Loading...
10/03/2002 - Minutes PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2002 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah met in Work Session on Thursday, October 3, 2002, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 326, Committee Room, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance: Council Members Carlton Christensen, Eric Jergensen, Nancy Saxton, Jill Remington Love, Dave Buhler, and Dale Lambert. Absent: Councilmember Van Turner Also In Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; David Nimkin, Mayor' s Chief of Staff; D. J. Baxter, Mayor's Senior Advisor; Janet Wolf, Mayor' s Director of Youth Programs; Diana Karrenberg, Community Affairs Manager; Michael Sears, Council Budget and Policy Analyst; Janice Jardine, Council Planning and Policy Analyst; Lehua Weaver, Council Staff Assistant; Sylvia Jones, Council Constituent Liaison; Ray McCandless, Northwest Quadrant/Subdivisions Planner; Doug Dansie, Downtown/Special Projects Planner; Doug Wheelwright, Land Use and Transportation/Subdivisions Planner; Brent Wilde, Deputy Planning Director; Timothy Harpst, Transportation Director; Frank Gray, Council Consultant; Marilee Utter, Council Consultant; Steve Fawcett, Management Services Deputy Director; Randy Hillier, CIP Admin/Budget and Policy Analyst; Alison McFarlane, Economic Development Manager; Melissa Anderson, Sugarhouse/Long Range Planner; Nancy Boskoff, Arts Council Executive Director; David Oka, Redevelopment Agency Executive Director; Valda Tarbet, Redevelopment Agency Deputy Director; Bob Farrington, Downtown Alliance; and Scott Crandall, Deputy Recorder. Councilmember Buhler presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:36 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1. INTERVIEW DEREK THOMAS PAYNE PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HIS APPOINTMENT TO THE ARTS COUNCIL. Mr. Payne said the majority of his 18-year architectural career had been spent designing public art facilities. He said he taught architectural design at the University of Utah and had been involved in affordable housing and mixed use projects. He said making people aware of art and cultural events would enhance the City. #2. RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING RESIDENTIAL FLAG LOT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. (PETITION NO. 400-01-47) View Attachment Doug Wheelwright, Sylvia Jones, Janice Jardine, and Ray McCandless briefed the Council with the attached handout. Mr. Wheelwright said information was given to the Council concerning the location of approved flag lots. He said potential flag lot locations were determined using the GIS system. He said the majority of lots were located in Sugarhouse and West Salt Lake. Councilmember Saxton asked if the option for two-story structures was being eliminated. Mr. Wheelwright said no. Councilmember Saxton asked about setback requirements for two-story structures. Mr. Wheelwright said flag lots required front, rear, and side-yards. He said front-yards and side- yards were required to have the same footage as rear-yards. Councilmember Saxton asked about the maximum height for two-story buildings. Mr. Wheelwright said the height was 30 feet at the midpoint of the roof. Councilmember Buhler asked what Council action was needed. Ms. Jardine said the proposal involved a zoning text change which required a public hearing. The majority of the Council was in favor of advancing the item to a public hearing. 02 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2002 #3. RECEIVE A BRIEFING ON BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 10 AND FOLLOW-UP ITEMS FROM BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 9. View Attachment D.J. Baxter, Steve Fawcett, Michael Sears, Randy Hillier, Tim Harpst, Alison McFarlane, Janet Wolf, and Bob Farrington briefed the Council with the attached handout. Councilmember Buhler said the pedestrian crossing, from Budget Amendment No. 9, needed to be resolved before action could be taken on Budget Amendment No. 10. Mr. Baxter said the issue was left open to allow further discussion with the Days of 47 Parade committee. He said the committee was concerned raised planter boxes would interfere with the parade. He said discussions were continuing but the Administration wanted to move forward with the rest of the proposal. He said boxes could be added later if the Council wanted. Discussion was held on various aspects of developing the pedestrian crossing. Comments included: brick pavers, scored concrete; painting the crosswalk, planter boxes, cost savings, safety issues, traffic congestion, allowing left turns from the City and County building; downtown beautification aesthetics, signals, design modifications, landscaping, public convenience, pedestrian accidents, crossing flags, traffic calming, and reconfiguring the entrance to the City and County Building. Councilmember Love asked if the $162,000 for the installation of the new crosswalk was just for pavers. Mr. Baxter said that was the majority of the expense. Council Members expressed concerns about the $300,000 estimate and were interested in exploring cost saving options. Councilmember Buhler asked about the cost to reconfigure the horseshoe and paint crosswalk lines. Mr. Baxter said the cost was approximately $150,000. Councilmember Love asked what the Council had originally approved. Mr. Baxter said the original request was $3.6 million which included the crosswalk. He said the Council approved approximately $3.3 million. Ms. Gust-Jenson said her staff would work with Mr. Baxter to develop additional options. Council Members were in favor. Discussion was held on Budget Amendment No. 10. Issue No. 1: Quality Growth Commission Planning grant, Envision Utah donation ($5,000 - Miscellaneous Grant Fund) ("Grants requiring existing staff focus/housekeeping") . No opposition. Issue No 2: PD-EMD Dispatch Training - Utah Department of Health, Bureau of Emergency Management Service Grant ($5,239 - Miscellaneous Grant Fund) ("Grants requiring existing staff focus/continuation of grant") . No opposition. Issue No. 3: Downtown decorations and performances ($600, 000 - General Fund) ("New Item") . Ms. McFarlane said a Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued September 26, 2002. Councilmember Buhler asked when proposals were due. Ms. McFarlane said October 9, 2002. Councilmember Buhler said he was concerned about the project because Margaret Hunt, Community and Economic Development Director, no longer worked for the City. Ms. McFarlane said she had been involved from the beginning and felt she would be able to complete the process. Councilmember Christensen said he was a member of the selection committee. He said he understood RFP proposals would be reviewed October 15, 2002 and asked if the intent was to make a decision on that day. Ms. McFarlane said that was correct. Councilmember Buhler said a public hearing was scheduled for October 8, 2002. Councilmember Christensen said he wanted to defer action until proposals were reviewed. Councilmember Saxton asked who was being marketed by the RFP. Ms. McFarlane said it 02 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2002 was designed to capitalize on visitors who came to see the lights. She said the intent was to bring them further into the Central Business District and provide more experiences for them. Councilmember Saxton asked if Gateway planned to have lights. Ms. McFarlane said she understood they would have trees, lights and decorations. Councilmember Saxton asked if the City provided lights in other retail areas of the City. Ms. Gust-Jenson said staff would follow-up on the question. Council Members expressed concerns about public awareness of the proposal, vendor ability to perform on short notice, duplication of services, attracting people to downtown, holding the public hearing before RFP proposals were reviewed, RFP objectives, contingency plans, and involvement of local merchants. Mr. Farrington spoke about the Downtown Alliance's annual plans and participation in the RFP process. Council Members were in favor of asking the Downtown Alliance to proceed with their annual lighting plans. They said if RFP proposals were favorable, the Alliance would be included. Issue No. 4: Downtown Winter Festival ($80,000 - General Fund) (New Item) . Councilmember Buhler said more information was needed and suggested deferring the item until December. Ms. McFarlane said funding was needed to secure an event planner. She said if the process was delayed too long, it would be difficult to have something in place for the festival. Councilmember Buhler said there was confusion whether the money was for design costs or for the entire project. Ms. McFarlane said she would get more information for the Council. Councilmember Jergensen asked if the festival was part of a previous RFP. Ms. McFarlane said this was a new RFP. Councilmember Jergensen said he understood the State was putting on an independent festival. Ms. McFarlane said the State wanted each venue city to plan its own festival. She said the State would coordinate those festivals and prepare a calendar of events. Councilmember Saxton said the Salt Lake Olympic Organizing Committee had previously committed to finance and host the entire festival. Ms. McFarlane said SLOC changed the plan and the money was going toward other Olympic activities planned for February 8, 2003. Councilmember Buhler suggested forwarding the issue to Tuesday's meeting. He said that would allow time for the Administration to gather more information. Mr. Sears asked if the Council wanted a follow-up briefing prior to the formal meeting. Council Members were in favor. Mr. Sears said the next issue dealt with the $150,000 needed for youth programs. Councilmember Buhler said $102, 600 could be taken from contingency and $47,400 from fund balance. Mr. Sears said using the $102, 600 would bring the contingency balance to zero. Councilmember Christensen said with a zero balance, the Administration needed to look internally for future matching grant funding. The majority of the Council was in favor. Councilmember Saxton asked if overlapping services would occur regarding the $150, 000 and the $1.2 million received in federal funding. Ms. Wolf said no. She said the $1.2 million was for program expansion. She said the $150,000 was for ongoing expenses relating to after school programs. #4. HOLD A DISCUSSION WITH COUNCIL CONSULTANT FRANK GRAY REGARDING THE WALKABLE COMMUNITIES AND TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCES. (CREATING TRANSIT-ORIENTED ZONING REGULATIONS, LOCATING PARKING LOTS BEHIND BUILDINGS, AND ESTABLISHING PEDESTRIAN-ORIENTED DESIGN STANDARDS. (PETITION NO. 400-00-52, PETITION NO. 400-01-48, 02 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2002 & PETITION NO. 400-01-12) View Attachment Frank Gray and Marilee Utter briefed the Council with the attached handout. Ms. Utter said Transit Oriented Development (TOD) was a fairly new concept in the West. She said communities with light rail and other transit systems needed to determine how suburban land uses worked around transit stations. She said the general goal was to provide 360-degree access around the transit platform. She said people who lived or worked within a quarter mile of a station were five times more likely to use public transit. Ms. Utter said unique communities needed to be built around transit stations with distinct boundaries and shared parking. She said the proposal was a good first step but the ordinance could be more aggressive. She said they supported the reduced parking minimum in the proposed ordinance. She said parking was a big factor in all developments. She said transit developments were a special kind of mixed use which were particularly driven by parking needs. Ms. Utter said the densest development needed to be around the platform. She said they recommended letting residential come to the street level along with retail and encourage all types of housing. She said they recommended adding incentives to build higher than what was being proposed in the ordinance. She said they recommended the development of Station Area Plans for transit sites. She said the development of these plans needed to include input from community councils, neighborhoods, developers, and the business community. Ms. Utter said transit developments required more risk and the City needed to provide incentives and assistance. Councilmember Lambert asked about the incentive to go higher. Ms. Utter said allowing structures to go to 100 feet or more. She said transit oriented developments needed their own zoning. She said some confusion existed regarding historic districts. She said the language in the ordinance needed to be modified so historic districts were not included in transit corridors. Ms. Utter said they recommended Council continue pursuing mid-block crossings at transit sites. She said assembling land along the corridor would be a challenge and needed the Council' s attention. Mr. Gray said the Redevelopment Agency could help with the land assemblage. He said the City's vision for transit areas needed to be well articulated before soliciting developers. He said they spoke to several local developers who were well informed and interested in working with the City. Councilmember Buhler said one of the suggested changes promoted housing on the street level. He said traditionally the City put retail on that level. Ms. Utter said they recommended being flexible about requiring retail on the street level. She said residential spaces could be designed with high ceilings so they could be turned into restaurants and retail over time. Councilmember Jergensen asked about the links between high-density areas where 100-foot buildings were located next to single-family homes. Mr. Gray said design guidelines could be established requiring taller buildings to step back from the residential area so the highest point was the furthest away from the residential neighborhood. He said certain guidelines could be done on a citywide basis but others should be for specific areas. Mr. Gray said there were differences between performance standards, design guidelines and design standards which needed to be understood. He said the ordinance could be simplified by requiring all buildings in neighborhood commercial areas to provide pedestrian friendly and safe environments through the implementation of design guidelines. He said another recommendation would be to develop design standards for streets such as arterial, collector, local and trails. 02 - 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2002 Mr. Gray said the current process was difficult for developers. He said the process needed to be simplified and the ordinance needed to include an appeal process. He said the majority of developers supported the adoption of design guidelines. Councilmember Jergensen asked how design standards would be applied when single-family homes were located on both sides of an arterial street. Mr. Gray said standards only applied to areas where neighborhood commercial zoning already existed. Mr. Gray said the ordinance could initially be adopted for streets but when neighborhood plans and designs guidelines were developed and adopted, they would supercede street designations. Councilmember Lambert asked if there would still be exceptions such as Planned Unit Developments (PUD) . Mr. Gray said yes. Councilmember Christensen asked if pedestrian friendly developments always required buildings at street fronts. Mr. Gray said no. He said in some cases moving the building to the street produced a hostile pedestrian environment. Councilmember Buhler asked if the large number of zoning types the City had was typical or appropriate. Mr. Gray said for the size of the City, the number might be on the high end but was probably appropriate. He said the large number of zones reflected the City's attempt to respond to community needs. Ms. Utter said in the past, zoning focused on uses but now there was focus on design guidelines and how things looked. Ms. Gust-Jenson said Mr. Gray would be available October 4, 2002 for follow-up questions. Council Members were in favor of scheduling follow-up briefings to discuss both ordinances and receive a response from the Planning Department. The meeting adjourned at 9:08 p.m. sc 02 - 5 MEMORANDUM DATE: October 1, 2002 TO: Council Members FROM: Sylvia Jones Research & Policy Analyst/Constituent Liaison SUBJECT: Petition No. 400-01-47— Planning Commission—request to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance relating to Residential Flag Lot and Planned Development Standards CC: Rocky Fluhart, D.J. Baxter, Steven Allred, Lynn Pace, David Nimkin, Margaret Hunt, David Dobbins, Stephen Goldsmith, Roger Evans, Harvey Boyd, Brent Wilde, Doug Wheelwright, Ray McCandless, Craig Spangenberg, Larry Butcher, Enzo Calfa, and Janice Jardine At the September 17, 2002 City Council Work Session,the following issues and comments were discussed. Please refer to the attached minutes and staff report. At the end of the Work Session discussion, Council Members agreed to forward this item to allow the public hearing date to be set. ❑ Flag lot issues need to be separated from planned unit development issues. Council Member Dale Lambert asked for the Planning Commission to consider input from the Sugar House Community Council in addressing planned unit development issues. (This issue can be addressed through a motion from the Council requesting that the Planning Commission and Administration reevaluate the planned development process in relation to the issues identified by the Sugar House Community Council and provide options for Council consideration.) ❑ Discussion of: 1. The historical development and ownership of flag lots within the City. 2. Whether or not the area,height and setback requirements are adequate to address neighborhood compatibility. 3. The potential for future development of flag lots in the City. o Council Members asked the Planning Division to respond to the following requests and questions: (Please note that the answers from the Planning Division appear in bold text.) 1. Provide the addresses of flag lots developed within Salt Lake City during the past five years. Burdette Flag Lot 1750 East 1700 South 410-517 1/10/01 Brian Black Flag Lot 1382 West Van Buren Ave. 410-451 2/10/02 Alan&Ann Bradshaw 2534 Wilshire Drive 410-376 11/1/99 Brian Jessop 1683 E.Atkin Ave. 410-243 9/13/96 Richardson 1397 W. Stetson Way 410-261 3/21/97 The following was approved as a planned development but looks like a flag lot. It is an example of a two-story structure approximately 10 feet from the adjoining property. Sierra Collins 1885 E. 2100 South 410-293 11/24/97 2. Based on the work and research conducted by the Planning Commission's subcommittee, please provide Council Members an estimate or range of the potential number of flag lots which could be developed within the City, and the general areas of the City in which flag lots could be developed. It would be extremely difficult to estimate or predict how many flag lots could potentially be developed in the City. There are two main reasons for this. First,property(owners) can assemble property and there is no way of knowing where that might occur. Second, neither our aerial photographs nor the Sidwell Books can provide sufficient detail to determine whether a parcel of land is a flag lot candidate. Even if a lot is large enough,it may not meet all the required standards. The lot may not have enough frontage or width. The lot may not be deep enough or allow for required building setbacks. The location of an existing home may not allow enough room for the access strip. A detailed site plan would be needed for each potential flag lot candidate to determine its developability. The majority of deep parcels with flag lot potential are located in the Sugar House and in the West Salt Lake Communities. 3. With this estimate in mind,do the proposed text changes prevent or impede future flag lot development? The proposed revisions make flag lots more difficult but they do not prevent future development. o� NEW LIBRARY II . 0 0 ® o o Jeti,w ''I 9 . r SECOND :,ST • REET PARADE ROUTE A I oeo o(a4 0 o cis o oe oe 0 o o o o ir 0 10 0 • • 0 0 CITY&COUNTY BUILDING north Er3 • • )•...... 200 East Landscaping SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY ;0 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH SEP 2 7 2002 •OSS C."ROCKY"ANDERSON SALT' ! t�l C!i X(GORPO©�e. JLO MAYOR -+ arw �►��J lar .s.r tea. SALT LAKE 2002 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Dave Buhler, Chairman Salt Lake City Council FROM: Rocky J. Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer DATE: September 27, 2002 SUBJECT: Budget Amendment No. 10 Recommendation: We recommend that on October 1, the City Council set a date to hold a public hearing on October 8, 2002, to discuss Budget Amendment No. 10. Discussion and Background: The attached amendment packet is transmitted to the City Council Office for the briefing on October 3, 2002. Legislative Action: The attached ordinance to amend this budget has been approved by the City Attorney. cc: Dan Mule, City Treasurer Shannon Ashby 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE:801-535-7704 FAX:801-535-6331 ® RECYCLED PAPER FY 2003 Grant Initiatives in Budget Amendment — October FY 2003 FY 2004 Initiative Gen. Gen. Initiative Name Amount Fund FTE Fund FTE Im I act Im'act Grants Re i uirin: Existin' Staff Focus 1. PD-EMD Dispatch Training $5,239 -0- -0- -Utah Department of Health, Bureau of Emergency Management Service Grant 2. Quality Growth $5,000 -0- -0- Commission Planning Grant, Envision Utah— Budget Increase New Items 3. Downtown Decorations and $600,000 $500,000 -0- -0- Performances Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment CED Planning Division FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year Quality Growth Commission Planning Grant Envision Utah- Budget Increase BA#10 01 Initiative Name Initiative Number Sherrie Collins 535-6150 Prepared By Phone Number Grant Requiring Existing Staff Focus Initiative Type Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2nd year of biennium Biennial Period A.Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous Grant Fund 72-60220 5,000 Total $5,000 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous Grant Fund 72-60220 5,000 Total $5,000 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Contractual) 5,000 Total $5,000 $0 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization Substantial Impact on Zoning capabilities. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference,if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management or personnel issues. Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. The Planning Department applied for and received $15,000.00 from the Governors Office, Quality Growth Commission in a consortium project between the Quality Growth Commission, Envision Utah and the City, to hire a consulting service to research and develop a performance zoning ordinance, targeted for use within small commercial node areas. That grant was accepted and budgeted in budget opening #3, FY 2001-2002. It was originally understood that Envision Utah would pay the contractor directly, however, Envision Utah decided that the City should include the $5,000 of Envision Utah funds into the City's contract with the consulting service. This action will increase the budget of the grant related cost center. By receiving Envision Utah funds and contracting for the entire amount of funds available, the Planning Department will be able to monitor and control the project more accurately. The objective of The Performance Zoning Ordinance is to provide information to the City, allowing the City to better address the issues relating to mixed used neighborhoods, and is intended to provide a more effective evaluation system that will facilitate better decision-making on land use issues. It would be to the City's benefit to have total contractual guidance over the entire project. The Quality Growth Commission grant requires a minimum match of $15,000, with the cash portion being at least $7,500. The City's cash match is $2,500 which is budgeted for within CED's general fund budget and Envision Utah's cash match is this $5,000. The total amount of cash received for this project will be $22,500. The remainder of the match is in-kind. The City's in-kind match is staff salary and supplies and Envision Utah's staff time. It is recommended that the City Council appropriate the budget increase to facilitate the grant. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment G. Grant Criteria: A grant will satisfy one of the following four criteria. This grant relates to 2. 1—In some cases, the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for proiects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2- Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3- Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4- None of the above. Question 1 - Will this grant fund employee positions? No. What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? Contractual services for research and development of performance zoning ordinance. Budget increase only. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? Not applicable. Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? Not applicable. Question 4 - Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the grant funding time frame? Yes. Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds become unavailable? No. Question 6 - Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Salt Lake City Police Department FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year PD-EMS Dispatch Training Utah Department of Health, Bureau of Emergency Management Services BA#10 02 Initiative Name Initiative Number Sherrie Collins 535-6150 Prepared By Phone Number Grant Requiring Existing Staff Focus Initiative Type Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2nd year of biennium Biennial Period A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 5,239 Total $5,239 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 5,239 Total $5,239 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other- (Training for Dispatch) 5,239 Total $5,239 $0 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. The Police Departments Emergency Communications Unit applies for and receives these funds annually from the Utah Department of Health, Bureau of Emergency Medical Services. These funds will be used to send the unit's dispatchers to required, continuing medical education (CEM) training for certification and/or continued certification. A minimum of 40 hours training is required over a two year period to remain certified. If funds are available after all personnel have received CEM training, the Police Department is allowed to purchase equipment that can be used for dispatch training purposes. The Communications Unit provides EMD dispatch operations which includes pre-arrival instructions, call triage and dispatch of EMD response unit. This grant amount is allocated on a per capita basis, based on the number of certified dispatchers State wide. The Communication Unit Emergency Dispatchers are required by State law to be Post certified and to maintain their certification. These grant funds will save the Police Department's general fund budget, costs associated with training/certification. Currently the Police Department has 51 certified dispatchers with two additional new-hires. It is recommended that the City Council accept the grant and appropriate the necessary budget to facilitate the Grant. The necessary resolution was previously passed, authorizing the Mayor to accept the grant and to sign all additional agreements pertaining to this particular grant. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment G. Grant Criteria: This grant satisfies number 2. 1 - In some cases, the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for projects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2- Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3- Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4- None of the above. Question 1 - Will this grant fund employee positions? No. What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? These funds will be used for PD Dispatchers to receive the mandatory training to become certified and/or remain certified. The PD currently has 51 certified dispatchers and 2 additional new hires who will be certified within the next year. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? The PD will continue to apply for funding as long as State Funding is available. Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? NA- The PD will have to pay for the mandatory training from the PD's general fund budget or the individual dispatchers would be required to pay for the training costs. Question 4 - Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the grant funding time frame? Yes Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds become unavailable? No. Question 6 - Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No. Grant is specifically for continued medical education training purposes. , Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Mayor's Office FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year Downtown Decorations and Performances BA#10 03 Initiative Name Initiative Number David Dobbins/Randy Hillier 535-7236 Prepared By Phone Number New Item Type of Initiative Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2nd year of biennium Biennial Period A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 1. General Fund General Fund Balance 500,000 Donations 100,000 Total $600,000 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund General Fund Balance for Decorations and 500,000 Performances Donations for Decorations and Performances 100,000 Total $600,000 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Contract for services) 600,000 Total $600,000 $0 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: Funding for an effort to enhance the downtown area is being requested. Several holiday and other seasonal elements are being proposed. These elements will include lighting, art work in the public way, potential facade restorations as needed and performers. An RFP for this project was issued on September 26, 2002. A budget of approximately $600,000 has been indicated. The nature and look of the decorations and performances will depend on the bid proposals submitted by contractors. !pi / ... 'F 5.,„ 40P ROSS C."ROnCKYY"ANDERSON � 1�� a2(fir T� (�p(j 'f�lYt�°-'i,©y�Q( R vv 7 �Vv1�lV 1 ! SALT LAKE 2002 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Q99 Memorandum To: Salt Lake City Council CC: Rocky An ers ,Rocky Fluhart From: D.J. Box 'or Adviser to the Mayor Date: October 1, 2002 Re: Update—200 East Crosswalk At the last City Council Briefing on the Library Commons Open Space plan, we also discussed plans for a mid-block pedestrian crosswalk on 200 East between the City and County Building and the library block. The primary objectives of this crosswalk are to create a seamless aesthetic connection between the two blocks, and to provide a safe means for the public, City employees, and Library employees to cross 200 East between the two buildings. The only component of this crosswalk that appeared to be controversial was the raised islands in the center of the street. I agreed to work with representatives of the Days of'47 Parade Committee,the City Transportation Division, and other City departments to identify and address potential issues related to the raised islands.Because Budget Amendment#10 has been advanced more quickly than anticipated,this process is not yet complete.Budget Amendment#9,of which this proposal was a part,must be closed before Budget Amendment#10 can be addressed. Therefore,I propose that the Council fund the presented design, absent the raised medians,to allow a safe pedestrian crossing to be constructed as soon as possible.I have solicited a revised cost estimate,which will obviously be lower than the estimate for the original design, and will provide that updated estimate to the Council before the briefing on Thursday, October 3 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE:801-535-7704 FAX:801-535-6331 rn Page 1of1 Sear , Michael From: Baxter, DJ Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 2:40 PM To: Sears, Michael Subj ct: 200 East Crosswalk-Revised Cost Michael- Below is the revised cost estimate for the 200 East crosswalk without the planter boxes in the street. Removing the planter boxes saves about$42,500. But to save money on the earlier bid,we had eliminated the brick pavers, which saved us$35,000. Without the protection of the planters, however,we think it wise to add the brick pavers back into the project,to provide a visual contrast to the rest of the pavement that will alert drivers to the presence of a crosswalk.This will also make the crosswalk consistent with many of the other new crosswalks being installed around the city, such as on 4th South, South Temple, and 1300 South. Therefore,the revised estimate is about$7500 less than the original. Reconfiguration of circle, street lights,trees,sidewalk, etc: $148,609 Installation of new crosswalk: $162.825 Total requested: $311,434 Thanks, DJ 10/3/2002 Oct 02 est GENERAL FUND Fund Balance 6/30/2001 25,489,765 Fiscal year 2001-02 One Time Collections SLOC reimbursement of 1/64 sale tax 4,209,167 SLOC reimbursement of Ice Rink 2,029,168 Operations (rev-expL _— -452,217 6/30/2002 31,275,883 Percent of total revenues 18.68% $167,418,027 Revenues) Fiscal year 2002-03 One Time Collections Excess Reserve in Debt Service 77,957 C&C bldg reissue debt service savings _ 567,591 Less: Encumbrance carry over -2,385,021 One Time Fund Spending Washington Square Seeding -39,750 Downtown Winter Festival _ -80,000 Downtown Decorations & Performances -500,000 Youth Programs -150,000 Library Block Open Space -3,356,954 Estimated 10/15/02 _ 25,409,706 Percent of total revenues 15.40% ($164,986,670 Revenues) Contingency Downtown Parking _ 150,900 Hansen Plantarium I 25,000 Page 1 Available Contingency General Fund September 30, 2002 Appropriated contingency—fiscal year 2002-2003 $300,000 Less: Budget Amendment#1 —Hispanic Chamber of Commerce dues (1,500) Less: Budget Amendment#2—Liberty Senior Center utility costs (20,000) Less: Budget Amendment#9 —Downtown parking token program(three years) (150,900) Less: Budget Amendment #9—Hansen Planetarium evaluation (25,000) General Fund contingency balance— September 30, 2002 $102,600 i' • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: October 1, 2002 SUBJECT: Fiscal Years 2001-2002, 2002-2003 Biennial Budget Amendment #10 STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears, Budget and Policy Analyst Document Budget-Related Facts Policy-Related Facts Miscellaneous Type Facts Ordinance The proposed amendment The requested The ordinance is includes$580,000 from Fund amendment has issues presented to Balance in the General Fund. All related to Grants, Public amend the other proposed amendments Safety, Economic second year of relate to the Miscellaneous Development and the biennial Grants Funds. donations to the City. budget. The briefmg and discussion of the tenth budget amendment of fiscal years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 is scheduled for October 3, 2002. The Council set the date for the Public Hearing on Budget Amendment #10 during the October 10, 2002 Council meeting. lbIn an effort to make the review of the budget openings more expedient Council staff xP , ff has attempted to categorized budget opening items as follows where possible: • "Housekeeping" -- those items that are strictly accounting actions and do not have policy implications. These include transfers internal to the City. • "Donation" -- those items that are donations that require Council appropriation to be used, are consistent with previous Council discussions, or do not have policy implications. • "Grant providing additional staff resources" - those grants that provide additional staff positions and require a City match. These generally have policy implications; because they may add a new service or create an expectation that the City will fund the position after the grant has expired. • "Grant requiring existing staff focus" -- those grants that will require the City's existing staff to complete a specific project. (Some of these could have policy implications, since employees involved with these projects have less time to focus on other projects within the scope of their work.) General note: The Council may wish to receive an update from th Administration on: a. The availability of funds in the General Fund Balance; b. The status of the 1/64 percent tax refund that has be n considered in the City's 'one time revenue' discussions ($1.8 Ill milli n); c. The curr nt y ar r venu actuals and proj ctions; Page 1 d. Th status of the outsourcing of th impound lot, and wh ther additi nal g n ral fund dollars will b n d d. MATTERS AT ISSUE Issue #1: Quality Growth Commission Planning Grant, Envision Utah Donation ($5,000 - Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grants Requiring Existing Staff Focus/Housekeeping") The Planning Department received a grant from the Governor's Office, Quality Growth Commission for consulting services to research and develop a performance-zoning ordinance. The three partners for the grant project are the Quality Growth Commission, Envision Utah and the City. The Council accepted and budgeted the grant during Budget Amendment #3 of fiscal year 2001-2002. During the grant acceptance and budget appropriation discussion it was noted that Envision Utah would pay the consultant $5,000 directly for Envision Utah's share of the performance zoning project. Envision Utah has now decided to pay the City directly. The Administration has received and deposited the check from Envision Utah. The Administration is requesting that the City Council increase the revenue and expense budget related to the performance-zoning grant. The Council may wish to not that increasing the budget for a specific project due to additional funds having been received by the City is common. Many times partners in a City proj ct will pay the City directly and not the contracted provider. Issue #2: PD - EMD Dispatch Training - Utah Department of Health, Bureau of Emergency Management Service Grant ($5,239 - Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grants Requiring Existing Staff Focus/Continuation of Grant") The Police Department Emergency Communication Unit received $5,239 from the Utah Department of Health, Bureau of Emergency Medical Services. The funds will be used to send Police Department employees to required continuing medical education (CEM) training for certification and/or continued certification. This grant is allocated on a per capita basis, based on the number of certified dispatchers statewide. The Police Department currently has 51 certified dispatchers and two new hires. The Council has previously adopted a resolution that authorized the Mayor to accept the grant and to sign all additional agreements pertaining to this particular grant. The Administration recommends that the City Council accept the grant and appropriate the necessary budget to facilitate the grant. Issue #3: Downtown Decorations and Performances ($600,000 - General Fund) ("New Item") The Administration is requesting that a budget of $600,000 be set up for the enhancement of Main Street retail business. The requested $600,000 is to be funded with Fund Balance from the General Fund in the amount of$500,000 and donations in the amount of $100,000. The City recently issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) titled Main Street Retail Enhancement Strategy &Implementation Services. Page 2 The scope of the RFP indicated that the implementation area would be South Temple to 300 South on Main Street and from Main Street to 400 West on South Temple Street. The RFP elements include lighting elements, storefront design and visual enhancements, performance and staging areas, electrical and structural improvements, other physical and visual design enhancements and a schedule of programs and performers for the performance areas. Another critical component of the RFP scope is a marketing and public relations strategy for the program. The timeline for program will be November 29, 2002 through January 1, 2004. The Administration is requesting that the funds for this program come from General Fund - Fund Balance. The Council may wish to consider using Redevelopm nt Agen y funds for the hard costs associated with this program. Issue #4: Downtown Winter Festival($80,000- General Fund) ("New Item") The Administration is requesting that the Council approve the appropriation of $80,000 from Fund Balance for the City to host, sponsor and plan a 2002 Winter Games anniversary celebration. The Department of Community and Economic Development will be leading the City's effort. A Request for Proposal is being prepared to contract with an event planner to plan an event for the weekend of February 1 & 2, 2003. An option to using fund balance is to use Olympic one-time revenue to cov r the cost of planning and hosting this event. There are, of course, a number of ✓ qu sts for those funds. Th Council may wish to ask the Administration for information on the extent to which fundraising beyond the City's $80,000 investment will need to b ✓ li d upon to make this event successful. Given the competing fundraising int r sts, some entities are finding that fundraising is difficult at this time. cc: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rocky Fluhart, David Nimkin, Steve Fawcett, Margaret Hunt, David Dobbins, Luann Clark, Chief Rick Dinse, Mac Connole, Jerry Burton, Gordon Hoskins, Randy Hillier, Dan Mule, Shannon Ashby, DJ Baxter,Sherrie Collins,Laurie Dillon,Susi Kontgis,and Kay Christensen Page 3 of utan Department of Health ?Michael U.Leav*rt CG^ dli or CA-iL1:GEN('Y . FmlL.F�,ric aI�L1C.,L SERVICES 1 f q ruo' S0 No, h 4 0(' ,t I i AI T(1 ue❑ i U l i u64 1 f)'...Sri -.4 �-c c U _ Il k-t1111 Dt 5i01`� FEAL_ August u1 ue g 4 u.., 2.4S iV ? ZJ.4LI ii a ��un12.,1 i 61( esn6 Toll^,.el,7-,yuu=�r1, Ms.Chris Dunn Emergency Communications-SL Police 315 East 200 South Salt Lake City,Ut. 84111 Dear Ms.Dunn — C/ff1 r'c— Enclosed is the fully executed grant for FY2003 between the Utah Department of Health, Bureau of Emergency Medical Services and Emergency Communications-SL Police,in the amount of 5,239.00. The FY2003 grant year is from July 1,2002,through June 30,2003. An invoice from the vendor is required for reimbursement. Purchase orders are not acceptable. It will be appreciated if you submit invoices with the highest priced items for per capita reimbursement as this will eliminate excessive paper work. If you are requesting reimbursement with more than three different invoices,please use the attached Grant Reimbursement Request Form. Requests will not be accepted after July 15,2003. Reimbursement for continuing medical education(CME)training,MUST have the enclosed CME form along with receipts or invoices for motel and conference registrations. Funds must be spent by June 30,2003. Grant reimbursement requests will not be accepted after July 15,2003. If you have any questions pertaining to this matter,please contact your regional consultant or myself at 801 538-6286,or email ikpetrogeorge@utah.gov. Sincerely, Irene Petrogeorge Grants Program Secretary Bureau of Emergency Medical Services Enclosure UTAH EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES GRANTS PROGRAM BUREAU OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES UTAH DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FY2003 APPLICATION/GRANT LOG NO. Ci0Z2316O ALL GRANT DOCUMENTS MUST BE TYPED Box 142004, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-2004 Phone-538-6286, OR 1 (800)284-1131 APPLICANT/GRANTEE INFORMATION Name of Agency:6yyeqykj Caynkiniezdion6_�� j�icj Federal Tax I.D.No.-8-1.J 717 Phone: `j •3QOQ Name of Agency Representative: i ' i taYrkAi ' MAC Worm?le Phone: `en.3S60 Mailing Address: 315 g. 200 '5. EMS Provider No. City: County Zip: till!' E-mail PROPOSED/APPROVED BUDGET IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the following parties have agreed to the provisions and the terms dated 11/01/01of this grant and cause it to be executed. Title Name(Please Type) Sig ature Date Title of Applicant - Title of local authorized individual- `""'D�( 'VOLT) C. t1} eel " 1-1t f -D/ Director, Division of 1 � Health Systems Improvement lona M.Thraen,ACSW Director,Office of Fiscal Operations /,,,� Department of Health "Shari Watkins, CPA ,1't, �O�� 412462- Legal Status of Contractor- Check all that apply( ) EMT Association (jLaw Enforcement Agency ( ) Other ( ) Hospital ( ) Paramedic Agency (" Dispach Agency ( ) College or University ( ) Ambulance Agency ( ) First Responder Service Contact Person: Irene Petrogeorge, Bureau of Emergency Medical Services t Period: July 1,2002 to June 30,2003. Invoices for reimbursement will not be accepted after 7-15-2003. ATTACHMENTS(Please check all that you are attaching) The following sheets are included as part of this grant proposal: ( ) Agency Consolidated Budget Justification Form ( ) Vehicle Justification and Vehicle Inventory Sheets ( ) Continuous Medical Education Justification Form ( ) Extrication Equipment Justification ( ) Initial Training Justification Form ( ) Computer Equipment ( ) Training or Training Equipment Justification Form ( ) Ambulance/Rescue Equipment Justification ( ) Communication Justification Form ( ) Demonstration/Research Project Justification (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY- DO NOT USE SPACE BELOW) APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lakcl City At.,ri-loft Office Date / By / 1• TE fVIS F JNDED >>'<> >: : :::< „„:: : nc: haitm tale Sf r i ' _;:. Unlfs... .. . Iota! ,�gency..S�tai-�.....:S�ate Share Per Capita $ 5,239.00 $ - $ 5,239.00 Total EMS Grant Award $ 5,239.00 Page 1 of 2 1 tiotio1 TERMS It is understood that this application and attachments hereto,when approved and signed by all concerned parties,as indicated,shall constitute an agreement by and between the applicant organization and the Utah Department of Health,Division of Health Systems Improvement,Bureau of Emergency Medical Services(DEPARTMENT),to perform in accordance with the terms of this application and attachments,taken as a whole. 1. Reports-The grantee shall submit, at such time and in such 7. Indemnity Clause - The grantee agrees to indemnify, save form,reports specified by the DEPARTMENT,including periodic harmless,and release the DEPARTMENT,including all officers, or final cost and narrative reports. , , agents and employees from and against any and all loss,damages, injury, liability, suits and proceedings arising out of the ' 2.Funding-Grant funds may be expended only for the purpose performance of this grant by the Grantee, its officers, agents, of improving the delivery of emergency medical services as volunteers,or employees and loss or damages arising from the use follows: a. Competitive grant funds shall be expended only for of the equipment acquired under this grant. items approved herein; b.Per capita grant funds may be expended in a discretionary manner,specifically related to the provision of 8. Changes - Competitive grants may be extended or amended emergency medical services. Reimbursement will be made by only upon application to the EMS Committee at least 30 days prior the DEPARTMENT for its share upon receipt of approved cost to a regularly scheduled EMS Committee meeting. Requests reports accompanied by documented proof of purchase and received after grant termination date to amend or extend grants completion of activity,and proof of payment. Reimbursement for will not be considered. training leading to DEPARTMENT certification of personnel will be made only after completion of certification. The grantee 9.Contingency-Per capita and competitive funds are contingent will expend the required matching percentage, or amount upon grantee's compliance to Department data requirements. specified,of total costs of the budget line item. Per capita grant funds may be used as matching funds for competitive grant 10.Equipment-Title to all equipment purchased under this grant awards. Unless otherwise specified herein, final claims shall be shall be vested to the grantee; however money received upon submitted to the DEPARTMENT no later than July 15 of the disposition or sale of this equipment shall only be used for the fiscal year following the termination date of the grant. provision of emergency medical services. 3.Obligation of Grant Funds-Grant funds may not be obligated 11.Discrimination-Grantees shall provide emergency medical prior to the effective date or subsequent to the termination date of services to all patients in need of such services to sustain life or the grant period.Obligations outstanding as of the termination date prevent loss of life without regard to race, sex, disability,color, will be considered void. creed,or prior inquiry as to ability to pay. 4.Termination-This grant may be terminated,with or without 12.Competition with Private Services-Grant funds may not be cause,in advance of the specified expiration date,by either party, used to fund new local government emergency medical services if upon 30 days prior written notice being given to the other party. the new services compete with existing private emergency medical On termination of this grant all accounts and payments will be services. processed according to the financial arrangements set forth herein for services rendered to date of termination. 13. Copyrights, Publications and patents - Where activities supported by this grant produce original copyrightable material, 5.Fiscal Records-Complete and detailed accounting records will the grantee may copyright such,but the DEPARTMENT reserves be maintained by the grantee of all costs incurred on this project a royalty free,non-exclusive and irrevocable license to reproduce, including documentation of all purchases of supplies,equipment publish and use such material and to authorize others to do so. and services;travel expenses:payrolls; and time records of any The grantee may publish at its own expense,the results of grant person employed on this project. State or DEPARTMENT activities without prior review by the DEPARTMENT provided auditors and staff shall have access to any records of the grantee that any publications (written, visual, or sound) contain an until an audit is completed and all questions resolved, or three acknowledgment of the DEPARTMENT support. Any discovery years after the completion of this project,whichever is first. or invention deriving from work performed under this grant shall be referred to the DEPARTMENT,which will determine whether 6. Grantee,an independent grantee-The Grantee shall be an or not patent protection will be sought, how any rights will be independent grantee, and as such, shall have no authorization, administered and other action required to protect the public express or implied, to bind the DEPARTMENT to any interest. agreements,settlements, liability, or understanding whatsoever, and agrees not to perform any acts as agent for the 14. Health Standards-The Grantee agrees to abide by the Utah DEPARTMENT, except as herein expressly set forth. Indoor Clean Air Act, Title 26, Chapter 38, Utah Code Compensation stated herein shall be the total amount paid to Annotated 1953,as amended,which prohibits smoking in public grantee by DEPARTMENT. Persons employed by places. DEPARTMENT and acting under the direction of DEPARTMENT shall not be deemed to be employees or agents of the grantee. Page 2 of 2 November 1,2001 FY 2003 Grant Initiatives in Budget Amendment - October FY 2003 FY 2004 Initiative Gen. Gen. Initiative Name Amount Fund FTE Fund FTE Im E act Im act Grants Re i uirin! Existin! Staff Focus 1. PD-EMD Dispatch Training $5,239 -0- -0- -Utah Department of Health,Bureau of Emergency Management Service Grant 2. Quality Growth $5,000 -0- -0- Commission Planning Grant,Envision Utah— Bud'et Increase New Items 3. Downtown Decorations and $600,000 $500,000 -0- -0- Performances 4. Downtown Winter Festival $80,000 $80,000 -0- -0- Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment CED FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year Downtown Winter Festival BA#10 04 Initiative Name Initiative Number David Dobbins/Randy Hillier 7236/6353 Prepared By Phone Number New Item Type of Initiative Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2nd year of biennium Biennial Period A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 1. General Fund General Fund Balance for Festival 80,000 Total $80,000 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4.Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Downtown Winter Festival 80,000 Total $80,000 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Event Planner) 80,000 Total $80,000 $0 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: There has been a statewide discussion that venue cities from the 2002 Winter Games host an anniversary celebration in February 2003. The State of Utah and the Salt Lake Organizing Committee are coordinating efforts among all areas, but it is up to each individual City to host, sponsor and plan its own celebration. The administration has asked CED to spearhead the effort. An RFP is being prepared to contract with an event planner to create an event for the weekend of February 1 & 2, 2003. The Festival is not a budgeted project and CED would like to request $80,000 to cover the event planner and a significant (if not total) portion of the events. Elements of the festival would include: food booths, local and national musical entertainment, ice castles and sculpture, childrens activities, and winter sport activities. The budget would also support the advertising and marketing of the event. Salt Lake City Corporation v. rc Request for Proposal, RFP No. 0103RFP030011 max_ ta MAIN STREET RETAIL ENHANCEMENT I,.. • STRATEGY & IMPLEMENTATION SERVICES Department of Community and Economic Development Specification No.ED-100, Contract No.06-1-03-6841, Rev. September 26,2002/gn INFORMATION& REQUIREMENTS OBJECTIVE. Salt Lake City Corporation and the Department of Community and Economic Development of Salt Lake City(collectively referred to hereinafter as "the City") are requesting proposals from qualified consultants (hereinafter"offerors") for services to assist the City in implementing a Main Street retail enhancement strategy. The focus will be on Main Street for programming and lighting with complimentary efforts on South Temple from Main Street to 400 West with the purpose of establishing a link with Gateway and Main Street retail centers. The purpose of this project is to establish Salt Lake City's Main Street Core as a"stage" for arts, entertainment, education and cultural activity in the downtown area as a method to enhance retail activity on Main Street in the proposed project area. The enhancements will become part of the City's annual Main Street enhancement efforts. TIME WILL BE OF THE ESSENCE IN THE COMPLETION OF THE REQUIRED SERVICES. It is the City's preference to have all work completed by November 29, 2002. Lighting and electrical requirements as well as a marketing and public relations strategy MUST be completed by noon, November 28, 2002 (see Paragraph B, Subparagraphs 1, 4 and 7 under Section III, Scope of Services and Project Elements for work requirements). If necessary other work requirements listed under Paragraph B may be phased in by December 31, 2002. The scheduling of programs and performers, marketing and public relations and other work elements will continue on an on-going, as-needed basis until January 2, 2004. II. BACKGROUND. The City desires to retain a consultant and project manager to provide Salt Lake City Corporation with specific deliverables for a Main Street retail business enhancement strategy, including design concepts, materials, installation, programs, marketing and public relations services. The purpose of the Main Street retail project is to establish Salt Lake City's Main Street Core as a'stage' for arts, entertainment, education and cultural activity in the downtown area to enhance retail activity in the proposed project area from South Temple to 300 South. Proposals should include recommendations for permanent, year-round lighting features, visual enhancements for vacant storefronts,performance and stage areas, electrical improvements, visual art and features that will appeal to children including entertainment, programs and performances and a marketing and public relations strategy. The estimated budget for this proposal is approximately$600,000. Offerors should propose program phases that could accommodate different budget levels. The City will have the right to select proposed program elements that will result in a contract of less than $600,000 or more than$600,000. The actual budget for the project is contingent on acquiring additional funding and on final approval and authorization by the City Council. It is projected that a budget for this project will be authorized, however, offerors are advised that there is the possibility that, because of funding issues, this Request for Proposal may be cancelled. III. SCOPE OF SERVICES AND PROJECT ELEMENTS A. The Main Street area to be included in proposals will be from South Temple to 300 South on Main Street and the South Temple area will be from Main Street to 400 West (Exhibit "C" of the attached Sample Agreement provides maps of the primary areas to be covered by the study). B. The elements of the proposal should include, at a minimum, the following design features: 1. Lighting elements that will enhance or improve existing lighting and will result in creating a sense of"arrival" and"place"that is unique to the Main Street Core area. These lighting elements may include lighting enhancements on buildings, over sidewalk areas,projection onto buildings and other elements as recommended by the consultant 2. Storefront design and visual enhancements such as façade improvements, signage design, window treatments and displays that present an artistic approach unique to the Main Street Core area. 3. Performance and staging areas for small group gatherings. 4. Electrical and structural improvements to accommodate the proposed enhancements. 5. Other physical and visual design enhancements such as art pieces, signs, banners, seating and gathering place street furniture features may also be included for achieving the goals of the project and resulting in design enhancement and excellence. 6. A schedule of programs and perfoiniers for the performance and staging areas in collaboration with Main Street property owners and businesses in the core area. Proposals should include specific programming recommendations, schedules and locations. The proposal should include a schedule for performances through January 1, 2003, and a proposal for performances running through January 1, 2004. Page 2 of 22 7. A marketing and public relations strategy for the program "launch" and implementation recommendations for the project beginning with Salt Lake City's "Lights On" event on November 29, 2002 and running through January 1, 2004. C. The selected consultant shall provide, directly or through subcontractors, the services required under the resulting agreement and as directed by the City. The selected consultant may retain the services of other professionals on a subcontractor basis. Subcontractors must be approved by the City in advance. Proposals must contain information on subcontractors that the offeror plans to use if awarded a contract. D. The selected consultant shall work closely with City staff and, as directed by the City, with property owners, tenants, relevant professional organizations, and/or other interested parties as determined by the City. The selected consultant shall coordinate its services with the parties specified by the City for each assigned task. E. Each assignment by the City to the selected consultant shall be completed in a timely fashion and in accordance with the schedule contained in the resulting agreement. IV. QUALIFICATIONS. The selected consultant shall be a consulting firm with retail, urban design, indoor/outdoor shopping mall repositioning, marketing, retail analysis experience, or the equivalent. The selected consultant must demonstrate experience in preparing and implementing retail strategy and marketing plans. Past experience and demonstrated success in providing the aforementioned services for other downtown retail areas is highly desired. The selected consultant shall maintain an office with project staff in the Salt Lake City area during the project period. The City's preference is that the consultant will have permanent offices in the vicinity of Salt Lake City. V. GENERAL INFORMATION. Offerors should review insurance coverage that will be required under the resulting agreement. Subcontractors used in the performance of services under the resulting agreement will be required to provide the same insurance as the selected consultant with the exception of professional liability insurance. Insurance requirements are provided under Paragraph 5 of the Sample Agreement. Offerors are advised that the selected consultant for this project will not be authorized to publicize or refer to the 2002 Winter Olympic Games, the year 2002 in an Olympic context, or imply any connection between itself and the Olympic Games, in any advertising, marketing and other materials. Interest in alternate fuel use and other environmental matters. Although not a requirement the City has an interest in measures used by service and product providers to insure minimal adverse impact on the environment. Please list measures such as alternative fuel vehicles, recycling measures and energy reduction measures used by your firm. Page 3 of 22 VI. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION o Sign and return the Proposal Response Cover Sheet (ATTACHMENT 1). The form must be signed by a company representative authorized to bind the offeror contractually. o Submit all required information as outlined in the Proposal Content& Evaluation Criteria section of ATTACHMENT I. o Submit original proposal and nine (9) proposal copies in a sealed envelope or other sealed container. o Mark envelope or container with RFP No. and submission deadline date. o Submission Deadline: 3:00 pm, Wednesday, October 9, 2002 o Submit to: Salt Lake City Corporation Purchasing, Contracts &Property Mgmt Div. 451 South State, Room 235 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 o Proposals received after the 3:00 pm deadline will be placed in the file unopened and will not be considered. o Proposals will be opened in a manner preventing disclosure of proposal contents. The names of offerors responding to the solicitation will be made available immediately thereafter. Proposals will then be sent to the City appointed selection committee for evaluation. VII. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION For additional information concerning the services specified in this Request for Proposal, interested parties may contact Margaret Hunt, director of the Department of Community and Economic Development, telephone (801) 535-6230. For information concerning Request for Proposal procedures and regulations (i.e., submission deadline, forms required, etc.), or Americans with Disabilities (ADA) accommodations, interested parties may contact Bryan Hemsley in the Purchasing, Contracts &Property Management Division: telephone (801) 535-6347; TDD (801) 535-6021; FAX (801) 535-6190; e-mail (bryan.hemsley@ci.slc.ut.us). Page 4 of 22 ATTACHMENT I ;, Proposal Response Cover Sheet ~`lye RFP No. 0103RFP030011 .�r PROPOSAL FOR MAIN STREET RETAIL 0111 ENHANCEMENT STRATEGY & IMPLEMENTATION SERVICES TO: Salt Lake City Corporation Chief Procurement Officer Purchasing, Contracts &Property Management Division 451 South State Street- Room 235 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 The undersigned, having carefully read and considered the Request for Proposal to provide main street retail enhancement strategy& implementation services for the Department of Community and Economic Development, does hereby offer to perform such services on behalf of the City, in the manner described and subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the attached proposal. Services will be performed at the rates set forth in said proposal. OFFEROR Company Name: Doing business as: [ ] an individual [ ] a partnership [ ] a corporation (mark appropriate box), duly organized under the laws of the State of BY: (Signature of authorized representative) (Please Print or Type Name) PRINCIPAL OFFICE ADDRESS: Street Address City County State Zip Code Telephone ( ) FAX( ) E:mail Address TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: Employer I.D. No. OR Social Security No. (Corporation or Partnership) (Individual) ALL PROPOSALS MUST INCLUDE THIS COVER SHEET& THE PROPOSAL CONTENT& EVALUATION REOUIREMENTS LISTED ON NEXT PAGE Page 5 of 22 PROPOSAL CONTENT& EVALUATION CRITERIA MAIN STREET RETAIL ENHANCEMENT STRATEGY & IMPLEMENTATION SERVICES NOTE: Inasmuch as time is of the essence it is recommended that offerors limit the content of their proposals to essential information. PROPOSALS SUBMITTED FOR EVALUATION MUST INCLUDE, AT A MINIMUM, THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION AND MATERIALS: A. A statement of the firm's experience and qualifications to perform the requested work. Include a list and description of: projects similar in scope and size upon which the offeror and offeror's proposed subconsultants have provided professional services; the names of the personnel of the offeror or offeror's proposed subconsultants who performed the work; a discussion of whether or not the projects were completed on time and within budget; and the titles and telephone numbers of previous clients who may be contacted as references. A minimum of three references must be identified. B. The names and qualifications (including professional training, licenses, experience, awards, etc.) of offeror's personnel who will be assigned to the project. C. A list of subcontractors proposed to be used by offeror in the performance of the offered services. Provide the names and qualifications (including professional training, licenses, experience, awards, etc.) of subcontractor's key personnel who will be assigned to the project. Include the proposed subcontractor's role in the list of projects performed stated in Paragraph A above and the role of each in the projects listed in response to this RFP, if any, and the proposed role of each in the performance of the offeror's proposed services. D. A description of the proposed approach to the project and implementation strategies as it relates to the Scope of Services and Project Elements (see Section III of the Information and Requirements section beginning on page 2 of this document). Include a discussion of the offeror's ability to meet the City's schedules for the performance of services negotiated for each task given and a tentative schedule for completing the various work stages. E. In addition to the specific service proposals specified herein identify and/or recommend any additional services,products, or special knowledge or skills provided by your firm that may be related to or helpful to a comprehensive Main Street retail enhancement program and identify any costs for such services, products, knowledge, or skills F. A schedule of offered methods of payment for services, costs and expenses. All costs must be identified. Reimbursable expenses shall be billed at cost, without mark-up. The schedule of fees and costs should be itemized and presented in cost categories such as, but not limited to, the following: • Management costs—Overall management fees for planning and management. Page 6 of 22 • Operational costs — Costs for equipment, materials, supplies, rental and setup, labor, etc. • Program and performance fees —Costs for artists, performers, etc. The offered schedule of fees must include, at a minimum, the following: 1. A proposed not-to-exceed fee schedule for the entire project. Include budget breakdowns for different program elements. Proposals must include all related costs. 2. An estimated schedule (for each of the offered cost categories listed above and others added by offeror) for costs required per month to perform the required services. 3. A list identifying specific costs for performers as well as costs for production and staging for proposed performances. Itemize all costs and reimbursable items by category(e.g., performer costs, lighting, stages, sound, power/generators, mark-ups on equipment and supplies if any, management fees, printing, telephone, travel, etc.). G. A statement that the offeror can provide all required insurance in the form required by the City Attorneys Office. A sample insurance requirement worksheet is included as Exhibit "D" of the attached Sample Agreement. H. A list of measures such as alternative fuel vehicles, recycling measures and energy reduction measures used by your firm to insure minimal adverse impact on the environment. If you have any exceptions to this Request for Proposal and the attached Sample Agreement they must be included as specified in Paragraph IV of Attachment 2, General Proposal Instructions & Information. ORAL INTERVIEWS AND SITE VISITS MAY BE CONDUCTED WITH ONE OR MORE PROSPECTIVE CONSULTANTS. THE DECISION OF THE CITY'S SELECTION COMMITTEE SHALL BE FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE. Page 7 of 22 ATTACHMENT 2 General Proposal Instructions & Information `" Electronic version of this document including all attachments and exhibits are available for download in electronic format from the Salt Lake City Purchasing, Contracts and Property Management Division website: http://www.slcpurchasing.com AWARD BY WRITTEN AGREEMENT The offeror selected to provide the services/products shall be required to enter into a written agreement in substantially the form as shown in the attached SAMPLE AGREEMENT (ATTACHMENT 3) which shall be the basic form used to develop the final agreement. • Signature on the Proposal Cover Sheet acknowledges that the offeror is willing to enter into the agreement if awarded the contract. Offerors are advised to read thoroughly the Sample Agreement as the selected offeror will be required to comply with its requirements. • If offeror has any exceptions to the Sample Agreement, the procedures stated under Paragraph IV, EXCEPTIONS, of this section must be followed. • Offerors should pay particular attention to insurance coverage requirements specified in Paragraph 5 of the Sample Agreement. The selected consultant will be required to provide insurance certificates at the time of notification of conditional award. II. PREPARATION OF PROPOSALS A. Failure to Read. Failure to read the Request for Proposal and these instructions will be at the offeror's own risk. B. Cost Of Developing Proposals. All costs related to the preparation of the proposals and any related activities are the sole responsibility of the offeror. The City assumes no liability for any costs incurred by offerors throughout the entire selection process. III. PROPOSAL INFORMATION A. Discussions With Offerors. The City may conduct discussions with offerors who submit proposals determined to be reasonably susceptible of being selected for award. However,proposals may be accepted without such discussions, at the City's option. B. Equal Opportunity. The City will make every effort to ensure that all offerors are treated fairly and equally throughout the entire advertisement, review and selection Page 8 of 22 process. The procedures established herein are designed to give all parties reasonable access to the same basic information. C. Proposal Ownership. All proposals, including attachments, supplementary materials, addenda, etc., shall become the property of the City and will not be returned to the offeror. D. Rejection Of Proposals. • The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals received. Furthermore, the City shall have the right to waive any informality or technicality in proposals received when in the best interest of the City. • No proposal shall be accepted from, or contract awarded to, any person, firm or corporation that is in arrears to the City, upon debt or contract or that is a defaulter, as surety or otherwise, upon any obligation to the City, or that may be deemed irresponsible or unreliable by the Purchasing, Contracts &Property Management Division. Offerors may be required to submit satisfactory evidence that they have the necessary financial resources to perform and complete the work outlined in this RFP. E. Failure To Submit A Proposal. Failure to submit a proposal (or to advise the City Purchasing, Contracts &Property Management Division that future Requests for Proposal are desired) may result in the removal of your firm from the prospective offerors list. IV. EXCEPTIONS TO PROPOSAL & SAMPLE AGREEMENT If offeror takes exception to any term or condition set forth in this proposal and/or the Sample Agreement and any of its Exhibits and Attachments, said exceptions must be clearly identified in the response to this RFP. Exceptions or deviations to any of the terms and conditions must not be added to the proposal pages but must be submitted in a separate document accompanying offeror's proposal identified as "Exceptions." Such exceptions shall be considered in the evaluation and the award processes. The City shall be the sole determiner of the acceptability of any exception. Should the City omit anything from this Request for Proposal which is necessary for a clear understanding of the work, or should it appear that instructions are in conflict, then the offeror shall secure written instructions from the Purchasing, Contracts &Property Management Division at least forty-eight(48) hours prior to the time and date of the proposal opening shown above. V. CONFIDENTIALITY All responses, inquiries, and correspondence relating to this RFP and all reports, charts, displays, schedules, exhibits, and other documentation produced by the offeror that is submitted to the City, as part of the proposal or otherwise, shall become the property of the City when Page 9 of 22 received by the City and may be considered public information under applicable law. The City is subject to the disclosure requirements of the Government Records Access and Management Act, Title 63, Chapter 2, Utah Code Annotated. The City generally considers proposals and all _ accompanying material to be public and subject to disclosure. Any material considered by the offeror to be proprietary must be accompanied by a written claim of confidentiality and a concise written statement of reasons supporting the claim. Blanket claims that the entire RFP is confidential will be denied. The City cannot guarantee that any information will be held confidential. Under Section 63-2-304 of the Government Records Access and Management Act, if the offeror makes a claim of confidentiality, the City, upon receipt of a request for disclosure, will determine whether the material should be classified as public or protected, and will notify the offeror of such determination. The offeror is entitled under the Government Records Access and Management Act to appeal an adverse determination. The City is not obligated to notify the offeror of a request, and will not consider a claim of confidentiality, unless the offeror's claim of confidentiality is made in a timely basis and in accordance with the Government Records Access and Management Act. VI. REPRESENTATION REGARDING ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES AND FORMER CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES The offeror represents that it has not: (1) provided an illegal gift or payoff to a City officer or employee or former City officer or employee, or his or her relative or business entity; (2) retained any person to solicit or secure this contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission,percentage, brokerage or contingent fee, other than bona fide employees or bona fide commercial selling agencies for the purpose of securing business; (3)knowingly breached any of the ethical standards set forth in the City's conflict of interest ordinance, Chapter 2.44, Salt Lake City Code; or (4) knowingly influenced, and hereby promises that it will not knowingly influence, a City officer or employee or former City officer or employee to breach any of the ethical standards set forth in the City's conflict of interest ordinance, Chapter 2.44, Salt Lake City Code. VII. WARRANTY Seller warrants that the workmanship and/or merchandise will conform to its description and any applicable specifications and shall be of good, merchantable quality and for the known purpose for which it is sold. This warranty is in addition to any standard warranty of service guarantee given by consultant to City. Page 10 of 22 ATTACHMENT 3 SAMPLE AGREEMENT The Sample Agreement will be subject to review and modification by the City Item' , ' Attorney's Office. CONTRACT NO. 06-1-03-6841 Rev./ SAMPLE AGREEMENT MAIN STREET RETAIL ENHANCEMENT STRATEGY & IMPLEMENTATION SERVICES FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the date of last execution hereof by and between SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a municipal corporation of the State of Utah, hereinafter "City", and 0, a,, hereinafter"Consultant". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Consultant desires to provide certain consulting and implementation services for the Main Street retail enhancement strategy and implementation project for the City's Department of Community and Economic Development; and WHEREAS, City desires to engage Consultant for such services. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and covenants hereinafter contained, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. Consultant agrees to provide for the City the consulting and implementation services described in Exhibit"A", attached and incorporated by reference, commencing as of the date of execution of this Agreement and continuing until January 2, 2004. City shall have the right to extend this Agreement on a month-to-month basis for a period not to exceed four (4) months. Notice of the month-to-month extension shall be in writing served upon the Consultant by regular mail at least ten(10) days prior to January 2, 2004 in order for such extension to be effective. City shall give at least five (5) days written notice of cancellation of the month-to-month extension. This is a non-exclusive Agreement and the City reserves the right to acquire the services/equipment, at its discretion, from other sources during the term of this Agreement. All financial commitments by the City shall be Page 11 of 22 subject to the availability of funds approved by the City Council and the limitations on future budget • commitments provided under applicable Utah law, including the Utah Constitution. 2. Said services shall consist of the services and requirements listed under Exhibit "A", Scope of Work, attached and incorporated by reference. 3. For such services, Consultant shall be paid as specified under Exhibit "B", Price Schedule, attached and incorporated by reference. 4. For such consideration, Consultant shall furnish all materials, supervision, labor and equipment to complete the requirements of this Agreement. 5. Consultant, at its own cost, shall secure and maintain the following minimum insurance coverage: A. Worker's compensation and employer's liability insurance sufficient to cover all Consultant's employees pursuant to Utah State statutes. In the event any work is subcontracted, the Consultant shall require its subcontractor similarly to provide worker's compensation for all of the latter's employees, unless such employees are covered by protection as required by Utah State law. The certificate and policy shall provide that coverage thereunder shall not be canceled or reduced without at least thirty(30) days prior written notice to the City. B. Commercial general liability insurance with the City named as an additional insured, in the minimum amount of$1,000,000 per occurrence with a$2,000,000 general aggregate. The policy shall protect the City, Consultant, and special event participants or anyone directly or indirectly employed by either of them. Such insurance shall provide coverage for premises operations, acts of independent contractors, and completed operations. The certificate and policy shall provide that coverage thereunder shall not be canceled or modified without at least thirty(30) days prior written notice to the City. This coverage shall be indicated on the certificate of insurance as "Special Event" coverage in the "Description of Operations"issued by the insurance company OR the insurance company shall supply the City with the original insurance policy stating the "Special Event" coverage. In the event any work for the "Special Event" is subcontracted to a separate company, the Consultant shall require subcontractor to provide commercial general liability insurance, with the City named as an additional insured, in the minimum amount of$1,000,000 per occurrence with a$2,000,000 general aggregate. The certificate and policy shall provide that coverage thereunder shall not be canceled or reduced without at least thirty(30) days prior written notice to the City. This "Special Event"policy exclusion of coverage includes, but is not limited to, trash removal, lighting and sound technicians, stage crew, setup, breakdown and cleanup support, and security personnel. C. Professional liability insurance in an amount of not less than $1,000,000. The certificate and policy shall provide that coverage thereunder shall not be canceled or modified without thirty(30) days prior written notice to the City. Page 12 of 22 D. Commercial automobile liability insurance that provides coverage for owned, hired and non-owned automobiles, with the City named as an additional insured, in the minimum amount of$1,000,000 per occurrence. The certificate and policy shall provide that coverage thereunder shall not be canceled or modified without at least thirty(30) days written notice to the City. E. All policies of insurance provided shall be issued by insurance companies licensed to do business in the State of Utah and shall be either: (1) Rated with an A- or better rating in the most current edition of Best's Key Rating Guide—Property-Casualty United States. --OR-- (2) Listed in the United States Treasury Department's current Listing of Approved Sureties (Department Circular 570) (as amended) F. In the event any work is subcontracted, the Consultant shall require its subcontractor, at its own cost, to secure and maintain all minimum insurance coverage required of Consultant hereunder. Consultant and all subcontractors performing work hereunder shall furnish Certificates of Insurance, acceptable to the City, verifying the foregoing concurrent with the execution hereof and thereafter as required. G. In the event that governmental immunity limits are subsequently altered by legislation or judicial opinion, the Consultant shall be required to provide a new Certificate of Insurance within thirty(30) days of being notified thereof in writing by the City, certifying coverage in compliance with the modified limits or, if no new limits are specified, in such an amount as may be acceptable to the Salt Lake City Attorney's Office. 6. Consultant shall obey all laws, ordinances, regulations and rules of the Federal, State, County and Municipal governments that may be applicable to its operations. Said laws include, but are not limited to, the Equal Employment Opportunity laws, the Fair Labor Standards Act, Occupational Safety&Health Administration(OSHA), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Any violation of applicable law shall constitute a breach of this Agreement and Consultant shall hold the City harmless from any and all liability arising out of, or in connection with, said violations including any attorney's fees and costs incurred by the City as a result of such violation. 7. The City may cancel this Agreement for any reason, and without any liability therefor, upon giving the Consultant thirty(30) days prior written notice. Such notice shall be sent to the last known address of the Consultant. 8. The City may, without prejudice to any right or remedy, and without the necessity of giving the thirty(30) day notice provided in Paragraph 7 above, terminate this Agreement for cause in the event Consultant fails to fulfill, in a timely or satisfactory manner, any of the Terms and Conditions set forth in this Agreement, and fails to cure any default after seven (7) days written notice from the City of such default or breach. 9. If this Agreement is canceled or terminated as provided herein, City shall pay the Consultant on the basis of actual services satisfactorily performed as calculated by the City. Page 13 of 22 • 10. Consultant, for itself, its successors and assigns, as part of the consideration • herefore, covenants that no person, solely on the grounds of race, color, national origin, age, sex, religion or non job related disability, shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subject to discrimination in the furnishing of services hereunder, unless the characteristic is a bona fide occupational qualification. 11. Consultant agrees to indemnify, save harmless and defend the City, its officers and employees, from and against all losses, claims, demands, actions, damages, costs, charges and causes of action of every kind or character, including attorney's fees, arising out of Consultant's intentionally wrongful, reckless or negligent performance hereunder. If the City's tender of defense, based upon this indemnity provision, is rejected by Consultant, and Consultant is later found by a court of competent jurisdiction to have been required to indemnify the City, then in addition to any other remedies City may have, Consultant shall pay the City's reasonable costs, expenses and attorney's fees incurred in proving such indemnification, defending itself or enforcing this provision. Nothing herein shall be construed to require the indemnitor to indemnify the indemnitee against the indemnitee's own negligence. 12. REPRESENTATION REGARDING ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES AND FORMER CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES. Consultant represents that it has not: (1) provided an illegal gift or payoff to a City officer or employee or foinier City officer or employee, or his or her relative or business entity; (2) retained any person to solicit or secure this contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage or contingent fee, other than bona fide employees or bona fide commercial selling agencies for the purpose of securing business; (3) knowingly breached any of the ethical standards set forth in the City's conflict of interest ordinance, Chapter 2.44, Salt Lake City Code; or(4) knowingly influenced, and hereby promises that it will not knowingly influence, a City officer or employee or former City officer or employee to breach any of the ethical standards set forth in the City's conflict of interest ordinance, Chapter 2.44, Salt Lake City Code. 13. Consultant shall not publicize or refer to the 2002 Winter Olympic Games, the year 2002 or Salt Lake City in an Olympic context, or imply any connection between itself and the Olympic Games, in any advertising, marketing and other materials. 14. Consultant is not an employee of the City for any purpose whatsoever. The Consultant is an independent contractor at all times during the performance of the services specified. 15. All notices shall be directed to the following addresses: City: Salt Lake City Corporation Department Of Community and Economic Development Attn.: David Dobbins 451 South State Street, Room 404 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Consultant: 0 Page 14 of 22 16. This Agreement shall not be assigned by either party without the prior written consent of the other party. 17. Consultant's obligations are solely to the City and the City's obligations are solely to Consultant. This Agreement shall confer no third party rights whatsoever. 18. This Agreement embodies the entire Agreement between the parties and shall not be altered except in writing signed by both parties. 19. Any ambiguity in this Agreement shall be construed in favor of the City. 20. This Agreement shall be enforced in and governed by the laws of the State of Utah. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have affixed their hands and seals the day and year first above written. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION By Title ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: Deputy City Recorder Date APPROVED AS TO FORM: Salt Lake City Attorney's Office Date 0 By Title Page 15 of 22 ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF UTAH ) :ss County of ) The foregoing agreement was acknowledged before me this day of , 2002, by , the (Name of person signing Agreement) of 0, a(state) (type of entity). (Title of person signing Agreement) NOTARY PUBLIC, residing in County My Commission Expires: Page 16 of 22 CONTRACT NO. 06-1-03-6841 EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF WORK MAIN STREET RETAIL ENHANCEMENT STRATEGY & IMPLEMENTATION SERVICES I. GENERAL A. Consultant, if doing business under an assumed name, i.e. an Individual, Association, Partnership, Corporation, or otherwise, shall be registered with the Utah State Division of Corporations and Commercial Code. NOTE: Forms and information on how to get registered may be obtained by calling (801) 530-4849 or by accessing www.commerce.state.ut.us B. Consultant shall assume full responsibility for damage to City property caused by Consultant's employees or equipment as determined by designated City personnel. C. Consultant shall be solely responsible for the safety of Consultant's employees and others relative to Consultant's work, work procedures, material, equipment, transportation, signage and related activities and equipment. D. Consultant shall possess and keep in force all licenses, business permits and other permits required to perform the services of this Agreement. E. No guarantee of the actual service and/or product requirement is implied or expressed by this Agreement. Service requirements shall be determined by actual need. II. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CONSULTANT The responsibilities of the Consultant include,but shall not be limited to, the following. NOTE: This section to be completed after selection and negotiation process. Page 17 of 22 CONTRACT NO. 06-1-03-6841 EXHIBIT "B" PRICE SCHEDULE MAIN STREET RETAIL ENHANCEMENT STRATEGY & IMPLEMENTATION SERVICES GENERAL A. Prices stated include all costs associated with the performance of the services specified, including materials, supervision, labor, transportation, delivery, and related costs. No other charges shall be allowed. B. City is exempt from sales, use and federal excise taxes on these products and/or services. Exemption certificates shall be furnished upon request. C. Prices stated shall be firm for the full term of this Agreement. II. FEES NOTE: This section to be completed after selection and negotiation process. III. INVOICING AND PAYMENT City shall make payment to Consultant for all services performed by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall submit a written invoice, in duplicate, for services rendered and City shall pay the invoiced fee within thirty(30) days after receipt of the invoice by City. Invoices shall be submitted to: Salt Lake City Corporation Department of Community and Economic Development Attn.: David Dobbins 451 South State Street, Room 404 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Page 18 of 22 CONTRACT NO. 06-1-03-6841 EXHIBIT "C" MAIN STREET & SOUTH TEMPLE MAPS MAIN STREET RETAIL ENHANCEMENT STRATEGY & IMPLEMENTATION SERVICES Main Street NV 77/ E SOUTH TEMPLE iL L, SOCIAL HALT LL2 CY F- W (- 111 100 SOUTH u, 1ORPHEU Iv: r- v7 F J L1J J Z w s w (" U- 200 :,CI UTH PI ER PONT I O 0 w 300 SOUTH Y I I Page 19 of 22 • South Temple w ,,---. _ E S L'11 V --1--- 1 "-—— ....... } s 'U 20O NORTH NORTH TEIIF:E SOUTH TEIIFtE W r w • 3 rn r w I00 SOUTH. IW I $ IORP HELM J 20U I 1 SOSOUTH Page 20 of 22 CONTRACT NO. 06-1-03-6841 EXHIBIT "D" SAMPLE INSURANCE REQUIREMENT WORKSHEET MAIN STREET RETAIL ENHANCEMENT STRATEGY & IMPLEMENTATION SERVICES WORKER'S COMPENSATION Worker's Compensation insurance sufficient to cover all Contractor's employees pursuant to Utah State statutes. The certificate and policy shall provide that coverage thereunder shall not be canceled or reduced without at least thirty(30) days prior written notice to the City. In the event any work for the "Special Event" is subcontracted to a separate company, the Contractor shall require subcontractor to provide Workers Compensation coverage. COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY Commercial General Liability insurance with the City named as an additional insured, in the minimum amount of$1,000,000 per occurrence with a $2,000,000 general aggregate and $2,000,000 products completed operations aggregate. The policy shall protect the City, Contractor, and special event participants or anyone directly or indirectly employed by either of them. Such insurance shall provide coverage for premises operations, acts of independent contractors, and completed operations. The certificate and policy shall provide that coverage thereunder shall not be canceled or modified without at least thirty(30) days prior written notice to the City. This coverage shall be indicated on the certificate of insurance as "Special Event" coverage in the "Description of Operations" issued by the insurance company OR the insurance company shall supply the City with the original insurance policy stating the "Special Event"coverage. In the event any work for the "Special Event" is subcontracted to a separate company, the Contractor shall require subcontractor to provide commercial general liability insurance, with the City named as an additional insured, in the minimum amount of$1,000,000 per occurrence with a$2,000,000 general aggregate. The certificate and policy shall provide that coverage thereunder shall not be canceled or reduced without at least thirty(30) days prior written notice to the City. This "Special Event"policy exclusion of coverage includes, but is not limited to, trash removal, lighting and sound technicians, stage crew, setup, breakdown and cleanup support, and security personnel. VEHICLE LIABILITY INSURANCE Commercial Automobile Liability insurance that provides coverage for owned, hired and non-owned automobiles, with the City named as an additional insured, in the minimum amount of$1,000,000 per Page 21 of22 occurrence. The certificate and policy shall provide that coverage thereunder shall not be canceled or • modified without at least thirty(30) days written notice to the City. In the event any work for the "Special Event"is subcontracted to a separate company, the Contractor shall require subcontractor to provide commercial automobile liability insurance, coverage for owned, hired and non-owned automobiles, with the City named as an additional insured, in the minimum amount of$1,000,000 per occurrence. The certificate and policy shall provide that coverage thereunder shall not be canceled or modified without at least thirty(30) days written notice to the City. CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE INSTRUCTIONS 1. All policies of insurance provided shall be issued by insurance companies licensed to do business in the State of Utah and shall be rated with an A- or better rating in the most current edition of Best's Key Rating Guide—Property-Casualty United States 2. Cancellation Clause MUST BE MODIFIED & INITIALED, as shown below. This modification will include each insurance type and policy stated on the certificate & will be required on ALL insurance forms. ** Should any of the above described policies be canceled before the expiration date thereof, the issuing company will endeavor-to mail 30 days written notice to the certificate holder named to the left, . (INITIALS MAY BE PLACED ANYWHERE IN THE CANCELLATION CLAUSE OR NEXT TO THE ORIGINAL SIGNATURE.) **Salt Lake City Corporation will accept a certificate of insurance issued by the Workers Compensation Fund of Utah with no modifications required. 3. Certificates of Insurance must: 1. be originals • 2. have an original or laser generated signature. (no stamped signatures) 3. list Salt Lake City Corporation as "Additional Insured" & "Certificate Holder". Address is: Salt Lake City Corporation Contracts Division, Attn: Maggie Tow 451 South State Street, Room 235 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Page 22 of 22 MEMORANDUM DATE: September 3, 2002 TO: Council Members SUBJECT: Proposed ordinances pertaining to: • Petition No. 400-00-52— amending zoning regulations to locate parking lots behind buildings and establish pedestrian-oriented design standards in certain commercial and mixed-use zoning districts. • Petition No. 400-01-48 and 400-01-12 —creating transit-oriented zoning regulations and rezoning a portion of 400 South for transit- oriented land uses FROM: Janice Jardine, Land Use and Policy Analyst At the July 16,2002 Work Session,Council Members discussed the proposed text amendments with the Administration. Discussion items related to: a. Technical aspects of the proposed text changes. b. Policy-related concerns involving citywide application and potential unintended impacts on existing neighborhoods. c. Consistency with adopted policy documents and master plans. d. Steps taken or options to address issues and recommendations from various Community Councils, City Departments and Divisions,and City Boards and Commissions. The Administration has provided the attached information in response to issues and comments discussed at the Council Work Session,written comments from some Community Councils and additional questions raised by Administrative staff. Please refer to the attached Planning staff response for details. The document provides an explanation of the rational used in developing the proposed text and identifies options for Council consideration including: a. Specific changes to the proposed text such as adding defmitions,adjusting the permitted and conditional uses,allowing additional height through the conditional use process,removing some of the area to be rezoned. b. Options identified to address"walkable communities"and"transit-oriented development"concepts in a broader context such as use of overlay zoning or additional zoning classifications,requesting that the Administration revise other City standards,regulations and master plans or developing design guidelines and an administrative process but,allow for discretion in interpretation. c. An additional issue identified by Planning staff since the Council Work Session is billboards on the 400 South corridor. Planning staff notes that on-premise signage was addressed with the proposed text changes but billboards were not.The question has been raised as to whether the billboard regulations should be adjusted to encourage the removal of billboards. Please refer to the last page of the Planning staff response for details. Planning staff provided the following recommendations for Council consideration: • Address the issue as part of the proposed text changes(this will require modification of the proposed text and notification to the billboard industry). • Leave the issue as it is. • Refer the issue to the Planning Commission for further study. Potential Options for Council Consideration a. Provide direction to the Administration for specific text changes and areas to be rezoned and schedule a public hearing date. b. Identify specific areas of concern,request additional information or analysis from the Administration and schedule an additional Work Session discussion. c. One Council Member recommended forming a Council subcommittee to work with the Administration to address the concerns and issues identified to date. d. One Council Member suggested separating consideration of the proposals in order to focus on specific issues relating to the individual text changes and rezoning. In addition,the Council Member suggested hiring a consultant to provide an independent evaluation of the proposals and identify possible options for Council consideration. This would be consistent with past Council practice in reviewing large,complex issues. Examples of such issues include impact fees, annexation,the Beck Street gravel issue,the Capital Improvement Program,the proposed Salt Lake Grand Mall and utility rates. e. Any combination of the above. f. Other options identified by Council Members at the September 5th Work Session. cc: Rocky Fbihart,David Nimkin,Steven Allred,Lynn Pace,Margaret Hunt,David Dobbins,LeRoy Hooton,Tim Harpst,Max Peterson,Roger Evans,Stephen Goldsmith,Brent Wilde,Harvey Boyd,Enzo Calfa,Cheri Coffey, Doug Dansie,Sylvia Jones,Barry Esham,Scott Barraclough File Location: Community and Economic Development Dept.,Planning Division,Zoning Ordinance Text Change and Rezoning—Parking lots behind buildings and transit corridor zoning,400 South from 200 East to approximately 950 East August 2002 Planning Division Response to Questions regarding Walkable Communities and Transit Corridor Districts The following list constitutes questions raised, at the City Council Briefing, in the City Council Staff Report, the East Central Community Council and the Central City Community Council(received after the briefing) and staff issues regarding the proposed "Walkable Communities"and the Transit Corridor zoning district ordinances. Responses are in italics. Does the ordinance address ensuring that display windows and glass are see through and are not just window dressing? The ordinance requires a minimum depth of two feet behind the glass. The ordinance also defines the maximum reflectivity(so that the glass is not a mirror.) Does the ordinance address preservation of existing housing or does it encourage demolition of residential buildings (such as Acoustic Music,Strong Court, etc.) The north side of 400 South between 700 and 900 East has viable housing. There are no residentially used buildings facing 400 South, except Stanford Court— which is a new development that is consistent with the proposed ordinance. There are two residential building used for commercial purposes, both for Acoustic Music, on 400 South (between 800 and 900 East). There is nothing in the existing or proposed codes to guarantee their continued existence. Redevelopment from commercial to housing would not guarantee the structures continued existence either. Regulations to encourage preservation of the structure would require placing it on the historic register or within a local historic district. One Acoustic Music building has been architecturally altered, but not beyond renovation. There are two residentially used structures on Strong Court that are within the existing CC Commercial Corridor zoning district. They have been commercially zoned for at least 50 years (400 South was rezoned between 1943 and 1955). If the Council wishes these homes to remain residential, an option may be to rezone them to SR-3, consistent with the remainder of Strong Court. Neither the existing nor proposed zoning guarantees the survival of the structures or their residential use(although the proposed zoning does make residential replacement more likely than the existing zoning). Has the Permits and Licensing Services' division reviewed the language of the ordinance? The language used in the ordinance is mostly used elsewhere in the ordinance. It is not new. Planning Staff delivered new copies of the draft ordinance to the Permits Counter the morning after the briefing to receive the Permit's Counter personnel input. The Permits Counter personnel reviewed the ordinance and had only one additional comment; they believe that the term block corner and mid block need to be defined(They are defined in the Downtown section of the ordinance but not in the TCportion. Staff suggests the final ordinance be amended to include that definition in the definitions section of the ordinance. Transit Corridor and Walkable Community questions 1 August,2002 August 2002 Does the ordinance have a comprehensive design theme to ensure the flavor/ continuity of new construction throughout the corridor? There needs to be a design theme. It is not desirable to have a strip mall appearance along 400 South. The design concepts are all very rudimentary. Every building could look different, although they would at least have glass at the ground level and be oriented to the sidewalk Some cities have engaged in elaborate design review/themes (Sante Fe, Park City). The proposed ordinance changes are not anywhere near that level. An underlying premise to the new ordnance was to keep it simple and allow architects to create within minimal parameters. Some people think it is desirable to have parking areas in front of businesses so patrons are not confused about where to park. If you push parking to the rear it may create a perception that there is no parking. Since only a percentage of the façade is required to have a maximum setback, there are some opportunities for front yard parking(although they are greatly reduced.) A building such as Marriott Brighton Gardens could still be built in the RMU zoning district with its parking in the courtyard, because at least 25%of the façade meets the maximum setback A major purpose of this initiative is to facilitate habit change, if the majority of new developments have parking in areas other than the front yard;patrons are more likely to look for parking in areas other than the front yard. The transit corridor zones do not allow gas stations and automobile-related businesses. What is the potential for automobile-related uses such as gas stations locating in commercial zones just outside the Transit Corridor zones and creating additional traffic impacts on surrounding residential neighborhoods? This was a major item of discussion with the Planning Commission with two competing philosophies: Why should the auto be encouraged in a transit area? vs. Will eliminating the auto uses in the TC zone push these uses into the adjacent neighborhood? The Planning Commission recommended allowing auto oriented uses, such as drive-in windows, as conditional uses rather than permitted uses in order to assure design control. (The former bank at Trolley Corners had a drive through window through the building and was still very urban in its relationship to the pedestrian. Other auto uses could be treated similarly.) The original draft of the ordinance allowed gas stations as a conditional use. The Planning Commission recommended prohibiting them. The City Council may reevaluate specific uses for the proposed Transit Corridor zones and decide which are appropriate. Businesses depend on auto patronage to survive, even if they have some pedestrian patronage. Therefore,the parking requirement should not be decreased. None of the parking requirements were altered in the Walkable Communities ordinance. Parking was reduced in the proposed TC zoning districts because they are mapped, in their entirety, along 400 South, adjacent to light rail. Transit Corridor and Walkable Community questions 2 August,2002 August 2002 Design criteria are established for the front of buildings but not rear or sides of buildings. Near-by neighbors have expressed concern regarding the interface of new buildings with the surrounding low-scale,low-density residential neighborhoods. What is the rationale for not including additional design criteria dealing with architectural features for the back of a building and architectural compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods? Requirements for light proof fencing, shielded lighting and shorter light poles are included in the draft ordinance. These are the same sorts of rudimentary standards placed on the front yard. Staff considered requiring windows and doors oriented to any rear parking lot, but ultimately did not place such a requirement in the ordinance because of the differing needs of individual retailers. The proposal does not get into design review, merely basic design concepts. The Police Department provided a list of crime prevention recommendations that are not included in the draft. The Council may wish to request incorporating Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design CPTED concepts as identified by the Police Department and discussed by the Planning Commission and Historic Landmark Commission. Many of these items were discussed, but it was decided that because of the wide variety of uses and needs, and the fact that CPTED principals can sometimes conflict with other policies (such as Historic Preservation guidelines) it was better left to reviewing CPTED at the site plan review level for specific projects rather than coding it in the zoning ordinance. CPTED principles are used in designing specific developments and are part of the review process when development approvals are requested. What options might be available to address the following: • Traffic circulation and pedestrian/traffic conflicts identified by the Transportation Division. • Alternative parking solutions such as angle or mid-street parking. (Not applicable in the transit corridor zones,but may be in other areas where the walkable concept is applied.) • Public way issues such as adequate pedestrian right of way to accommodate access,ease of movement,mobility and ADA accessibility. Bus stops, sidewalk widths, curb cuts, speed limits, etcetera are guided by administrative policy, rather than zoning code (zoning code applies to private land). These items are integral to the success of walkable communities and it would be appropriate to formally ask the Administration to review administrative polices in light of new zoning requirements. Traffic speeds affect pedestrian safety. Having a larger setback could make it safer for pedestrians because they would be further away from traffic flow. The zoning districts affected by walkable communities are within neighborhoods or are on streets with adequate sidewalks. Transit Corridor and Walkable Community questions 3 August,2002 August 2002 Normally setbacks are minimized in transit-oriented districts to decrease walking distance. However, in the proposed TC districts a 15-foot minimum setback remains for two reasons; it is part of the historical development pattern (it has been required for — numerous years) and the sidewalks are narrow and adjacent to a busy fast street. Has consideration been given to application of the proposed changes on a citywide basis versus use of an overlay-type of zoning applied to specific areas of the city? What are the pros and cons? Staff believes these concepts are appropriate for all neighborhood commercial areas of the City to promote pedestrian oriented commercial development in and adjacent to residential neighborhoods. The CC zoning district is not covered by the proposed ordinance because of its primary location along Redwood Road and North Temple, where residents believe the auto-oriented development patterns are appropriate. The Planning Commission did spend considerable time evaluating where walkable concepts should apply. One alternative would be to create overlay districts. Overlays are used to target specific areas of the City regardless of base zoning(historic districts are overlays). Overlay districts have been criticized as being cumbersome and confusing(for example; a developer may design to a base zoning district, only to find later that there are additional restrictions as part of the overlay). Another alternative would be to create dual zoning districts (for example a CB zone and a walkable CB zone) and apply them more specifically. This would increase the number of zoning districts to administer. The Historic Landmark Commission recommended the City Council consider including planned development requirements for all new developments within the TC (transit corridor)zoning districts and also consider the development of design guidelines that would further clarify the compatibility issue in order to ensure new construction in the TC zoning districts does not negatively impact adjacent structures, especially relating to shadowing. The East Central Community Council recommends that restriction of sunlight penetration and air circulation need to be addressed during the review/approval process. They also suggest all development over 30 feet in height be considered a conditional use so that design review is automatically part of the process. The area between 700 and 950 East(the primary focus of concern) is within a National Historic District but not a City Historic District; therefore the Historic Landmark Commission would not review new construction in this area. The local Central City Historic District is located between 500 and 700 East along 400 South. The East Central Community Council recommends the City Council consider changing the height requirements to 75 feet on the south side of 400 South and 50 feet along the north side of 400 South between 700 and 950 East to minimize shadowing concerns along the north side of 400 South in this area. To Council staffs knowledge, the City has not addressed the concept of `shadowing' in the past. Transit Corridor and Walkable Community questions 4 August,2002 August 2002 The attached ordinance represents the Planning Commission recommendation and does not include modifications suggested by the Historic Landmark Commission made after the Planning Commission approval. Would Council Members like to request that the City Attorney provide a new ordinance that addresses the changes recommended by the Historic Landmark Commission? The proposed TC-50 zoning district could be modified to make all structures (or all buildings adjacent to specific uses or zoning, such as SR-3 zoning) taller than 30 feet a conditional use to receive public input and design review by the Planning Commission. The staff does not perceive a need for this in the TC-75 zoning district since the adjacent zoning allows 7S foot tall buildings (which is how the staff originally derived a 75 foot height limit for the TC-75 zone). The need for it in the TC-50 zone is a point of contention. Some members of the Historic Landmark Commission agreed with the citizens that four-story building would shade two story buildings and harm the neighborhood. Other Historic Landmark Commission members argued that four story apartments exist in the neighborhood and that the Historic Landmark Commission is presently trying to save the.fuel Apartment building from demolition, which is built next to a one-story building(in the local Central City Historic District on 600 East). They argue that four story buildings are as much a part of the historical character as one story. The only portion of TC-75 adjacent to zoning with lower maximum height regulations is near 600 East, which is zoned RMF-35. This is in a local historic district regulated by the Historic Preservation Overlay zone. As an overlay zone, the Historic Landmark Commission has the jurisdiction to determine compatibility of height regardless of the base maximum height. When the Historic Landmark Commission reviewed the proposed ordinance, they were not comfortable mandating a lower height in the local historic district but instead wanted to review projects on a case-by-case basis to ensure compatibility. If the Council chooses to make additional height a conditional use in either the TC-75 or 50 zoning district, adding the Historic Landmark Commission recommended language would be appropriate The Transit Corridor TC-75 zone allows department stores as a conditional use. Based on recent discussions relating to department stores in the downtown and the Gateway development might there be unintended consequences by allowing department stores as a conditional use in the Transit Corridor TC-75 zone? Department Stores were allowed as a conditional use because they are presently allowed as a permitted use in the CC zoning district. Fred Meyer is in the CS zoning district and is not affected buy this change. It is technically not a department store because it is less than 100,000 Sq. Ft. (There is a separate petition to analyze whether the existing CS zoning at the Family Center/400 South Market[Fred Meyer/Old Navy]should also be rezoned to TC-75). There have also been separate suggestions of a Target store on 400 South.If the Council feels Department Stores are inappropriate, they could be eliminated as a conditional use. Transit Corridor and Walkable Community questions 5 August,2002 August 2002 Are there any potential adverse impacts that may be created by eliminating the minimum lot area requirement for planned developments? The Central City Community Council believes eliminating the minimum lot size will encourage land banking and large development projects. The East Central Community Council believes this may eliminate de facto SROs in the TC-50 zone where they are proposed as a conditional use and that the City needs to develop a definitive policy statement regarding where Single Room Occupancy developments can be located. Currently location is defined on a map,which they believe can too easily be amended. This was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting. Eliminating minimum lot size was an attempt to allow even small developments to take advantage of the Planned Development process in order to provide design flexibility(and design review). None of the Downtown, RMU or Gateway zones have density limitations for housing. The primary differences between an apartment building and a SRO is that SROs have a lower parking requirement (even when compared to the TC zones) and SROs allow shared bathroom and kitchen facilities. Apartments do not. The SRO Ordinance has been transmitted to the City Council for its consideration. Staff believes identifying appropriate locations for SROs on a map is the clearest way of identifying where these uses are appropriate. According to the draft SRO ordinance, a new SRO must be located in an area identified on the SRO map and be within a zoning district that allows SROs. Furthermore, there can only be one SRO per block face. There is nothing to stop land banking for larger projects at the present time in either the existing or proposed zoning. The increased height and density are intended to make residential and/or mixed-use projects economically easier to build than purely commercial projects. Are there other potential areas citywide or zoning classifications that may be considered for the proposed transit corridor zones or where parking lots behind buildings should be required such as the Institutional and Urban Institutional zones? (Churches,schools,etc.) The current ordinance focuses on commercial zoning adjacent to neighborhoods. The Council may wish to provide direction as to whether the walkable communities concept should be expanded to other uses/areas. Whether the Council is comfortable to allow the provision for the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission to waive,modify or grant exceptions to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. This is currently allowed in other sections of the Zoning Ordinance. This was done to provide flexibility. The intent was to create a set of rules to get a permit over the counter, but to also create a process to accommodate developers who meet the intent of the ordinance but not necessarily the specific technical requirements. The Planned Development process authorizes the Planning Commission to modify regulations after a thorough review including a public input process. The East Central Community Council recommends that this process be clarified regarding expansion requests so the intent of these ordinances cannot be subverted by incremental expansion. They recommend requiring a public process whenever expansion of a use or Transit Corridor and Walkable Community questions 6 August,2002 . August 2002 building is requested. The Zoning Administrator reviews applications for expansions of non-conforming uses and in-line additions made to existing development because the Planning Commission wished to have some flexibility in expanding existing uses (on existing sites). There are criteria listed as to what constitutes an expansion by an in-line addition (no more than 25% increase in area, etc). Also, the Zoning Administrator may alter the glass requirements for historic building, on the advice of the Historic Landmark Commission or preservation planners (so as to not destroy historic character) or where structural stability is in question. In order to consistently and clearly express the policy aspects that the Council supports, might it be appropriate to amend City master plans and other policy documents such as the Transportation Master Plan and the Urban Design Element? No street classifications are being changed(although 400 South is a major transit street, it also remains a major arterial.) The design concepts are consistent with the Urban Design Element. Although the proposed ordinance is consistent with both master plans, the plans have not been updated recently. Updating the Transportation Master plan may provide a venue to clarify policy regarding sidewalk widths, driveways, etc in relation to transit. Updating the Urban Design Element may provide more specific design guidelines for conditional uses involving transit districts. The Administration's transmittal for locating parking lots behind buildings notes presentations to the Business Advisory Board and various real estate organizations. Were the Transportation Advisory Board and the Vest Pocket Business organization involved in the review process? If so,what type of comments or input were received? The Vest Pocket Coalition has a representative on the Business Advisory Board. No street classification is being proposed for change and in most instances all parking regulations stay the same(the TC zones being the exception—where parking requirement were reduced). A major goal of the Transportation Master Plan is to increase the use of mass transit.In their response to the review of the draft ordinance, the Transportation Division did not request staff present the draft ordinance to the Transportation Advisory Board. Because the ordinance does not alter the transit system, Planning Staff did not believe it was necessary. Has consideration been given to the implementation of Envision Utah toolbox concepts or other planning tools from other cities such as: • Transfer of development rights • Density bonuses • Solar access protection • Pedestrian-oriented street and public way designs • Incentive programs such as Portland Oregon's transit-oriented development financial incentive programs using federal funds and tax exemptions • Establishing an objective evaluation system such as a point system where a development is evaluated based on the criteria in the Zoning Ordinance and Transit Corridor and Walkable Community questions 7 August,2002 August 2002 • awarded points based on a scale or range of points to assess whether or not the standard is met. All of these tools are available, however a conservative approach was used in developing this ordinance by focusing on language and concepts that already exist in our present ordinance. The East Central Community Council recommends excluding the Bryant neighborhood from TC-50 zone from 700 E to 900 East blocks on the north side of 400 South. There are numerous single-family homes in this neighborhood, some recently restored, and no buildings taller than 2 %2 stories. Salt Lake City lacks a compatibility review process to address the interface between the proposed TC-50 zone and the single-family residences. Therefore, these two blocks need to be excluded from the TC-50 zone. Also do not extend the TC-50 zone to 950 East, for the same reasons noted above. Salt Lake City is in the process of developing a compatibility review process for this area. Planning Staff has initiated discussions for a meeting schedule to facilitate this process. There are numerous one and two-story homes on the blocks adjacent to the proposed TC- 50, but there are also three and four story apartments (see photos). It is the Planning staff's position that density in this neighborhood is more appropriate along 400 South than in the center of the blocks or on other streets because it may reduce pressure to redevelop lots that currently house historic structures. The proposed zoning raises the height from 30 feet to 50 feet(two stories to four stories) for mixed-use buildings (only residential uses can take advantage of the additional height). Alternatives to excluding the north side of 400 South may include making all structures above 30 feet a conditional use, when adjacent to residential zones whose maximum height is 30 feet and/or rezoning the two homes in question along Strong Court to SR-3,from the existing CC zoning, to reduce potential commercial development of the properties. The rezone petition refers to all CC property between 700 and 950 East. Technically the last addresses to the east are the Bagelry; 905 East and Village Inn; 910 East. Changing the map associated with the petition to read 910 rather than 950 may alleviate some fear. The East Central Community Council recommends excluding additional drive- through businesses in the TC-50 or TC-75 zones, even as conditional uses. They believe drive-throughs encourage the use of cars contrary to the philosophy of this planning effort and increase safety risks for pedestrians as cars cross sidewalks. This issue relates to whether all auto uses should be excluded in the TC zones (which some argue merely forces them into the neighborhood) or accommodated so they do not become non-conforming. Staff chose to place many items in the conditional use process in order to guarantee master plan policy compliance and design review, rather than prohibit them outright. The Planning Commission closely evaluated what uses should be allowed in the TC zones. The current draft table of permitted and conditional uses reflects the Planning Commission's recommendation. Transit Corridor and Walkable Community questions 8 August,2002 August 2002 The East Central Community Council recommends excluding bus terminals, ambulance facilities, and park-and-ride lots. These uses also increase motorized vehicle crossing of sidewalks. They recommend locating park-and-ride facilities away from these zones and downtown areas in general, to encourage citizens to use mass transit for more of the commuting distance and to minimize automobile generated air pollution in these zones. These uses are presently allowed in the CC zoning districts. They are proposed as conditional uses in the TC-75 but prohibited in the TC-50 zone. The East Central Community Council recommends adding language to clarify design requirements for exits from underground garages. Designs need to assure motorists have maximum possible visibility of pedestrians on sidewalk. An example of poor design is the parking complex adjacent to the Broadway Theater. Parking exit issues are normally reviewed through the site plan review process. The East Central Community Council believes compatibility review is a significant missing piece of this process and needs to be included as suggested above. Compatibility review or design review may be considered in addition to the proposed TC ordinance changes. The City has initiated discussion regarding a compatibility review process. The Central City Community Council does not support the 75-foot height proposal. They believe all references of the TC-75 zoning should be deleted from the proposed ordinance to conform to the East Downtown Neighborhood Master Plan and the Central City Neighborhood Council's needs as a residential area. The East Downtown Neighborhood Master Plan identifies the need to protect view corridors and scenic vistas. The Community Council is concerned how the 75-foot high proposal will affect views. Rather than allowing 75-foot high structures to "warehouse" people, the Central City Community Council supports infill development of open space and housing. They do not support allowing building heights up to 120-feet as conditional uses. The height limit for the proposed TC-75 zoning district was derived from adjacent zoning districts (the heights of adjacent zoning districts are listed in parenthesis on exhibit E of the draft ordinance). Staff does not believe it is logical to have a lower height limit on 400 South than on adjacent properties. The 75 foot height limit was derived with views of the City/County building and Cathedral of the Madeline view corridors in mind. The City/County building is 120 feet to the main roofline and 255 feet tall at the tower(the new library is 90 feet tall). The Cathedral is 185-feet tall(and is also at a higher elevation than the remainder of East Downtown). The East Downtown Master Plan identifies 75 feet as the height limit and allows up to 120 feet in the area near 200 South and 300 East. The previous height limit in the East Downtown area (prior to 1995) was over 200 feet (1.5 times the width of the street-plus setback bonuses). Seventy-five feet tall is necessary to accommodate a typical "pedestal"building, where the bottom two floors are of concrete construction (usually retail) and the top 4 floors are "stick built" Transit Corridor and Walkable Community questions 9 August,2002 August 2002 • (which allow more affordable residential). This "pedestal"development is made possible by new interpretation of the building code and is commonly used in other cities. The 50-ft height could be acceptable to the Central City Community Council, but they want to evaluate the sites the Planning Division and developers are considering and the development they are planning. The TC-50 zoning district is proposed to replace existing CC zoning between 700 and 910 East. The City Council may modify this district to include conditional use design review if it chooses, which would require a public input process. The Planning Division has engaged the services of an intern from the University of Utah, to assist in modeling the mass and character of buildings along 400 South. The height of 50 feet was derived from the fact that building code allows "stick-built" buildings to be 4 stories or 50 feet tall. The Central City Community Council does not support a reduction in the parking requirement for TOD. They do not believe people are ready to give up their cars or reduce their parking and traffic habits or needs. They believe there needs to be more mass transit options. The decreased reliance on the automobile, in favor of transit, is one of the underlying goals of the new zoning district. The Central City Community Council does not support car washes and other facilities to accommodate the car in the TOD districts. This is similar to the debate the Planning Commission had regarding accommodating the auto or pressing it into adjacent zoning districts. The Planning Commission settled on conditional use language rather than prohibiting these uses. The Central City Community Council does not support allowing offices as permitted uses in the TC zones. They believe this will be similar to the R-7 zone and will lead to more offices in the area and residential buildings to be converted to offices. If offices are a permitted use,then regulations must be clarified with specific restrictions. Offices are presently allowed in the CC zoning district. Offices would also be allowed in the new TC zoning districts, but would continue to be limited to 30 feet in height. Only residential uses are allowed to take advantage of the increased height. Could we create(or hire a consultant to create) a set of guidelines regarding walkables communities? This would give the applicant a clearer understanding of what is acceptable but still allow for discretion. If the applicant meets these guidelines then they could possibly be administratively approved. (Similar process to administrative approvals of Historic Preservation regulations.) The conditional use out is too lengthy. Pedestrian orientation can be achieved sometimes without requiring the building to be built near the sidewalk. Transit Corridor and Walkable Community questions 10 August,2002 August 2002 Pedestrian use can be achieved without buildings being built near the sidewalk, although on a macro scale, buildings near the sidewalk are generally friendlier than those that are not. While design guidelines are possible to use, this version of the ordinance was written in an attempt to use existing language and processes. The conditional use "out" is the only formal system for design review we have at the moment(except the Historic Landmarks review). Design guidelines can certainly be drawn up, similar to historic district guidelines, however, such guidelines are far more elaborate and subjective than the present proposal and would still require some sort of Planning Commission conditional use process or design review board to handle appeals of administrative decisions. In the past, the City Council has been reluctant to create a design review board. ADDITIONAL ISSUE Billboards on 400 South. The new TC zoning districts replace both the land use and on premise signage requirements of the existing CC Commercial Corridor on 400 South, however the issue of billboards was not discussed. 400 South is presently listed as a "Special Gateway" street in the billboard section of the sign ordinance, which means the street has its own "cap and replace"program and "bank account"where a new billboard can only be constructed when an old billboard is removed. This is different from a "Gateway"street, where once billboards are removed they are banked to be relocated elsewhere in the city, but cannot be rebuilt on the Gateway street. With the new streetscape of 400 South (trees, lighting etc) and the new zoning encouraging residential uses on the upper floors of buildings, the question has been raised as to whether 400 South should be reclassified from a Special Gateway to a Gateway street, to encourage long term attrition and removal of billboards. There are presently six billboards located on 400 South; one on the Burger King lot at 200 East, three on the Stoneground building at approximately 251 East, one at 7-11 at 300 East and one at Pizza Hut near 800 East(all are on the north side of the street). As a practical matter, the boards on the Stoneground building will not be removed in the near future because the billboard company sold the building while maintaining a permanent easement for the billboards. The other three boards are on sites that may eventually be redeveloped. The City Council may address this issue as part of this ordinance change (which will require notification to the billboard industry), leave this issue as it is, or remand it to the Planning Commission for further study. Transit Corridor and Walkable Community questions 1 I August,2002 Overview Walkable communities The following bullet statements indicate the fundamental issues regarding walkable communities: 1. The changes pertain to those commercial and mixed-use zoning districts which interface with Salt Lake City neighborhoods (no residential or other zoning districts, such as manufacturing, general commercial, institutional or public lands, are included) 2. The proposed ordinance primarily uses existing design concepts that already occur within our existing zoning ordinance: • Maximum setback(presently used in the Downtown D-1 and D-4 and Gateway zoning districts), these encourage the building to be built closer to the street,which facilitates pedestrian activity, • Greater setback for parking lots and parking structures than for buildings (presently used in Downtown zoning districts, Gateway and R-MU), this discourages parking lots from occupying valuable street frontage and in turn encourages buildings at the street frontage to encourage pedestrian activity, • 40%glass required at the ground level(used in D-1 and D-4 and Gateway zoning districts), this creates visual interest between the pedestrian and the business, • Parking location restrictions(there are parking restrictions in the D-1 and D-4 zoning districts which are similar in intent, if not exact wording), this also encourages parking to be located secondary to the street frontage, which makes the public sidewalk the primary focus of pedestrian activity, • Requirement of orientation of the front door to the street(used in multi- family residential zoning districts and Gateway district.), this encourages the public sidewalk to be the primary entry,which in turn encourages pedestrian activity. 3. Provides for compatibility • Rear yard lighting restrictions (this is a new concept suggested by community councils to eliminate glare into neighborhoods), this is meant to protect adjacent residential uses from any negative impacts of rear yard parking, • Design requirement to eliminate blank walls along the front façade (presently these regulations are in the Gateway district),this is to create visual interest for the pedestrian. 4. Provides flexibility • The planned development process is emphasized and minimum lot sizes eliminated to allow for creative design proposals to be considered. 5. What the walkable communities changes do not include changes to the following (new TC zones excepted): • Parking ratios, • Land uses tables, • Heights limits. Related petitions: The Salt Lake City Planning Division is currently holding the following petitions pending resolution of the walkable communities ordinance. Once the City Council provides direction on petition 400-00-52, staff will be able to better evaluate the other petitions. "Walkable Communities"type Petitions Petition Request Action Planner 400-00-52 Walkable Communities Ordinance(No December 13,2002 Doug D. parking in front of commercial buildings. Planning Commission review. 400-01-11 Rezone property along 2100 South On hold until petition Melissa A. between 700 and 900 East from CC to 400-00-52 is adopted. CSHBD. 400-01-12 Transit Oriented Development Districts December 13,2002 Doug D. 400-01-48 and map amendments on 400 South of Planning Commission CC zoned properties. Review. 400-01-13 Expand the South State Street Overlay to On hold until petition Doug D. include the west side of Main Street from 400-00-52 is adopted. 1300 South to 2100 South. The South State Street Overlay Zone includes provisions which incorporate the Walkable Communities concepts. 400-01-14 Rezone all properties zoned CS which If petition 400-00-52 is Wayne M. are surrounded by more than 60% adopted,this petition residential development to require the can be filed with no Walkable Community design concepts action taken. Petition are implemented. 400-00-52 includes provisions that cover this request. 400-01-23 D-3 Walkable Communities to add all On hold until petition Doug D. regulations in the Walkable 400-00-52 is adopted. Communities ordinance(such as percentage of glass,maximum setbacks etc.)to the D-3 zone. (The regulations already exist in the D-1 and D-4 zones. 400-01-32 Modify the C-SHBD zone to decrease Jan 17,02 Planning Melissa A. maximum height and amend the Sugar Commission review. House Zoning Map to expand the C- SHBD zoning. 400-02-03 Rezoning existing CS zone property on Planning Commission Doug D. 400 South between 500 and 800 East initiated on 2/25/02. from CS to TC-75 or TC-50. Transit Oriented Districts The new Transit Oriented Districts (TC-50 and TC-75) contain the same urban design components that are being adopted as part of"walkable communities", including a glass requirement at the ground level, orientation to the street and maximum building setbacks. The proposed TOD zoning district contains the following concepts (in addition to the walkable community concepts); 1) Reduced parking requirements (reduce from the present C-C zoning district), this is to acknowledge the increased reliance on transit within the zoning district. 2) A greater percentage of the façade is subject to maximum building setback requirements (all of the facade is subject to the setback, as opposed to percentages listed in other zoning districts), this is to encourage a"streetwall" or continuous façade along the transit corridor to facilitate pedestrian interaction, 3) Height and density limitations are increased for residential uses appropriately for the location(the current C-C zoning district is limited to 30 feet in height and generally discourages residential or mixed-use buildings), this is to encourage housing density to locate along the corridor, 4) Limitations and/or design controls are added for drive-through windows and other automobile oriented land uses, to discourage heavy reliance on the auto and increase reliance on transit and pedestrian activity. Related petitions: The Planning staff is presently reviewing a petition from the Planning Commission(#400-02-03) to include the CS zoning district(between 500 and 700 East along 400 South)within the TOD zone. Once the City Council provides direction on petition 400-01-12 and 400-01-48, staff will be able to better evaluate the other petitions.