aimed at eliminating individual property neglect and blight , but also directly increase the owner-occupied housing stock while demonstrating a public commitment to neighborhood preservation. Over the past two years there have been 13 homes that would qualify for urban homestead participation in the near-central city neighborhoods . With the continuing commitment by the city for maintaining the residential viability of this area , it is estimated that at least 30 homestead units be could placed over the next five years . ADMINISTRATIVE PLAN LOCAL URBAN HOMESTEADING AGENCY The Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency (RDA) is designated as the Local Urban Homestead Agency (LUHA) for Salt Lake City. The RDA was initially created to administer federal urban renewal programs and has a long history of involvement in rehabilitation and revitalization of housing . The RDA is a Community Development Block Grant subgrantee of the City receiving funds for various housing assistance programs . The RDA has experience in administering the following housing initiatives: Low interest Section 312 rehabilitation loans . (Currently operating only on funds from loans being repaid . ) Community Development loans and grants to low and moderate income home owners and investors for the rehabilitation of owner and renter housing. Multifamily Rental Rehabilitation program. Land "writedown" program to acquire property for future assisted housing projects . Relocation assistance for RDA sponsored projects. Housing rehabilitation bonds . URBAN HOMESTEAD PROGRAM General Conditions The Redevelopment Agency will administer the Urban Homestead program under a contractual agreement with the City which will stipulate that the RDA: Select eligible HUD/VA owned properties, prepare the rehabilitation work write-up and cost estimates , and prepare financial plans for each property. Advertise the property to qualified homesteaders. Receive and select homesteader applicants according to the criteria, and select the homesteaders with the assistance of a selection committee . Convey conditional title to the homesteader for five years upon compliance with necessary rehabilitation and other program conditions, and make final conveyance when the terms of the homesteader agreement are met. Homesteaders who receive property must demonstrate that they have the ability to afford a loan for rehabilitation and to pay property taxes and insurance. Loans for rehabilitation will be available to qualified homesteaders through the Redevelopment Agency. 1 . Eligible Properties Properties owned by HUD and VA will be acquired by the Redevelopment Agency for use in the Program. These properties will be: Located in pre-designated program areas and/or other CDBG targeted area neighborhoods . One to four unit structures . Unoccupied dwellings . 2 . Eligible Improvements The property will meet all Property Rehabilitation Standards (PRS) requirements and all applicable City codes upon completion of rehabilitation. Priority will be given to correct health and safety requirements. Energy efficiency standards and all other rehabilitation items indicated by written evaluation will also be mandated. Violation of standards shall be corrected before fee title will be conveyed to the homesteader . Improvements may be made on garages , driveways , fences , retaining walls and landscaping with Section 312 funds , according to the guidelines of the Section 312 program. Removal of architectural barriers for handicapped persons shall be considered as a health and safety requirement . "Sweat equity" is allowed under the program if the applicant can meet the following criteria : The homesteader is a tradesman and can perform the work which is covered under his trade. The homesteader may negotiate the performance of certain work items on the work write-up. This "sweat equity" will be performed within certain established time periods that are mutually agreed to by the Redevelopment Agency and the homesteader . If the homesteader is able, painting of the residence may be performed if this task can be completed in conjunction with the contracted portion of the rehabilitation loan. 3 . Rehabilitation Plan Prior to purchasing the property, the Redevelopment Agency will determine that rehabilitation of the property is structurally and financially feasible according to its inspection and work write- up in accordance with its current rehabilitation program guidelines. The Redevelopment Agency will prepare a rehabilitation analysis which details the nature of the work to be performed and a cost estimate to determine the costs of needed repairs . Energy conservation measures to comply with energy conservation standards will be identified . This analysis shall be available to all qualified applicants. 4 . Participation Requirements The following conditions for participation in the Program will apply: Major rehabilitation items such as plumbing, heating and electrical repair must be corrected. Rehabilitation work shall begin within 30 days of the execution of "Homesteader ' s Agreement" . Occupancy by the homesteader may not commence until those items relating to health and safety have been corrected. The homesteader must agree to permit periodic inspections at mutually agreed upon times by the Redevelopment Agency representatives for the purpose of determining the quality and progress of the work . The homesteader must agree to complete all required rehabilitation work within three years of the execution of the "Homesteader ' s Agreement" . After completion of the scheduled rehabilitation work in accordance with the "Homesteader ' s Agreement" , the homesteader shall be issued a certificate of completion. Fee simple title will be conveyed upon full compliance with the terms of the agreement between the Redevelopment Agency and the homesteader . The homesteader shall be required to occupy the property for a period of five consecutive years commencing on the date the property is occupied by the homesteader . The homesteader may not lease, rent, sell , or allow others to occupy the property in his/her stead, with or without compensation, during the period required for mandatory occupation. If the homesteader vacates the property prior to fulfilling the terms of the homesteader agreement, title to the property will revert to the Redevelopment Agency and the homesteader will receive no monetary benefit from the property. During the rehabilitation period, the homesteader shall maintain adequate "all perils" insurance on the property . Upon receiving title to the property, the homesteader shall agree to carry adequate perils and liability insurance on the structure at all times. The Redevelopment Agency will be named coinsured on such coverage . The homesteader shall agree to comply with such additional terms as the Redevelopment Agency may designate in the Homestead Agreement in order to insure that the rehabilitation of the property is successfully completed . Home owner Selection Procedure 1 . General Advertisement Redevelopment Agency will publicize the Program through local media . Public housing tenants will be notified and mailings will be made to agencies and individuals concerned with low-income issues . The location of where to pick up applications , a brief description of the Program, and the application deadlines will be stated in each notice. 2 . Application Selection Applications will be accepted from interested persons without regard to race, color , religion, sex, or national origin, age or handicap. Applications must qualify through a pre-screening process to determine eligibility. The Redevelopment Agency will ascertain the applicants income, assets, family size and other qualifying information. All applicants who successfully complete the pre-screening process will complete a pre-application form and will undergo a credit and employment verification check. All eligible applicants will be advised of the Program' s properties and dates and times of inspection of properties . If more applications are received than available units, the Redevelopment Agency will hold a drawing of properties to select homesteaders. Any qualified applicant not picked will have their name put back on the list for future drawings . Once a potential homesteader has been selected in the drawing, the homesteader will receive a letter instructing the homesteader to complete an application for a rehabilitation loan from the Redevelopment Agency. The Redevelopment Agency will counsel the homesteader on the scope of required rehabilitation work and the contractor selection process. The Redevelopment Agency will process the loan under the existing Rehabilitation Program guidelines . ESTIMATED PROCESS TIMING Transfer of HUD/VA property to Salt Lake City 15 days Advertisement 14 days Applicant Selection 30 days Loan Qualification 20 days Closing, signing of Homesteader Agreement 7 days Commencement of work 10 days 3 . Applicant Criteria to Determine Eligibility To be considered for processing for the Program, applicants must meet the following criteria : Applicant must be at least 18 years of age; Applicant must not own any residential property; and Applicant must be a person or family of low and moderate income. The applicant ' s gross annual household income must be within 80% of median income (moderate income) as defined by the U. S . Department of Housing and Urban Development as amended from time to time . The current applicable incomes are: GROSS ANNUAL INCOME GUIDELINES JANUARY 15 , 1988 NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN HOUSEHOLD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 $19 , 500 $22, 300 $25 , 050 $27, 850 $29 , 600 $31 , 350 $33 , 050 $34 , 800 Applicant must have a family size that is suitable for the homestead property. To avoid creating an overcrowded situation and to maximize the use of homestead properties , homes will be offered to homesteaders by family sizes according to the following table: Family Size 1-2 persons 1-2 bedrooms 2-4 persons 2-3 bedrooms over 4 persons 3+ bedrooms Applicant must be credit worthy and qualify for a rehabilitation loan according to the currently established criteria for the Rehabilitation Loan Program. BUDGET It is proposed that the Salt Lake City Homesteading Program transfer 10 HUD/VA properties in the first year of operation. The City is requesting $250, 000 to acquire approximately 10 properties at an average price of $25 , 000 per unit. If suitable properties to match homesteader needs can be acquired for less than $25, 000, additional units will be purchased. Where homesteader needs and property costs cannot be met within the $25, 000 purchase limit, program parameters will be negotiated with HUD. Ownership of the property will be conveyed to the homesteader for $1 . When private funds are not available, the Redevelopment Agency will assist in financing the rehabilitation utilizing the 312 Rehabilitation Loan Program if available. The RDA may also use a portion of its CDBG housing fund allocation for rehabilitation purposes . The statutory rehabilitation cost limit on individual projects using CDGB funds is $17, 500 per unit and $33 , 500 per unit using 312 monies . For an initial 10 unit program, City matching funds will range between $175 , 000 and $335 , 000 . The selection of housing from the foreclosure inventory will depend on the availability of rehabilitation funds . Since the Program does not grant any administration funds, the existing staff at the Redevelopment Agency will administer the Program. CERTTVTCATTONS The certifications listed below are provided to meet the requirements of 24 CFR Part 590 . 11 (d) . SLC, refers to Salt Lake City Corporation, also known as the "Applicant" , and RDA refers to the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency known as the "Local Urban Homesteading Agency (LUHA) " . 1 . The governing body of Salt Lake City has duly adopted or passed an official act, resolution motion, or similar action authorizing the filing of the application, including all understandings and assurances contained in these certifications. 2 . The Redevelopment Agency possess the legal authority to carry out the local urban homesteading program described in its application in accordance with this part, including the specific program requirements described in 590 . 7 . (b) . 3 . The LUHA has: ( i) An adequate administrative organization capable of carrying out the program in a timely and cost effective manner; ( ii) Procedures for selecting and accepting property suitable for homesteading and rehabilitation as required by 590 . 7 (b) ( 1 ) ; ( iii ) Procedures to assist in arranging, or for itself to undertake, rehabilitation financing for property conveyed to homesteaders , as required by 590 . 7 (b) (4) ; ( iv) Procedures for monitoring the homesteader agreement and for revoking a conditional conveyance upon material breach of the agreement, and for selecting a successor homesteader as required by 590 . 7 (b) (6 ) ; and (v) Procedures for conveying fee simple title to the residential property received from HUD, FmHA or VA without substantial consideration to the homesteader upon his or her full compliance with the agreement required in 590 . 7 (b) (7) . 4 . The applicant or the LUHA has , before submission of its application: ( i ) Developed a plan for a coordinated approach toward neighborhood improvement as required by 590 . 7 (a) ; and ( ii ) Provided citizens an adequate opportunity to express preferences about the proposed location to the urban homesteading neighborhoods, and to comment on the plan for a coordinated approach toward neighborhood improvement . 5 . The applicant and LUHA will : ( I) Assure nondiscrimination in the selection of homesteaders and that no eligible person is denied equal opportunity for housing, or excluded from equal participation in the homestead program, on the basis of race, creed, color , national origin, age , sex of handicapping conditions and that it will comply with the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ; Executive Order 11063 ; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1973 ; the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 , and all applicable regulations issued under these authorities, in any activity in its local urban homestead program; and ( ii ) Employ affirmative marketing procedures in the advertising of homesteading properties. 6 . The LUHA will comply with lead-based paint procedures set forth in 24 CFR part 35 . 7 . The LUHA will submit any information HUD requests for the purpose of meeting HUD' s responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; Executive Order 11988 on Flood Plain Management; Executive Order 11990 on Protection of Wetlands; the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 , the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 ; and the Preservation of Historic and Archaeological Data Act of 1974 , including the procedures prescribed by the Advisory Council on Historic preservation in 36 CFR Part 800 , and Executive Order 11593 on Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment. 8. The applicant and its designated LUHA will give HUD and the Comptroller General , through their authorized representatives , access to and the right to examine all records , books , papers, or documents related to the local urban homesteading program. The applicant and its designated LUHA will maintain current and accurate data on race and ethnicity of program participants/ beneficiaries , in order to enable HUD to meet the requirements imposed upon it by "Section 562 of the Housing and community Development Act of 1987 . " 9 . The LUHA will maintain in writing and on file a description of its approved local urban homesteading program for public information and review. Palmer A. DePaulis Mayor and Chief Executive Office Salt Lake City Corporation ATTEST: City Recorder Michael R. Chitwood Executive Director Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency ATTEST: RECEIVEn FEB 21 1989 MAYORS OFFICE sAEr' � y'G' TYf o RPo ': ; I,oNi DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS JOSEPH R. ANDERSON 324 SOUTH STATE STREET PALMER DEPAULIS PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR SALT LAKE_CITY, UTAH 84111 MAYOR ":•535-7775 - -- TO : SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL DATE : FEBRUARY 14, 1988 ' REFERENCE : Bids for West Temple Street Curb & Gutter Special Improvement District, Phase II , Project No . 38-830- 1 will be opened at 2 : 00 p .m . on Tuesday, March 7 , 1989 , a tabulation of the bid will be made to the City Council on March 7 , 1989 at 6 : 00 p . m . RECOMMENDATION ; That the Salt Lake City Council authorize the Salt Lake City Engineering office to award the work to the low bidder , upon official determination of such. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS ; Notice of intent to create a Special Improvement District has received prior approval by the City Council . Funds are budgeted in the Capital Improvement Budget for the 1988/89 fiscal year . DISCUSSION ; N/A SUBMITTED BY : JOSEPH R . ANDERSON, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR 4 JRA : JH: po r 4_ LEROY W. HOOTON, JR• - I,b I DIRECTOR - WENDELL E. EVENSEN, P.E. �y Z t r pp�iA -�GcT � SUPERINTENDENT SAL r } 1 4 WATER SUPPLY & WATERWORKS { [I [ Itf i p rr It,� ' , E. TIM DoEY SUPERINTENDENT ],.DEPARTMENT;OF PUBLIC.UTILITIES WATER RECLAMATION n\/VATER•SUPPL'Y�-&-WATERWORKS JAMES M. LEWIS, C.P.A. ii 4 .1 WATERFRECLAMATION '-;' PALMER CHIEF FINANCE& +.; r_. MAYOR LIS ACCOUNTING OFFICER `,153C3:SrOUTV1lEST:2TTEMPLE GEORGE JORGENSEN, P.E. SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84115 CHIEF ENGINEER TO: Salt Lake City Council RE: Resolution Regarding Minimum Stream Flows in the Lower Provo River Recommendation: That the City Council adopt the resolution. Availability of Funds: n/a Discussion: On May 16, 1986, the United States Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and the Central Utah Water Conservancy District (CUWCD) entered into an interim operating agreement known as the Deer Creek/Strawberry Exchange with the Provo River Water Users Association (PRWUA) in order to make available 20, 000 acre-feet of water for municipal and industrial use. The exchange accomplished two major objectives, 1 ) put the Bonneville Unit in the repayment mode to the federal government and 2) provided a much needed water supply to the Salt Lake County Water Conservancy District (SLCWCD) . When the agreement was negotiated, there was no mention of minimum stream flows in the Lower Provo River. However, during the fall of 1987, as a result of lower then normal precipitation, the issue came to the forefront. The water users learned that as a result of the Deer Creek/Strawberry Exchange the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) had issued a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requiring a minimum flow of 100 cfs between the Deer Creek Stream and the Olmsted Diversion to protect the brown trout fishery. To solve the problem, in 1987 Salt Lake City agreed to operate its water system in a way to utilize Deer Creek water rather than use local supplies during the winter months. The problem became more serious during the fall of 1988 after two years of less than normal precipitation. During the negotiations to resolve the problem, a great deal of pressure was placed on Salt Lake City and the Metropolitan Water District to contribute additional water above Salt Lake City' s offer to modify its operations. TO: Salt Lake City Council Page Two To resolve the problem, members of the water users and sportsman/ environmental committees began negotiations on the stream flows during late October 1988. The water users wanted to reduce the stream flow to 60 cfs where the sportsman/environmental communi- ties insisted on 100 cfs. An agreement was finally reached on November 14, 1988, when it was agreed to reduce the flow require- ment to 85 cfs. Forty-seven percent of the flow comes from Salt Lake City' s water supply, twelve percent from the Metropolitan Water District through the Provo River Water Users Association and fourteen percent from water purchased by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District using Section Eight funds. The remaining twenty-seven percent is from the Orem Metropolitan Water District and natural stream flow. The 1988 agreement was viewed as a onetime solution. The subject resolution is an effort to urge the beneficiaries of the Deer Creek-Strawberry Exchange .(i.e. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) , Central Utah Water Conservancy District (CUWCD) and the Salt Lake City Water Conservancy District�(SLCWCD) ) to acquire the neces- sary water to meet the minimum stream flows until the Jordanelle Dam and Reservoir is constructed and able to provide the water to meet the minimum flow requirements. Salt Lake City is not insen- sitive to this environmental issue and is willing to assist to the extent possible by modifying its operations as its contribu- tion to the minimum stream flow requirements. Li(v:) c;o- ? Sincerely, a kJ410a LEROY HOOTON, � DIRECTOR LWH:mf/dt SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. OF 1989 FISH FLOWS FOR 1989 AND FOLLOWING FROM DEER CREEK RESERVOIR WHEREAS, The United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Central Utah Water Conservancy District entered into the Interim Operating Agreement for Implementation of Deer Creek and Strawberry Exchange of Bonneville Unit Project Water ( Exchange) on May 16, 1986, in order to make available to the Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project 20, 000 acre feet of water to be stored in Deer Creek Reservoir for municipal and industrial uses; and WHEREAS, the United States Bureau of Reclamation issued a categorical exclusion, which resulted in a commitment by the United States Bureau of Reclamation to provide minimum stream flows in the Provo River between the confluence of Deer Creek stream and the Olmsted Diversion Dam during the interim operation of the Exchange; and WHEREAS, the Provo River Project (Deer Creek Reservoir) has no obligation to provide or to operate so as to provide minimum flows in the Provo River; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City is entitled to 61 . 7 percent of the storage water developed by the Provo River Project; and WHEREAS, Salt Lake City has the preferential right to use the water supply of the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City for the benefit of the inhabitants of Salt Lake City; and WHEREAS, the Constitution of Utah specifically forbids the disposal of water rights controlled by Salt Lake City, and mandates that the waterworks, water rights and sources of water supply acquired by Salt Lake City shall be preserved, maintained and operated by it for supplying its inhabitants with water at reasonable rates; and WHEREAS, in November of 1988 Salt Lake City and the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City cooperated in a onetime solution to assist the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Central Utah Water Conservancy District in meeting their minimum stream flow obligation in the Provo River during the winter of 1988-89 even though Salt Lake City ' s preferred water supply operations were altered thereby; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1. That Salt Lake City intends to assist the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Central Utah Water Conservancy District in meeting their minimum stream flow obligation in the Provo River during the interim operation of the Exchange, but only to the extent that the most efficient and economical operation of Salt L kP r3 *y.''- ,water system is not compromised or the businesses d inhabitantg of Salt Lake City are not adversely affected thereby; and 2. That Salt Lake City encourages those entitled to the 20, 000 acre feet of Bonneville Unit municipal and industrial water under the Deer Creek and Strawberry Exchange Agreement, to acquire additional water supplies which may be required to provide minimum stream flows in the Provo River until the completion of Jordanelle Reservoir. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989 . SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER RLM:rc -2- Law Offices of CHAPMAN AND CUTLER a partnership including professional corporations -odore S.Chapman 50 South Main Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84144 Two North Central Avenue 7-1943 FAX(801)533-9595 Phoenix.Arizona 85004 my E.Cutler Telephone(801)533-0066 (002)256-40o0 1879-1959 44 Broad Street,N W. Atlanta,Georgia 30303 (404)524-7590 Richard J.Scott 111 West Monroe Street Chicago,Illinois 60603 March 3, 1989 (312)845-3000 Christine Richmon Administrative Assistant Salt Lake City Corporation 324 South State Street, 3rd Floor Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, Airport Revenue Bonds (Parking Facilities Project) Dear Christine: Per our telephone conversation this morning, please use the enclosed instead of the copy sent to you yesterday. Very truly yours, CHAPMAN AND CUTLER By Richard J. Scott RJS/jgl Enclosure HAND DELIVERED SA_-? NE CITY Cv-��:�.:�� Chapman and Cutler Draft of 03/02/89 Salt Lake City, Utah March 7, 1989 The Municipal Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah (the "Municipal Council"), pursuant to due notice met in regular public session on March 7, 1989, at the hour of 6:00 o'clock P.M., at the regular meeting place of the Municipal Council in Suite 300 in the City Hall, 324 South State Street, in Salt Lake City, Utah. The meeting was duly called to order by Councilmember who was conducting, with the following members being present, constituting a quorum of the Municipal Council: W. M. (Willie) Stoler Chair Alan G. Hardman Vice Chair Florence Bittner Councilmember Thomas M. Godfrey Councilmember Sydney R. Fonnesbeck Councilmember L. Wayne Horrocks Councilmember Roselyn Kirk Councilmember. Absent: There were also present: Palmer A. DePaulis Mayor Kathryn Marshall City Recorder Roger F. Cutler City Attorney. Parameters Resolution After the minutes of the preceding meeting had been duly read and approved, the City Recorder presented to the Municipal Council an affidavit evidencing the giving of not less than twenty-four (24) hours public notice of the agenda, date, time, and place of the March 7, 1989, regular meeting of the Municipal Council in compliance with the requirements of Section 52-4-6(2), Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, by (1) posting written notice of the meeting at the principal office of the Municipal Council, and (2) providing notice to at least one newspaper of general circulation within the geographic jurisdiction of Salt Lake City, Utah, or to a local media correspondent. The affidavit was ordered recorded in the minutes of the meeting and is as follows: • -2- STATE OF UTAH COUNTY OF SALT LAKE I, Kathryn Marshall, the duly qualified and acting City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, do hereby certify, according to the records of said City in my official possession, and upon my own knowledge and belief, that in accordance with the - requirements of Section 52-4-6(2), Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, I gave not less than twenty-four (24) hours public notice of the agenda, date, time, and place of the March 7, 1989, regular public meeting held by the Municipal Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, by: (a) causing a Notice of Public Meeting to be posted at the principal office of the Municipal Council at Suite 300, City Hall, 324 South State Street, in Salt Lake City, Utah, on March 3, 1989, at least twenty-four (24) hours before the convening of the meeting, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A; said Notice of Public Meeting having continuously remained so posted and available for public inspection during regular office hours until the convening of the meeting; and (b) causing a copy of the Notice of Public Meeting in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A to be provided on March 3, 1989, at least twenty-four (24) hours before the convening of the meeting, to The Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret News, newspapers of general circulation within the geographic jurisdiction of Salt Lake City, Utah, and to each local media correspondent, newspaper, radio station, or television station which has requested notification of meetings of the Municipal Council. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my official signature and impressed hereon the official seal of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, this 7th day of March, 1989. Kathryn Marshall City Recorder Salt Lake City, [SEAL] Salt Lake County, Utah -3- Thereupon, after the conduct of other business not pertinent to the following, the Chair announced that the time had come for the public hearing to consider the proposed issuance by the City of its "private activity" airport revenue bonds to finance the acquisition and construction of certain airport facilities to be acquired and constructed by the City at the Salt Lake City International Airport. The City Recorder presented an affidavit evidencing the giving of not less than fourteen (14) days public notice of the holding of the public hearing in accordance with the provisions of Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by publishing notice of such public hearing on February 20, 1989, in The Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret News, newspapers of general circulation available to residents of the City. The affidavit was ordered recorded on the minutes of the meeting and is as follows: -4- Affidavit of Publication •oM•3311 • STATE OF UTAH, ss. • • County of Salt Lake NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHAPMAN AND CUTLER PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday,March 7, 989,at 6.00 p.m..the Municipal Council of Salt Lake City,Utah, rill hold and conduct o public hearing at the regular meeting )lace al the Municipal Council of Salf Lake City,Utah.In Suite 100 in the City Hall,324 South State Street,in Soh Lake City,Utah. The purpose of the hearing Is to providep o reasonable ot Being first duly deposes and says that he/she is oortunr for interested Individuals to express their views,bothh sworn, orally and in wntin9 on the proposed issuance by Salt Lake legal advertising clerk of THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE, City.Utah(the"City'),of airport revenue bonds to Finance the acquisition and construction of certain airport facilities,includ- ing asuonce and related expenses of such bonds,interest on a daily newspaper printed in the English Ianguage with the bonds during construction.and funds for any reserves the bonds.Such airport facilities willbe nec- essary to secure oc- general circulation in Utah, and published in Salt Lake th quired and constructed at e Salt Lake City International Air • - pan in the City.will be owned by the City,and will include.in the City, Salt Lake County, in the State of Utah, and of the City's discretion,some or all of the following:(a parking facili- ties for approximately 5.000 cars(including a structure provid- Ing parking for approximately 2,500 cars andlotsproviding DESERET NEWS, a daily newspaper printed in the parking lot dpproximatol 2,500 cars),related roadway and drive improvements, pedestrian bridges, baggage funnels, English language with general circulation in Utah, and 'and landscaping and canopy extensions,(b)roods and road improvements, including the paving and relocation of 40th published in Salt Lake .City, Salt Lake County, in the - West and the construction of on overpass rood and related State of Utah. ramps,and related facilities,and(c)any necessary or desir- able facilities related to the foregoing. The maximum oggregate face amount of the bonds pro- posed to be issued by-the City from Sine to time pursuant to the Plan for financing such focilities is$40.000,000.The bonds will be That the legbal notice of which a copyis attached hereto payable by the City solely from revenues derived horn the oper- ation Of the Solt Lake City International Airport.The bonds will not constitute debt at the City within the mooning of any consti- tutional or statutory limitation on rndebtedness.The bands will PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT ON TUESDAY not constitute a general obligation of the City or a charge 7 ogoinst its general taxing powers. Section 147(1)of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 re • - quires trot if"private activity bonds"are to be issued,the City , must approve the bonds atter the conduct of a publichearing. ; MARCH 7, 1989, AT 6:00 P.M., THE MUNICIPAL A public hearing was previously held on July 12,1988 with re- ....... sped to the issuance of up to$30,000,000 of bonds to finance a po' 'n of the tocilities described above. 'he time and ploce fixed for the public hearing.all Inter- COIJN•CIj4 OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, WILL HOLD iersons will be given on opportunity to express their and in writing on the proposed issuance of bonds at the location and nature of the facilities.Following the hearing and prior to the issuance of the bonds,as required by federal law,Me Municipal Council will take action on the approval of the issuance of the bonds by the City. Written comments may be submitted to the office of Munici- pal Council.Suite 300,City Hall,324 South State Street.Sall Lake City.Utah,until the conclusion of the public hearing on Morch 7, - 1989.Additional information con be obtained horn the Director of Finance.Soh Lake Crty Corporation,324 South State Street, Sart Lake City,Utah 84111. Dated February 7,1989. /5/Kathrynfity �hhall was publishe in said newspaper on K 59 der Salt Lake City,Sall Lake County.Utah Legal Advertising Clerk Subscribed and sworn to before me this �3rd day of FEBRUARY A.D. 19 89 Notary Public • My Commission Expires • • • • • OCTOBER 1 , 1990 • �-,1 Jt •t V RESIDING IN SALT LAKE CITY, UT The Chair then announced that all those interested persons wishing to contend for or protest against, orally or in writing, the issuance by the City of not more than $40,000,000 airport facilities revenue bonds to finance the acquisition and construction of such airport facilities would be heard and that all such oral or written statements would be considered. All interested persons wishing to speak were then given full opportunity to be heard, the persons so speaking being as follows: NAME ADDRESS All interested persons wishing to file written statements were given the opportunity to do so, the persons so filing written statements being as follows: NAME ADDRESS After all persons desiring to speak or submit written statements had been permitted to do so, and after further discussion by the Municipal Council, the public hearing was concluded upon motion by , seconded by and unanimously approved. -5- Thereupon, after the conduct of other business not pertinent to the following, the following resolution was introduced in written form by and, pursuant to motion duly made by and seconded by was adopted and approved by the following vote: Aye: W. M. (Willie) Stoler Alan G. Hardman Florence Bittner Thomas M. Godfrey • Sydney R. Fonnesbeck L. Wayne Horrocks Roselyn Kirk. Nay: None. Absent: The resolution was thereupon presented to and approved and signed by the Mayor, was approved as to form and signed by the City Attorney, was signed by the Chair of the Municipal Council, and was attested and recorded by the City Recorder in the official records of said City. The resolution is as follows: -6- RESOLUTION NO. of 1989 A RESOLUTION authorizing the issuance and confirming the sale of not more than $35,000,000 aggregate principal amount of Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 1989, of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, fixing the maximum aggregate principal amount of the bonds, the maximum number of years over which the bonds may mature, the maximum interest rate which the bonds may bear and the maximum discount from par at which the bonds may be sold; authorizing publication of a notice of bonds to be issued; amending Resolution No. 84 of 1988 relating to the bonds; and related matters. *** *** *** WHEREAS, the Municipal Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Ut (the "City") considers it desirable and necessary and for the benefit of the City to issue Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 1989 (the "Bonds"), for the purpose of financi improvements and extensions to the Salt Lake International Airport; and WHEREAS, Section 11-14-21, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, provi for the publication of a Notice of Bonds to be Issued, and the Municipal Council of the C (the "Municipal Council") desires to publish such a notice at this time in compliance v said Section 11-14-21; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend Resolution No. 84 of 1988 to inc certain facilities to be financed with the proceeds of such Bonds, thereby assuring the exempt status of the Bonds; NOW, THEREFORE, Be It Resolved by the Municipal Council of Salt Lake Salt Lake County, Utah, as follows: Section 1. Bonds to be Issued. The Municipal Council hereby finds determines that it is desirable and necessary and for the benefit of the City for it to for the purpose of financing the acquisition of improvements and extensions to the i utility comprising the City Airports, not more than $35,000,000 initial aggregate pri- amount (exclusive of any accretion of interest) of its Airport Revenue Bonds, Series to mature in not more than 30 years from their date or dates, to be sold at a discoun par, expressed as a percentage of principal amount and excluding any original discount, of not to exceed two percent, and to bear interest at a rate or rates not to E ten percent per annum, all in accordance with and pursuant to the provisions o Resolution Providing for the Issuance of Airport Revenue Bonds of the City, includ Bonds, to be adopted by the Municipal Council at a future date (the "Master Resolut draft of which, in substantially final form, is attached hereto as Annex A, an' Supplemental Resolution Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of the Bonds to be ado the Municipal Council at a future date pursuant to and in compliance with the Resolution (the "Supplemental Resolution"), a draft of which, in substantially final attached hereto as Annex B, and the Municipal Council hereby declares its intention the Bonds according to the provisions of this Section. The facilities to be financed proceeds of the Bonds include those described in Section 1 of Resolution No. 84 of amended by this resolution. -7- :tion 2. Authorization. The Municipal Council hereby authorizes and *A, suance of the Bonds pursuant to the provisions of this resolution, the Master ; "�„ FX�•4; SIN a'° . the Supplemental Resolution; provided that the principal amount, interest •• maturity or maturities, and discount shall not exceed the maximums set forth !red. `' • action 3. Publication of Notice of Bonds to be Issued. In accordance with the • Section 11-14-21, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, The Salt Lake he Deseret News, newspapers published within the boundaries of the City, are ,<• '..:�: .,Kyx sated as the "official newspapers" of the City for the publication of all notices .�: .�. . � ._.max; .;>,•�,� ar the Utah Municipal Bond Act, Chapter 14 of Title 11, Utah Code Annotated -Jr.,- 4 •P Px snded, and the City Recorder shall cause the following "Notice of Bonds to be published one time in The Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret News, newspapers irculation in the City, and shall cause a copy of this resolution, together with thereto, to be kept on file in her office for public examination during the ness hours of the City Recorder for at least thirty days after the date of such > `= = •v"`=' The "Notice of Bonds to be Issued" shall be in substantially the following form: •: i,;: -` NOTICE OF BONDS TO BE ISSUED _` NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the provisions of Section 11-14-21, F; Annotated 1953, as amended, that on March 7, 1989, the Municipal Council of City, Salt Lake County, Utah (the "City") adopted Resolution No. _ of 1989 (the - )n"1 in which it authorized and approved the issuance of its Airport Revenue rif, 989 (the "Bonds") in the initial aggregate principal amount (exclusive of any >' • of interest) of not to exceed $35,000,000, to mature in not more than 30 years it date or dates, to be sold at a discount from par, expressed,as a percentage of `•. amount and excluding any original issue discount, of not to exceed two percent, - ar interest at a rate or rates not to exceed ten percent. The Bonds are to be issued and sold by the City pursuant to the Resolution, as part of the Resolution (1) a copy of a Resolution Providing for the Issuance of tevenue Bonds of the City, including the Bonds (the "Master Resolution"), and (2) a ntal Resolution Providing for the Issuance of the Bonds (the "Supplemental In"). The Master Resolution and Supplemental Resolution were before the 1 Council and were attached to the Resolution in substantially final form at the the adoption of the Resolution. The Master Resolution and the Supplemental are to be adopted by the Municipal Council at a future date prior to the issuance onds in substantially the forms attached to the Resolution, with such changes • .s shall be approved by the Municipal Council upon the adoption thereof, provided principal amount, interest rate or rates, maturity or maturities and discount will • !d the maximums set forth above. The Bonds, pursuant to the Resolution, are to be issued for the purpose of the acquisition by the City of parking facilities, roads, and other improvements isions to the Salt Lake City International Airport, funding any necessary reserves, ig all costs and expenses incident to the authorization and issuance of the Bonds, as in the Master Resolution and the Supplemental Resolution. • A copy of the Resolution (including drafts of the Master Resolution and the ntal Resolution) is on file in the office of the City Recorder, located in Suite 300 • ty Hall, 324 South State Street, in Salt Lake City, Utah, where it may be examined -8- during regular business hours of the City Recorder from 8:00 o'clock A.M. to 5:00 o'clock P.M. Said Resolution (including drafts of the Master Resolution and the Supplemental Resolution) shall be so available for inspection for a period of at least thirty days from and after the date of the publication of this notice. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to law for a period of thirty days from and after the date of the publication of this notice, any person in interest shall have the right to contest the legality of the above-described Resolution (including the Master Resolution and the Supplemental Resolution) of the Municipal Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, or the Bonds or any provisions made for the security and payment of the Bonds, and that after such time, no one shall have any cause of action to contest the regularity, formality or legality thereof for any cause. DATED this 7th day of March, 1989. SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH City Recorder • Section 4. Amendment of Resolution No. 84 of 1988. Section 1 of Resolution No. 84 of 1988 is hereby amended to read as follows: "In order to obtain the public benefit which is expected from the Project, the City will issue the Bonds pursuant to the provisions of the Act in such total principal amount as the City may determine to finance all or a portion of the costs of the Project, including the issuance costs of the Bonds, interest on the Bonds during construction, and funds for any reserves necessary to secure the Bonds, all of which are presently estimated to be an amount not exceeding $35,000,000. The Project will be owned by the City, will be located at the Salt Lake City International Airport in the City, and will include, in the City's discretion, some or all of the following: (a) parking facilities for approximately 5,000 cars (including a parking structure for approximately 2500 cars and parking lots for approximately 2500 cars), related roadway and drive improvements, pedestrian bridges, baggage tunnels, and landscaping and canopy extensions, (b) roads and road improvements, including the paving and relocation of 40th West and the construction of an overpass and related ramps, and related facilities, and (c) any necessary or desirable facilities related to the foregoing." Section 5. Compliance with Federal Income Tax Regulations. It is intended that this Resolution shall constitute "some other similar official action" toward the issuance of the Bonds (including particularly those facilities not previously described in Resolution No. 84 of 1988) within the meaning of Section 1.103-8(a)(5) of the Federal Income Tax Regulations prescribed by the United States Treasury Department. Section 6. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its adoption. -9- ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 7th day of March, 1989. SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH [SEAL] Mayor ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: City Recorder (Other business not pertinent to the above appears in the minutes of the meeting.) Upon the conclusion of all business and upon motion duly made and carried, the meeting of the Municipal Council was adjourned. W. M. (Willie) Stoler Chair ATTEST: Kathryn Marshall City Recorder [SEAL] -10- STATE OF UTAH ) COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) I, Kathryn Marshall, do hereby certify that I am the duly qualified and acting City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah. I further certify that the above and foregoing constitutes a full, true and correct copy of the minutes of a regular public meeting of the Municipal Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, held on March 7, 1989, and of a resolution adopted at said meeting, insofar as said minutes pertain to the matters above set forth, as said minutes and resolution are officially of record in my possession. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my official signature and impressed hereon the corporate seal of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, this 7th day of March, 1989. Kathryn Marshall City Recorder Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah [SEAL] RJS/jgl/858076PR -11- ANNEX A [Attach Master Resolution here] • -12- ANNEX B [Attach Supplemental Resolution here] -13- STAFF RECOMMENDATION Class A Retail Licenses in Hotels STAFF RECOMMENDATION BY: Christine Richman ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The Council is being asked to amend the ordinance governing Class A Retail Licenses to allow hotels to dispense 3.2 beer from refrigerators in hotel rooms. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As is the practice in hotels across the country, hotels in Salt Lake City would like to provide their patrons with access to food and beverage, including 3.2 beer, without leaving their hotel room. The easiest way to abcomplish this is by placing fruit, candy, juices, soda, and beer in refrigerators in each room. The hotel controls access to the refrigerators by issuing a key to eligible patrons. With beer in the refrigerator, the keys would be issued only to individuals who are at least 21 years old. Hotel representatives have indicated that they always monitor the age of their patrons, and that the refrigerators themselves would contain only 6-8 cans of beer a piece. Because of the restrictions they place on themselves, they claim that licensing them to place the beer in the refrigerators poses only a minimal enforcement problem. The Police Department has submitted a letter to the City Council opposing the change in the ordinance on the grounds that allowing distribution from each hotel room will pose an enforcement problem. They indicate that the increase in distribution points will place a strain on existing police staff resources. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: The ordinance defines each refrigerator as a distribution point which allows the City to charge a licensing fee for each refrigerator. The current fee structure calls for a $10 charge for each refrigerator. This $10 is in addition to the regular license fee which is $90. Buzz Hunt , City Treasurer, indicated that there are currently 8,028 hotel rooms in Salt Lake City. If all of the hotels in Salt Lake chose to place refrigerators in their hotel rooms Salt Lake would receive $80,280 in licensing fees. Of course it is unlikely that the smaller hotels would find this a cost effective service. Buzz and the licensing division support the change in the ordinance. Licensing fees are designed to help defray the costs of enforcing ordinances pertaining to the establishment licensed. If our enforcement costs prove to be greater than the amount we receive from the hotels, we can increase those fees to accommodate greater enforcement needs. It is my recommendation that you amend the Class A Liquor licensing ordinance to allow hotels to place 3.2 beer in hotel room refrigerators. The departments will monitor the impact of • this change in the ordinance, and if necessary, request a fee increase in the future. RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move that we adopt the ordinance amending Section 6.04.040, 6.08.040, and 6.08. 110 of the Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to Class A Retail licenses in hotels. ANTICIPATED OPPOSITION: The Police Department has indicated that they will not actively oppose the ordinance as long as the Council understands that it may be necessary to increase the fee in the future. • SALT' r MT'C,_P©R I_ N4. PQLIG DEPARTMENT MIKE CHABRIES CHIEF OF POLICE 315 EAST 200 SOUTH TELEPHONE 799-3000 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 February 21, 1989 Salt Lake City Council 324 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 RE: Ordinance amending sections 6.04.040, 6.08.040 and 6.08.110 pertaining to Class A Retail Licenses in Hotels Dear Council: The Ordinance as drafted does not limit the number of cans of beer that could be stocked in these refrigerators. With the number of concerts, tour groups and hockey matches - to name a few events - in the downtown area, the potential for minors drinking are obvious. The Ordinance also does not preclude the future introduction of mini bottles, carrying a much higher alcohol content than 3.2 beer. The Salt Lake City Police Department opposes the extending of Class A Liquor licenses to include unattended distribution points in hotel rooms. This objection is based on the added responsibility this Department, specifically the Special Investigation Division, would incur. This Division is currently manned by a sergeant and five detectives. These officers are responsible to monitor prostitution, deviate sexual behavior, gambling, obscenity, liquor and City licensing, as well as background investigations. In reference to the monitoring of our City's liquor ordinances, our Division makes inspections of all Class A, B, C, and E licensed establishments, as well as private clubs, and seasonal beer events. This required personal inspections for minors in and about the licensed businesses and the sale of alcohol to minors. We also make inspections to see if adults are providing alcohol, without the knowledge of the licensed business, or their approval. This Division monitors Class A and B licensed businesses for the sale of alcohol to minors for consumption off the premises. These licensed businesses range from supermarkets, neighborhood grocery stores, to the corner convenience stores and restaurants. • Salt Lake City Council Page 2 February 21, 1989 The addition of 381 _dispensing points in one building; i.e., the Doubletree, would be no small task for this small group of detectives. t Obviously, we would have to make frequent trips to this address to monitor if desk clerks are checking identifications. We would anticipate, if this ordinance is passed, most if not all of the other hotels and motels also providing their customers the same "conveniences." This would easily expand to over 1,000 new dispensing points which would require monitoring. Obviously, a six officer squad is not capable of monitoring this number of dispensing points and still carry on investigations in the other areas Vice is responsible for. The resulting enforcement would therefore be minimal, at best. It is not our intent to monitor activities in every residence in Salt Lake City, even if they are only one night residences. Our hopes remain that no one will need our services, but the introduction of people drinking dramatically increases the calls and needs for police services. With the current personnel in both Vice and Patrol, we may not be able to keep the "quiet, safe and progressive city" image we are trying to keep to attract businesses and conventions. We urge careful consideration with this ordinance amendment in view of the limits this Department is currently working under. Sincerely, Capt. Mike rssbey Special Investigations Division MF/sj ( -r 11. • ROGER F. CUTLER SALT'11z]1]iJ�G-IT C CORP-ORgIONI ASSISTANT ArORNEYs .... y...�..��..r. CITY ATTORNEY RAY L. MONTGOMERY CHERYL D. LUKE LAW DEPARTMENT GREG R. HAWKINS CITY PROSECUTOR 324 SOUTH STATE. FIFTH FLOOR LARRY Y. SPENCL CVE STEVEN W. ALLREOED SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111 BRUCE R. BAIRD (801) 535-7788 " ' FRANK M. NAKAMURA FAX (801) 535-7640 ASSISTANT PROSECUTORS DONALD L. GEORGE December 8, 1988 C=CELIA M. ESPENOZA RICHARD G. HAMP GLEN A. COOK Memorandum To: Tom Godfrey City Council From: Larry V. Spendlove Assistant City Attorney Re: Ordinance Amendments Pertaining to Class A Retail Licenses in Hotels Pursuant to a petition filed by Attorney Kirk Heaton, I have drafted a proposed ordinance amending Sections 6 .04.040, 6 .08.040 and 6 . 08 . 110, Salt Lake City Code, to allow for the sale of beer in original containers from dispensing points within hotel rooms under Class A Retail Beer Licenses. The ordinance is in a form ready for presentation to the City Council for its consideration. You should be aware that Detective Greg Smith of the City Police Special Investigation Division has expressed concern about this proposed ordinance. It is my understanding that he feels it will create additional problems in making beer more accessible to persons under 21 years of age and will make enforcement efforts more difficult. Our office takes no position in this regard. LVS:rc • CALLIST'ER, DUNCAN & NEBEKER LOUIS w.CALLISTCp ANOPCW C.MESS. •PPOrCsflo r.l,[orrowArlo.. or CDurf tl A OAa w,ouNCAM aOacar M,WILRIN3ON ATTORNEYS AT LAW CAPL P.3TATEN PICMARO N,NCBCKCR R,RIRK P.CATCN• R,DV Fr TI+OMPSON Glrrppp w. PPICC T,RICNA.D DAMS SUITE 800 KENNECOTT BUILDING GARY R...Ow[ SCOTT A.CALL SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84133 w.CLARK BURT DAYON C.CDO. 83 LOUIS w,CALLISTC P,3w, L 5.rl•cu LL.^.uGP.,,:w, JO,.N R,ruu[M TELEPHONE 801.630.7300 p004,0831 rRCO W,rINUNSON STCVEN P,CLLIMWOOD TELECOPIER 801.364-9127 DOROTNY C.PLCSI.0 C.DOUGLAS CLARK JOMM A.BCCKSTCACI PAUL R.INCL. J TO CALL WRITER DIRECT CrrR CT M.CLA•TON oAVID W.SCOrICLO JAMCS R.NOLBROOK BRIAM W.BUPMCTT 3TCVEN L IMGLCBT ANORE3 DIAZ CMARLC3 P.1,BCNNCTT, LYNDA COOK w,WALDANLLOTD JONMN,RCLS October 28 , 1988 ..RU33ELL,.[TTINGCR IA.a M,CGAN ROBCRT 3.PRINCE P,BRYAN r13a8UPN JCrrPET L.3..ICLOS RICI.ARD L.KING STEVCN E.TYLCP JAN 8.11OWARD PANOALL D BCNSCM M P4 O.PALM CR RICMARO K,NCBCKCR DAVIO R,WRIG,.T R.WILLIS ORTCM CAROLINC L.3KUZESK1 RUSSELL C.RCA AL MATTNCW G.CCCPER GCORGE C..IAPRIS,JP! Aso APIZOA.&API cc rr A�10 P.[M&Cw�Allr&r,A fAw .SLSO NC rL00.C.uw -A1.,30 r r,5501,.1 .I])..• 0 C I 1 I C .wCGIaTCPtO w.rCrT AT�wr CT Honorable Palmer DePaulis MAYOR'S OFFir. Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah 5th Floor 324 South State Street • Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re : Amendment to Alcoholic Beverage Ordinances Dear Mayor DePaulis : I represent the Doubletree Hotel located at 215 West South Temple . The Doubletree Hotel has 381 guest rooms which serves a substantial segment of the tourist traffic in the Salt Lake City area . The Doubletree Hotel desires to offer an additional convenience to its guests in the form of a small refrigerator placed in each one of the 381 guest rooms . Each refrigerator will have a lock and separate key from the key which opens 'the door to the room. Upon checking into the Doubletree Hotel guests will be asked whether they would like access to the small refrigerator which contains soft drinks , juices , crackers , cheese and other food items , along with a few cans of lite beer . If the guest indicates that he would like access , he will be asked for appropriate verifiction of age and if satisfied , the Doubletree Hotel would provide him a key. Each day as the room is serviced , the small refrigerator will be checked and all items which have been removed will be charged to the guest . The purpose of this letter is to request your support for an amendment to title 6 , chapter 6 of the Salt Lake City Alcoholic Beverages Ordinances with respect to Class A beer licenses . The current Section 6 . 08 . 040 provides that a Class A beer license authorizes the sale of beer in original container 11for consumption off the premises " . The situation of my client does not presently fit within the definition and language of a Class A permit . A Class B permit deals with restaurants and requires the sale of food along with Honorable Palmer DePaulis 077, October 28 , 1988 •. Page 2 each purchase of an alcoholic beverage . The Class B beer' license would be inapplicable to our situation . A Class C beer license focuses on the tavern or cabaret context which is also inapplicable as explained below. Hence , no current beer license authorizes the contemplated practice of the Doubletree Hotel . The general rule of law is that while a hotel room is rented by a guest , the room is his property and under his complete control . My client respects that rule and feels that during the rental period the rented room is thve "premises " of the person renting. The restrictions and concerns of a Class C license , i . e . , that no minors be allowed on or near the place of sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages , does not apply to the hotel context. The situation presented by my client is similar to a hotel guest going downstairs to the current beer dispensing point, purchasing the beer and taking it back up to his room. Additionally, the hotel guests could stop off at any number of convenience stores or grocery stores , obtain the beer and return to his room where minors may or may not be present. Because the hotel industry treats the room as the premises of the guest , I feel that the restrictions imposed on a Class C beer license should not apply in the hotel context. Doubletree Hotel believes that the convenience would be attractive to guests and beneficial to tourism in Salt Lake City and the state of Utah generally. The tavern type atmosphere ,would not be present and therefore the policy and concerns underlying restrictions on a Class C beer license should not apply . I feel it would be appropriate to amend and modify the Class A beer license restrictions to exempt hotels which provide in-room service of lite beers . Because the Doubletree Hotel ' s fact situation is unique and there appears to be no clear cut authorization for the selling of alcoholic beverages in the manner contemplated by my client , I , along with the ;City Attorney Larry Spendlove , feel that a modification or amendment to !the ordnance is needed . I would appreciate your support in presenting • ito the city council an amendment to ordinance Section 6 . 08 . 040 so that my client can begin furnishing this service and convenience to its guests . I would appreciate speaking with you or your designated representative about this issue and possible solutions through ' amendment of the ordinance . Sincerely, R. Kir Heaton RKH/mcm cc: Roger Swaddish Manager , Doubletree Hotel Steve Tyler CDN4550h } r • J S .� SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE • No. of 1988 (An Ordinance Amending Sections 6.04.040, 6.08 .040 and 6.08 . 110 pertaining to Class A retail licenses in hotels) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 6 .04.040, 6.08.040 AND 6 .08 . 110, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO CLASS A RETAIL LICENSES IN HOTELS. WHEREAS, it has become customary in major hotels throughout the United States to provide a refrigerator or other dispenser in guests ' rooms with refreshments therein, including unopened original containers of beer. The consumption of said refreshments is at the option of the guest, with the hotel to be reimbursed by _the guest for any refreshments so consumed; and . WHEREAS, the City Council believes it is appropriate ..to definition of -a Class A retail -beer license under City ordinances to allow for the sale of beer in unopened original containers from dispensing points within hotel rooms for consumption by the hotel patrons provided appropriate precautions are taken to avoid consumption thereof by persons under twenty- one years of age. - NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, hereby adopts the following amendments to the Salt Lake City Code. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That Section 6 .04.040, Salt Lake City Code, be, and .the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: , 6.04.040 Licensed premises. "Licensed premises" means any room, house, building, structure or place occupied by any person licensed to sell beer or to allow the consumption of liquor on such premises under this title. Multiple beer or liquor dispensing facilities located in- one building and owned or leased by one licensed applicant shall be deemed to be only one licensed premises, provided that each dispensing point must be designated and the appropriate fee paid and the license prominently displayed at each dispensing point. Multiple beer dispensing facilities located in the separate rooms of one hotel owned or leased by one licensed applicant shall be . deemed to be only one licensed premises, provided that each • - - dispensing point -is designated and the -appropriate fee is paid -- and the license displayed- in the lobby of such hotel. _ "J - ` SECTION 2 __That Section 6.08.040, -Salt Lake City Code, be, and the same hereby „is, amended to read as follows: 6.08.040 Class A licenses. • A. A Class A retail license shall entitle the licensee to sell beer on the premises described in such license in original containers for consumption off the premises, in accordance with . the Liquor Control Act of Utah and the Salt Lake City Code; provided, however, that it is unlawful for the licensee to sell or distribute beer in any container larger than a half-gallon. B. It is unlawful for a licensee of a Class A retail license at a hotel to sell beer in original containers from multiple beer dispensing facilities located in separate rooms of the hotel unless such dispensing facilities are securely locked -2- 7 ,1 and access to the contents of such facilities is restricted by licensee to hotel patrons twenty-one years of age or older who have duly rented such hotel room in which such dispensing facility is located. "Consum tion off the remises" under this section shall include consumption by hotel atrons twenty-one years of age or older of beer dispensed at a hotel room duly rented by such patrons . SECTION 3 . That Section 6 . 08 . 110, Salt Lake City Code, relating to fees for beer licenses be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: . 6 .08.110 - Fees. A. Applications provided for in this chapter shall be - - ___,-accompanied by the fees. provided -in -this section, which .fees - 2 . =--shall be deposited in the city treasury .if ._the license ,is - �_, r granted, -and returned to .the applicant if denied: . - .__.___ 2. _ 3. * * 4. * * * 5 . * * * 6 . * * * 7 . For each additional dispensing point for beer at the same premises where an initial Class B or Class C retail license has been obtained, the fee shall be ninety dollars. For each additional dispensing point for beer at a hotel where an initial Class A retail license has been obtained, the fee shall be ten dollars. -3- • • SECTION 4: This ordinance shall take effect on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 198 • CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on _ Mayor' s Action: Approved Vetoed. ATTEST: . . CITY RECORDER LVS:pp -4- UNIFORM FIRE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF RECOMMENDATION F March 7, 1989 L( STAFF RECOMMENDATION BY: Cam Caldwell ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve the Uniform Fire Code amendments and adopt the 1988 code. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Council staff have met with George Sumner and representatives from the Fire Department and have discussed the amendments to the Uniform Fire Code with Greg Hawkins of the City Attorney's Office. The proposed amendments to the code fully address the concerns of the staff regarding the policy issues which had been discussed earlier in the year. The Fire Department position continues to be that they wish to establish a pilot program for inspecting high hazard businesses identified in the code. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: The technical issues related to the adoption of the Uniform Fire Code have been resolved. Council has several policy options regarding the Fire Department's decision to proceed slowly in enforcing the code. Council may prefer to discuss those options at its Fire Department policy meeting on March 9th, or during the budget process. The service level policy issues include the following options, as well as other _ possibilities: 1) Council can support the position of the department to proceed slowly in the enforcement of the code and take no action. • 2) Council can authorize the department to immediately fill the additional Fire Inspector position authorized by the Council in the current staffing document. This position is now vacant and the department apparently does not intend to fill it. George Sumner has confirmed that a Fire Inspector hired to perform high hazard inspections would generate a minimum of $2, 500 per month in permit fees. 3) Council can request the department to increase the level of station inspections of high hazard locations. If Council chooses this option, the department's risk analysis inspection program would probably have to be decreased. The risk analysis inspection program will be discussed at the March 9th policy meeting. Staff recommend that Council approve the Uniform Fire Code on Tuesday, and that the service level policy issues be resolved at future Fire Department policy and budget meetings. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: I move that the Council adopt the 1988 Uniform Fire Code, as amended. ANTICIPATED OPPOSITION: None 4`FH p /' .. ; ,- SALT' r 1 - THY`G)RPOR FIRE DEPARTMENT PETER O. PEDERSON 305 EAST 200 SOUTH CHIEF OF FIRE DEPARTMENT SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 799-4101 -- -- February 6, 1989 Mayor Palmer DePaulis 324 South State Street Salt lake City, Utah 84111 Dear Mayor DePaulis: Please accept this request for Council Action. Fire Marshal Sumner, the contact person for this request, will be out of town from February 12 to February 25. I request that this matter be scheduled for council action after February 25, 1989. 1. Subject: Adoption of the 1988 Edition of the Uniform Fire Code (UFC). 2. Recommendation: Council approval is recommended. 3. Funding: No request for appropriations is involved. Some revenue will result from assessment of permit fees. Permits targeted for implementation at once, and revenue estimates, are listed below: Aircraft Refueling Vehicles $ 300.00 Certification of operators $ 300.00 Explosives or Blasting Agents 630.00 Fireworks 1,300.00 Flammable or Combustible Liquids and Tanks 6,500.00 Hazardous Materials 9,000.00 Liquefied Petroleum Gas 1,080.00 Malls (Specified events in Shopping Malls) 600.00 Spraying or dipping (Application of flammable 2,000.00 finishes) TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL REVENUE $22,710.00 UFC submittal , page 2 4. Background and Discussion: On December 16, 1988, the UFC was submitted for Council Action. On January 10, 1989, Council referred it back to the Fire Department, City Attorney, and Council Staff to make changes in the language concerning permits and permit fees, and to add back permits that had been deleted by amendment. The Ordinance has been revised to the satisfaction of the Fire Department, City Attorney, and Council Staff. The originally proposed Ordinance included only those permits that the Fire Department planned to implement at once (listed above in Item #3). The revised Ordinance includes all permits as listed in the Uniform Fire Code. The originally proposed Ordinance included permit fees as part of the Ordi nance. The revised Ordinance gives the Fire Chief rule maki ng authority to establish permit fees. The Fire Marshal plans to begin at once to implement the permits listed in Item #3 above, as a pilot project to establish procedures and gain experience in using permits in fire prevention regulation. The implementation process for each permit will follow the same sequence: 1. Rules and administrative procedures will be written, detailing procedures for permit application and subsequent inspection and approval . 2. Businesses and Buildings requiring the permit will be identified, and notified of the permit requirement. 3. Permit applications will be received and processed according to the Rules and administrative procedures. 4. The regulatory process will be evaluated and revised as necessary. It is estimated that implementation of all the permits in the pilot project will be under way within calendar year 1989, and that revenue from permits will be sufficient to meet the cost of another FTE in the Fire Prevention Bureau. With this experience and revenue, the Fire Department will then be prepared to propose further permit fees and request additional staffing to meet the increased service level . 5. Legislative Document : Copies of the proposed ordinance are attached. 6. Contact Person: Fire Marshal George Sumner, Fire Department, 799-4160. 7. Submitted by: Peter 0. Pederson, Chief, Fire Department, 799-4101. Respec u ly, 0• ai"-\__ Peter 0. Pederson DR : FT SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1988 (Adopting the Uniform Fire Code with Various Deletions and Additions ) AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE, 1988, WITH VARIOUS DELETIONS AND ADDITIONS AS FOLLOWS: Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That the Uniform Fire Code of the Salt Lake City Code, 1988, with the following various deletions and additions, be, and the same hereby is adopted as follows: Section 17.20.020 C. of the Salt Lake City Code relating to Fire hydrant requirements for developments is amended to read as follows: Sec. 17.20.020 C. No dwelling unit constructed after January 1, 1989, in either such development shall be located more than [three hundred] two hundred fifty feet from a fire hydrant, measured along the curb in front of each said fire hydrant. The bottom of the sidewalk flange on each fire hydrant must be at least even with, but may be slightly higher than, the sidewalk, and all water outlets on such hydrants must as nearly as possible, face the street. Section 17 .20.040 of the Salt Lake City Code relating to Hydrant specifications is amended to read as follows: Sec. 17.20.040 All hydrants, whether public hydrants or private hydrants, installed in any such subdivision must comply with then-current specifications for fire hydrants of the department of public utilities and must be located as required by the fire department. Section 17. 20.060 C. of the Salt Lake City Code relating to Installation and permit requirements is amended to read as follows: Sec. 17 . 20.060 C. [It is unlawful—for—any—per-son to co nstruction of any new building or building addition, other than buildings designed for u-sc as three or less individual fa , b 3 to ate o hundred -feet from--a—f-i-re—h curb line in front of each fire hydrant. ] Fire hydrants shall be installed as per Uniform Fire Code 87 . 103 . (c) prior to construction. Chapter 18.44 of the Salt Lake City Code relating to Fire Prevention and Uniform Fire Code and Standards is amended to read as follows: Chapter 18.44 FIRE PREVENTION AND UNIFORM FIRE CODE SECTIONS: Article I. Uniform Fire code 18.44.010 Uniform Fire Code and Standards adopted. 18.44. 020 Uniform Fire Code--Deletions. 18 . 44. 030 Uniform Fire Code--Amendments. 18 .44. 040 UFC Section [2.302] 2.303 amended--Appeals--Board of Appeals. .18.44.050 [UFC Section 4. 101 4. 108 amended Permits for a . ] Penalty for failure to obtain permit. 18.44.060 UFC Section 4. 103 amended--Permit applications and fees. 18.44. 070 [Inspections] UFC Sections 45 . 207. 2 and 45 . 209 . (c) amended--Limited spraying areas and spray booth fire protection equipment. -2- 18.44.080 UFC Section [10. 207(g)] 10. 207 . (m) added-- [Access roadways. ] Fire lanes. 18 . 44.090 [UFC Sect-en-1-0-.-16 -added--Hese-l-i-nes fo-r demolitions:] UFC 11.201 . (b) amended--Containers and removal. 18.44-091 UFC Section 11.201. (d) amended--Dumpster and container location. 18. 44.092 UFC Section 11 .301 amended--Reporting of fires. 18.44. 100 [UFC Sectio waste .,ter; al Wee ntre . ] UFC Section 34. 104 amended--Burning operations . 18.44. 110 UFC Section 78. 102 and 78. 103 amended-- I , Section 78. 104 added] Fireworks. 18.44. 120 UFC Section [79 115] 79 . 117 added--Adulterated liquids as flammable. 18.44. 130 UFC Section 79 .301( f ) added--Maximum gross tank capacity indoors. 18.44. 140 UFC Section [79-508(c)] 79 . 507(c) amended--Diked areas. 18 . 44. 150 [UFC Appendix IIIA amended Testing fire extinguishingms. ] UFC Appendix III-A section 4 second exception amended--Fire-flow requirements for buildings. 18.44. 160 UFC Appendix Chapter I-A amended--Life safety requirements for existing buildings. • 18.44. 161 UFC Article 80--Hazardous Materials. Article II . Flammable Liquids and Explosives 18.44. 170 Outside storage in above-ground tanks--District limits. 18.44. 180 Liquefied petroleum gas storage areas. 18.44. 190 Storage of explosives and blasting agents. Article III. Enforcement and Penalties [18.44.200 Abatement procedures for cleaning real property. ] 18. 44. 210 Permits--Withholding, suspension and revocation. 18 . 44.220 Mandatory and prohibitionary nature of chapter. Section 18.44.010 of the Salt Lake City Code relating to Uniform Fire Code and Standards adopted is amended to read as follows: Sec. 18.44.010 Uniform Fire Code and Standards adopted. That certain code and standards known as the Uniform Fire Code, [1982] 1988 Edition, including Appendix Chapters I-A, [-I— B] , I-C, II-E, III-A, III-B, III-C, V-A, VI-A, VI-D, and VI-E -3- and the Uniform Fire Code Standards, [1982] 1988 Edition, as promulgated and published by the Western Fire Chiefs Association and the International Conference of Building Officials are adopted by reference by Salt Lake City as the ordinances, rules and regulations of the city, subject to deletions, amendments and exceptions thereto set out in this chapter. [Thrcc copies] One copy of said code shall be on file for public use and examination in the office of the City Recorder. Hereafter, all references in these provisions to the Uniform Fire Code and/or said Standards shall refer to the [1982] 1988 Editions thereof. Section 18.44.020 of the Salt Lake City Code relating to Uniform Fire Code--Deletions is amended to read as follows: Sec. 18.44.020 Uniform Fire Code--Deletions. Specifirally deleted from the Uniform Fire Code adopted above are Appendix Chapters I-B, II-A, II-B, II-C, II-D, [[III I3], IV-A, [and VI A D], VI-B, and VI-C, which have no effect in this jurisdiction. Section 18.44.030 of the Salt Lake City Code relating to Uniform Fire Code—Arreninents is amended to read as follows: Sec. 18.44.010 Uniform Fire C'rr1c' and Standards adopted. Sec. 18.44.020 Uniform Fire Crrle--]deletions. Sec. 18.44.030 Uniform Fire Cule--Amenc3nents. Sec. 18.44.040 UFC Section [2.302] 2.303 amended--Appeals--Board of Appeals. Sec. 18.44.050 [UFC Section 4 101 4.108 amended Permit3 for ecetylcnc generators.] Penalty for failure to obtain permit. -4- Sec. 18.44.060 UFC Section 4.103 amended--Permit applications and fees. Sec. 18.44.070 [Inspections.] UFC Sections 45.207.2 and 45.209.(c) amended--Limited spraying areas and spray booth fire protection equipment. Sec. 18.44.080 UFC Section [10.207(g)] 10.207.(m) added--[Ac ess- roadways.] Fire lanes. Sec. 18.44.090 [ .] UFC 11.201.(b) amended--Containers and removal. S . 18.44.091 UFC Section 11.201.(d) amended--Ihm Aster and container location. Sec. 18.44.092 UFC Section 11.301 amended--Reporting of fires. Sec. 18.44.100 [UFC Section 11.201(a) amended Accumulation ulation of waste ] UFC Section 34.104 amended-- Burning operations. Sec. 18.44.110 UFC Section 78.102 and 78.103 amerded[Scction 78.104 added]--Fireworks. Sec. 18.44.120 UFC Section [79 115] 79.117 added--Adulterated liquids as flammable. Sec. 18.44.130 UFC Section 79.301(f) added--Maximum gross tank capacity indoors. Sec. 18.44.140 UFC Section [79 508(c)] 79.507.(c) amended--Diked areas. Sec. 18.44.150 [ systems.] UFC Appendix III-A section 4 second exception amended--Fire-flaw requirements for buildings. Sec. 18.44.160 UFC Appendix Chapter I-A amen--Life safety requirements for existing buildings. -5- Sec. 18.44.161 UFC Article 80--Hazardous Materials. Section 18.44.040 of the Salt Lake City Code relating to UFC Section 2.302 amended--Appeals--Board of Appeals is amended to read as follows: Sec. 18.44.040 UFC Section [2.302] 2.303 amended--Appeals--Board of Appeals. Section [2.302] 2.303 of the Uniform Fire Code relating to the board of appeals is amended to read as follows: Sec. [2.302.] 2.303. Board of Appeals. (a) *** (b) *** (c) *** (d) *** Section 18.44.050 of the Salt Lake City Code relating to UFC 4-101 amended--Permits for acetylene generators is repealed. [ ene gars-:- . , which shall read as fellows: Sec. 4 101. It shall be- unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to use a building or r operating - • €e . -6- Sec Article 34;- r mint • ish firm. Sec Section 11.101. e . b. Bunning in public place. To ignite or burn waste material on eh has no 11.113. establishments. For definiti 25. iL i e ar-C ie • • quantities in excess of 100 cubic feet. See Article 28. • _ rmal t • resscd 0 -7- C L33IL Flammable Over 1 gallon 60 gallons Oxidizer (includes Oxygen) 50 gallons 50 gallons Corrosive or Highly toxic Over 1 gallon Over 1 gallon 12. DtLy cleaning plants. To engage in the business of dry cleaning. S le 36 end Sect; 79 -i 802 ter,flour st , spi other material-prod . excavate or do-any-baerk below grade within 10 feet of any pipeline used for the transportation of flammable or ccmbustiblc liquids. See Section 70.1201- blastingmen-77.104. . 'cle 78. tiers: T e . r use Class I liquids-in-excess of 5 gallons in a building or in excess of 10 gallons eu or-the following: -8- me ,c heating on of the chief, would cause an or similar purposes € ys-:- D. To store, handle or use Class II or Class III liquids in excess of 25--gallon3 in a building or in excess of 60 gallons outside a building, except fo st D. To install, alter o st le liquids regulated under Article 70. E. To ins rarily out of service er-o 'd tank. See Article • 46.10 of f ult e . f business for repairing meter-�*e cles. rt•plc 29. -9- gait 'als or f fertilizers and fertilizer mixtures covered by Section 80.106(d); or any , cryogenic or poisonous gases. Sec Article 80. pesticides. . Sce Article 80. 'on -e stock. * fi ai ial • epee • -1-097000-beard-feet-,—See Article 30 , e- -18 -10- ��vver d c� use a-cx ye -ri 't c6llowng manner (3cc Artiele-35): • y booths, concession B. To usc the mall as a place of asscanbly. • D. To display any liquid or gas fueled powered equipment. cum gas, liquefied natural gas and-compressed 30-- • Article 33 for the calendar year for which it is issued. Sce Section 70.1101. • A. To usc open flame devices for mointenanoelor repair of boats, slips or wharfs. • f organic • 3 . or . -11- r7 P..r-..7.. fl r r ] There is hereby added to the Salt Lake City Code, Section 18.44.050, which is to read as follows: Sec. 18.44.050 Penalty for failure to obtain permit. There shall be imposed an adminisLi ative penalty in the amount of one hundred percent of the original permit fee for failure to obtain a permit required by this chapter. Said penalty shall be in addition to any other penalties, civil or criminal, that may be imposed by the courts. Section 18.44.060 of the Salt Lake City Code relating to UFC 4.103-- Permit applications and fees is amended to read as follows: Sec. 18.44.060 UFC Section 4.103 amended--Permit applications and fees. 4.103 Permit Application and Flees (a) All applications for a permit required by this mde as, amended herein, shall be made to the bureau of fire prevention in such form and detail as the Bureau shall prescribe. Applications for permits shall be accompanied by such plans as required by the bureau. (b) [Each-applicatIen-shal-l-be-aeowpanied-by-the-permit-fee-designated in 18.44.050 at the t' t of +aiat-=•d €ee-is- 3-refund ble.] Each application shall be accompanied at the time of application by the fee designated by administrative regulation for the applicable permit, certificate, or inspection. (c) [Unless zero e -12- t.ing • permit. All permits other than those designated for a single event are valid for one year and must be renewed on an annual basis. The fee for the caning year shall be paid in full before the expiration of the existing permit. Section 18.44.070 of the Salt Lake City Code relating to Inspections is repealed. There is hereby added to the Municipal Code of Salt Lake City, Section 18.44.070, which is to read as follows: Ser. 18.44.070 UFC Sections 45.207.2 and 45.209.(c) amended--Limited spraying areas and spray booth fire protection equipment. Section 45.207.2 of the Uniform Fire Code, relating to limited spraying areas is amended to read as follows: Sec. 45.207.2. The size of job to be done in such areas does not exceed nine square feet and is not of a continuous nature. Nuke: It is the intent of Item 2 to allow only small jobs which in their entirety do not excrod nine square feet and do not require more than thirty (30) minutes to complete. Section 45.209.(c) of the Uniform Fire Code relating to spray booth fire protection equipment is amended to read as follows: Sec. 45.209.(c) Space within spray booth on the downstream and upstream sides of filters shall be protected with an approved automatic [sprinklers] fire extinguishing system. Section 18.44.080 of the Salt Lake City Code relating to UFC Section 10.207(g) added--Access roadways is amended to read as follows: -13- • Ser. 18.44.080 UFC Section [10.207(g)] 10.207.(m) added--[Aaocsa roadways.] Fire lanes. Section 10.207 of the Uniform Fire C'r dP, relating to acrpss roadways for fire apparatus, is amended by deleting paragraphs (a) through (f) of 18.44.080 and by adding a new subsection [(g)] (m) relating to fire lanes, which shall read as follows: 10.207. [(a) ***.] [(b) [(c) [(d) ***,] [(e) ***.] [(f) ***,] [(g)] (m) Fire lanes. ***. Section 18.44.090 of the Salt Lake City Code relating to UFC Section 10.315 added Hose lines for demolitions is repealed. There is hereby added to the Salt Lake City C i--1P, Section 18.44.090, which is to read as follows: SQc. 18.44.090 UFC Section 11.201.(b) amended--Containers and removal. Sec. 11.201.(b) of the Uniform Fire Code concerning Containers and removal is amended to read as follows: SPr-. 11.201.(b) miners and Removal. Combustible rubbish or waste material, when kept within or adjacent to a building shall be stored in approved containers equipped with tight fitting covers or in roams or vaults constructed of noncombustible materials. Metal, metal-lined or other approved containers with tight-fitting covers shall be provided for oily rags and similar materials. Combustible rubbish or waste material, unless stored -14- in approved vaults or roans, shall be removed from the building at least once each working day. There is hereby added to the Salt Lake City Code, Section 18.44.091, which is to read as follows: Sec. 18.44.091 UFC Section 11.201.(d) amended--Dumpstpr and container location. Section 11.201.(d) of the Uniform Fire Cnrie relating to Dumpster and container location is amended to read as follows: Sec. 11.201.(d) Dumpster and Container Location. Dumpsters and containers with an individual capacity of 1.5 cubic yards (40.5 cubic feet) or greater shall rot be stored in buildings or placed outside within 5 feet of combustible walls, openings or combustible roof eaves lines. EXCEPTION: Areas containing dumpsters or containers protected by an approved automatic sprinkler system. There is hereby added to the Salt Lake City Cr1e, Section 18.44.092, which is to read as follows: Sec. 18.44.092 UFC Section 11.301 amended--Reporting of fires. Section 11.301 of the Uniform Fire Crrle relating to Reporting of fires is amended to read as follows: Sec. 11.301. In the event a fire occurs or the discovery of a fire, smoke or [unauthorized] the release of flammable or toxic materials on any property, the owner or occupant shall immediately report such condition to the fire • department. A fire shall mean any fire not used for cooking, heating or recreational purposes or one rot incidental to the normal operations of the property. -15- Section 18.44.100 of the Salt Lake City Code relating to UFC Section 11.201(a) amended--Accumulation of waste materials--Weed conL wl is repealed. There is hereby added to the Salt Lake City Code, Section 18.44.100, which is to read as follows: Sec. 18.44.100 UFC Section 34.104 amended--Burning operations. Sec. 34.104, of the Uniform Fire Code relating to Burning operations is amended to read as follows: Sec. 34.104 The burning of wrecked or discarded motor vehicles or of junk, or of any waste materials is not permitted. Section 18.44.110 of the Salt Lake City Code relating to UFC Sections 78.102 and 78.103 amended--[Section 78.104 added] Fireworks is amended to read as follows: Ser. 18.44.110 UFC Sections 78.102 and 78.103 amended [Section 78.104 added]--Fireworks. [A:] Sections 78.102 and 78.103 of the Uniform Fire Code, relating to fireworks, are amended to read as follows: Sec. 78.102. (a) Manufacturing, storage permit. It is unlawful to manufacture or store .fireworks within the limits of the city by any person or entity without first obtaining a permit from the Fire Marshal for such purpose and complying with state and local law. This provision shall not be construed as prohibiting the storage of fireworks for a display for which a permit has been granted under the provisions of public display under (b) below. (b) Public display permit. (1) It is unlawful to conduct any public display of fireworks without obtaining a special permit therefore and fully complying with the provisions of this chapter and these ordinances. The Fire Marshal, upon written application and the posting of required -16- Insurance, will coordinate the review of the permit by the Fire Department, City Attorney, Parks Department and Police Department. After their approvals the Fire Marshal may grant a permit for public display of fireworks by responsible groups. No permit granted hereunder shall be transferable. (2) Application for permit. The application for a permit to operate a public display of fireworks shall be made in writing at least 10 days in advance of the date of the display. It shall be signed by the applicant and shall contain the following information: (i) The name of the organization or persons sponsoring the display, together with the name, ages and qualifications of persons actually in charge of the firing of the display. (ii) The date and time of the day at which the display is to be held. (iii) The exact location planned for the display. (iv) The number and kinds of fireworks to be discharged. (v) The manner and place of storage of fireworks prior to the display. (3) Insurance required. No person or entity shall be issued a permit for the public display of fireworks unless he/she shall have insurance in the minimum sum of $250,000/500,000 liability naming Salt Lake City Corporation as an additional insured. A certificate of insurance Showing prof of the required coverage shall be on file with the City Redorder's office prior to final permission being granted by the Mayor and issued by the Chief pursuant to this article. -17- (c) After a permit for the public display of fireworks has been granted, sales, possession, use and distribution of fireworks for such display shall be lawful for that purpose only. Sec. 78.103.. Requ.irenents for display. (a) Nonhazardous manner. After a permit for public display has been obtained, such display shall be of a character, and so located, discharged or fired that it will not create a hazard to property or endanger any person, and must early with the technical standards below. (b) Firing distance. The actual point at which the fireworks are to be fired shall be at least: two hundred (200) feet from the nearest permanent building, public highway or railroad, and fifty (50) feet from the nearest above ground telegraph, telephone or electric power pole or line, tree or other overhead obstruction. (c) Minimum spectator distance. Spectators shall be restrained behind the lines at least one hundred fifty (150) feet fruu the point at which the fireworks are discharged. Only persons in active charge of the display shall be allowed inside said line. (d) Vertical firing required. All fireworks that fire a projectile shall be so set up that the projectile will go into the air as nearly as possible in a vertical direction. (e) Maximumt wind velocity. No fireworks display shall be held during any wind storm in which the wind reaches a velocity of thirty (30) miles or more per hour. (f) Fire extinguishers. Fire extinguishers shall be provided as required by the Fire Marshal. -18- Section 18.44.120 of the Salt Lake City Code relating to UFC Section 79.115 added--Adulterated liquids as flammable is amended to read as follows: Sec. 18.44.120 . UFC Section [79 115] 79.117 added--Adulterated liquids as flammable. Article 79 of the Uniform Fire code, relating to flammable and combustible liquid is amended by adding thereto a new section [79 115] 79.117 relating to adulterated liquids which shall read as follows: Sec. [79.115.] 79.117. Adulterated liquid as flammable. ***. Section 18.44.140 of the Salt Lake City Code relating to UFC Section 79- 508(c) amended--Diked areas is amended to read as follows: Sec. 18.44.140 UFC Section [79 508(c)] 79.507.(c) amended--Diked areas. The first [introductory] paragraph of Section 79.507.(c) of the Uniform Fire Code relating to diked areas of drainage tank areas, is amended to read as follows: Sec. 79.507.(c) Where protection of adjacent tanks, adjoining property or waterways is accomplished by retaining the liquid around the tank by means of a diked area, such dikes shall be at least six inches higher than necessary to retain the volumetric capacities detailed below in order to provide for adequate retention of fire fighting foam on the surface of the stored liquid. Such diked areas shall also comply with the following: (1) The volumetric capacity of the diked area shall be not less than the greatest amount of liquid that can be released from the largest tank within the diked area. In areas containing more than one tank this capacity must be achieved after deducting the volume of the portions of all tanks that are below the height of the dike within the diked area. The volumetric capacity of the diked area for a tank or group of tanks containing crude peLrcleum with -19- boilover characteristics shall be not less than the tank or tanks served by the enclosure. In areas containing. more than one tank this capacity must be achieved after deducting the volume of the portions of all tanks that are below the height of the dike within the diked area. [(2)***,] [(3)***.] [(4)***,] [(5)***,7 [(6)***.] [(7)***,] Section 18.44.150 of the Salt Lake City Code relating to UFC Appendix III-A amended--Testing fire-extinguishing systems is repealed. There is hereby added to the Salt Lake City On fie, Section 18.44.150, which is to read as follows: Sec. 18.44.150 UFC Appendix III-A Section 4 second exception amended-- Fire-flow requirements for buildings. Appendix III-A Section 4 second exception of the Uniform Fire Code concerning Fire flow requirements for buildings is amended to read as follows: Appendix III-A section 4 second exception: EXCEPTION: The required fire flow may be reduced up to [75] 50 percent when the building is provided with an approved automatic sprinkler system, but in no case less than 1500 gallons per minute. Section 18.44.160 of the Salt Lake City Code relating to UFC Appendix I-A amended--Life safety requirements for existing buildings is repealed. There is hereby added to the Salt Lake City cnde, Section 18.44.160, which is to read as follows: -20- Section 18.44.160 of the Salt Lake City Code relating to UFC Appendix I-A amended--Life safety requirements for existing buildings is amended to read as follows: Sec. 18.44.160 UFC Appendix Chapter I-A amended--Life safety requirements for existing buildings. Appendix Chapter I-A of the Uniform Fire Cr9 , 1988 Fdition, relating to i gulations applicable to existing buildings is amended to read as follows: APPENDIX I-A Life Safety Requirenents to Existing Buildings [Other than High Rioc] 1. General (a) Purpose. ***. EXCEPTION: Group R Division 3 and Group M. [, :] (b) Effective Date. effective date o€ within 18 months thcroaf .] Existing nonconforming Group R, Division 1 occupancies shall be made to conform to the requirements of this appendix immediately or shall be vacated until made to conform. Existing nonconforming occupancies, other than Group R-1, shall conform to these requirements if, in the opinion of the chief, they constitute a distinct hazard to life and property. 2. EXITS (a) Number of Exits. ***. (b) Stair Construction. ***. (c) Corridors. ***. -21- EXCEPTION: Existing corridor walls, rpilings and opening protection not in compliance with the above may be continued [when such buildings are p •], provided an approved automatic sprinkler system is provided for all corridors, stairs, exits and other common areas. Such sprinkler system may be supplied fiun the domestic water system if it is of adequate volume and pressure. (d) Fire Escapes. 1. ***. 2. Fire escapes shall comply with the following: [Access-from e corridor shall not be through an intervening roan.] All openings within 10 feet shall be protected by three- fourths-hour ***. (e) Exit and Fire Escape Signs. ***. 3. ENCLOSURE OF VERTICAL SHAFTS Interior vertira1 shafts, ***. EXCEPTIONS: 1. ***. 2. Stairways need not be enclosed nor stories separated if an approved automatic sprinkler system is provided for all corridors, stairs, exits and other common areas. 3. Vertir-a1 openings s need not be protected if the entire building is protected by an approved automatic sprinkler system. 4. BASEMENT ACCESS OR SPRINKLER PROTECTION ***. 5. STANDPIPES ***. 6. SMOKE DETECTORS (a) General. ***. (b) Power Source. ***. -22- (c) Location Within Dwelling Units. ***. EXCEPTION: In lieu of the smoke detectors in every dwelling unit, the smoke detectors may be installed in the corridors and all common areas spaced a maximum of 30 feet apart and not more than 15 feet from any wall. (d) Location in Efficiency Dwelling Units and Hotels. ***. EXCEPTION: In lieu of the stroke detectors in every dwelling unit, the smoke detectors may be installed in the corridors and all common areas spaced a maximum of 30 feet apart and not more than 15 feet from any wall. 7. SEPARATION OF OCCUPANCIES Occupancy separations shall be provided as specified in Section 503 of the Building Code. Every roan containing a boiler, ceni.Lal heating plant or hot-water supply boiler in Group R Division 1 occupancies shall be separated from the rest of the building by not less than an one-hour fire-resistive crrmpancy separation. When approved by the chief, existing wood lath and plaster in good condition or 1/2-inch gypsum wallboard may be acceptable where one-hour rxx,ipancy separations are required. EXCEPTION: A separation shall not be required for such rooms with equipment serving only one dwelling unit. 8. EXIT ILTUJMINATION Exit illumination shall be as required by the Uniform Building Code, Section 3313, 1988 cation. There is hereby added to the Salt Lake City Code, Section 18.44.161, which is to read as follows: - -23- Sec. 18.44.161 UFC Article 80--Hazardous Materials. The Sections of Article 80 of the Uniform Fire Code, as specified herein, are amended to read as follows: 1. Page 318, Sec. 80.101, Scope: Add a new Exception 3. after EXCEP1'I0N 2. as follows: 3. For retail display of non-flammable solid and non-flammable or noncombustible liquid hazardous materials in Group B, Division 2 retail sales occupancies, see Sec. 80.109. 2. ALSO, page 323: Add a new Section 80.109 after Section 80.108 as follows: Retail Display Sec. 80.109. The aggregate quantity of n0n-flammable solid and non- flammable or noncombustible liquid hazardous materials permitted within a single eonLiul area of a Group B, Division 2 retail sales occupancy may exceed the exempt amounts specified in Division III, Tables 80.306-A, 80.309-A, 80.310-A, 80.312-A, 80.314-A and 80.315-A. The maximum allowable quantity in pounds or gallons permitted within a single ocnLvol area of a retail sales occupancy shall be the amount obtained by multiplying the exempt amount specified in the Division III exempt amount tables by the following density factor, and- then multiplying that product by the square footage of the area. The maximum aggregate floor area for hazardous material retail display or storage over which the density factor may be applied shall not exceed 1,500 square feet per con Luvl area. Hazard Classification Density Factor Physiral Hazards Class 4 NOT PERMIaMD Class 3 0.075 -24- Class 2 0.006 Class 1 0.003 Hea l th Hazards All 0.0013 The area of storage or display shall also comply with the following requirements: (a) Display of solids shall not exceed 200 pounds per square foot of floor area actually occupied by the solid merchandise. (b) Display of liquids shall not exceed 20 gallons per square foot of floor area actually orcupied by the liquid merchandise. (c) Display height shall not exceed 6 feet. (d) Individual oontainers. less than 5 gallons or less than 25 pounds shall be stored on pallets, racks or shelves. (e). Storage racks and shelves shall be in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 80.301(i). (f) Containers shall be approved for the use intended. (g) Individival containers shall not exceed 100 pounds or 5 gallons capacity. (h) Incompatible materials shall be separated in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 80.301(n). (i) Floors shall be in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 80.301(z). (j) Aisles 4 feet in width shall be maintained on 3 sides of the display area. (k) Hazard identification signs shall be provided in accordance with the provisions of Ser. 80.104(e). -25- 3. ALSO, page 337, Sr. 80.306(a) Indoor Storage, item 1. : Add an exception at the end of the paragraph as follows: EXCEPTION: For retail display of non-flammable solid and non-flammable or nonoanbustible liquid Class 1, 2 and 3 oxidizers, see Sec. 80.109. 4. ALSO, page 337, Sec. 80.306(a)2., Table No 80.306-A: Delete Class 3 oxidizers from footnotes 1 and 2, and add a new footnote numbered 3 as follows: TABLE NO 80.306-A LIQUID AND SOLID OXIDIZERS1,2,3 EXEMPT AMOUNTS (Table to remain unchanged. ) NO exempt amounts of Class [3 or] 4 oxidizers are permitted in Group R occupancies or offices or retail sales portions of Group B occupancies. 2No exempt amounts of Class [3 or] 4 oxidizers are permitted in Group A, E, I or M cripancies or in classrooms of Group B occupancies unless storage is within a hazardous material storage cabinet containing no other storage. 3A maxirrtum quantity of 200 pounds of solid or 20 gallows of liquid Class 3 oxidizers may be permitted in I, M arxi R occupancies, when such materials are necessary for maintenance purposes or operation of equipment. The oxidizers shall be stored in approved containers and in a mariner approved by the Chief. 5. ALSO, page 347, Sec. 80.309(a) Indoor Storage, item 1. : Number the existing Exception "1", and add a new Exception nuMber "2" after the existing Exception as follows: EXCEPTIONS: 1Detonatable unstable (reactive) materials shall be stored in arrnrdanoe with Article 77. -26- For retail display of non-flammable solid and non-flammable or noncombustible liquid unstable (reactive) materials, cm Section 80.109. 6. ALSO, page 349, Sec. 80.310(a) Indoor Storage, Item 1: Add an Exception after the paragraph as follows: EXCEPTION: For retail display of non-flammable solid and non-flammable or noncombustible liquid water-reactive materials, clef-, Section 80.109. 7. ALSO, page 351, Sec. 80.312(a) Indoor Storage, Item 1: Add and exception after the paragraph as follows: EXCEPTION: For retail display of non-flammable solid and non-flammable or noncombustible liquid highly toxic materials, see SPr. 80.109. 8. ALSO, page 354, Sec. 80.314(a) Indoor Storage, Item 1: Add an Exception after the paragraph as follows: EXCEPTION: For retail display of non-flammable solid and non-flammable or noncombustible liquid corrosive materials, cm SPr. 80.109. 9. ALSO, page 355 Sec. 80.315(a) Indoor Storage, Item 1: Add an Exception after the paragraph as follows. EXCEPTION: For retail display of non-flammable solid and noncombustible or non-flammable liquid or other health hazard materials, see Sec. 80.109. Sec. 80.101: Add 2 new Exceptions (Exceptions 3. and 4. ) after Exception 2. as follows: 3. The aggregate quantity of non-flammable solid and non-flammable or noncombustible liquid hazardous materials permitted within a single conLcwl area of a Group B, Division 2 retail Gales occupancy may exceed the exempt amounts specified in Division III, Tables 80.306-A, 80.309-A, 80.310-A, 80.312-A, 80.314-A and 80.315-A. The maxinm m allowable quantity in pounds or gallons permitted within a single control area of a retail Gales occupancy -27- shall be the amount obtained by multiplying the exempt amount specified in the Division III exempt amount tables by the following density factor, and then multiplying that product by the square footage of the area. The maximum aggregate floor area for hazardous material retail display or storage over which the density factor may be applied shall not exceed 1,500 square feet per con L wl area. Hazard Classification Density Factor Physiral Hazards • Class 4 NOT PERMITTED Class 3 0.075 Class 2 0.006 Class 1 0.003 Health Hazards All 0.0013 The area of storage or display shall also comply with the following requirements: (a) Display of solids shall not exceed 200 pounds per square foot of floor area actually occupied by the solid merchandise: (b) Display of liquids shall not exceed 20 gallons per square foot of floor area actually occupied by the liquid merchandise. (c) Display height shall not exceed 6 feet. (d) Individual containers leq-s than 5 gallons or less than 25 pounds shall be stored on pallets, racks or shelves. (e) Storage racks and shelves shall be in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 80.301 (i). (f) Containers shall be approved for the use intended. (g) Individual containers shall not exceed 100 pounds or 5 gallons capacity. -28- (h) Incompatible materials shall be separated in accordance with the provisions of Ser'. 80.301(n). (i) Floors shall be in ao±rdan e with the provisions of Sec. 80.301(z). (j) Aisles 4 feet in width shall be maintained on 3 sides of the display area. (k) Hazard identification signs shall be provided in accordance with the provisions of Sr-. 80.104(e). ' 4. A maximum quantity of 200 pounds of solid or 20 gallons of liquid Class 3 oxidizers may be permitted in I, M and R occupancies, when such materials are necessary for maintenance purposes or operation of equipment. The oxidizers shall be stored in approved containers and in a manner approved by the Chief. • ALSO, Table 80.306-A: Delete Class 3 oxidizers from Footnotes 1 and 2 as follows: 1No exempt amounts of Class [3 or] 4 oxidizers are permitted in Group R occupancies or offices or retail sales porticos of Group B crx, pancies. 2No exempt amounts of Class [3 or] 4 oxidizers are permitted in Group A, E, I or M rrcaupancies or in classrooms of Group B occupancies unless storage is within a hazardous material storage cabinet containing no other storage. Section 18.44.200 of the Salt Lake City Code relating to Abatement procedures for cleaning real property is repealed. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect upon the date of its first. publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989 . -29- CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: - CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 1989. Published: GRH:rc -30-