Loading...
09/05/2002 - Minutes PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 2002 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Thursday, September 5, 2002, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance: Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Eric Jergensen, Nancy Saxton, Jill Remington Love, and Dave Buhler. Absent: Councilmember Dale Lambert Also in Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Mayor Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson; Chris Bramhall, Assistant City Attorney; Diana Karrenberg, Community Affairs Manager; Janet Wolf, Director of Youth Programs; DJ Baxter, Mayor's Senior Advisor; David Nimkin, Mayor's Chief of Staff; Michael Sears, Council Budget and Policy Analyst; Gary Mumford, Council Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor; Janice Jardine, Council Planning and Policy Analyst; Lehua Weaver, Council Staff Assistant; Doug Dansie, Downtown/Special Projects Planner; Brent Wilde, Deputy Director of Planning; Laurie Dillon, Budget Analyst; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Nancy Tessman, Library Director; and Beverly Jones, Deputy City Recorder. Councilmember Buhler presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:37 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1. INTERVIEW KATHLEEN WHEADON PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HER APPOINTMENT TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BOARD. Ms. Wheadon said she had lived in Salt Lake City for approximately 12 years. She said she was an architect for Coopers, Roberts, Simonsen Architects and was interested in the City's architecture. #2. INTERVIEW MARY CORPORON PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HER APPOINTMENT TO THE BUSINESS ADVISORY BOARD. Ms. Corporon said she had lived in Salt Lake City since 1974. She said she owned two businesses in the City. She said one was law practice and one was an antique store. She said she was interested in the impact of City decisions on property owners and small businesses. She said she was also involved in the Vest Pocket Coalition. #3. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A CORRECTION TO THE BUSINESS LICENSE REVENUE TAX. View Attachment Chris Bramhall and Gary Mumford briefed the Council from the attached handout. Councilmember Buhler asked about the correction. Mr. Bramhall said it was a technical amendment. He said Sections 5.04.170 and 5.04.180 were enacted as companion ordinances and were both set at a 4% revenue tax. He said Section 5.04.170 was changed from 4% to 6% in 1993. He said Section 5.04.180 was overlooked. Councilmember Buhler asked what revenue impact the corrected ordinance would have. Mr. Bramhall said there would be no revenue impact because currently no entity was taxed under Section 5.04.180. Councilmember Saxton asked if cable or telephone companies fell under Section 5.04.180. Mr. Bramhall said the City taxed cable companies but not dish companies. Councilmember Buhler said the City needed to look at taxing dish companies. Mr. Bramhall said he had been working on a task force with the Utah League and the dish industry for approximately two years to broaden the tax base and lower the rate. He said they 02 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 2002 wanted to introduce a bill at the next Legislative Session. All present Council Members were in favor of moving this item forward. #4. CONTINUE THEIR DISCUSSION REGARDING CREATING TRANSIT-ORIENTED ZONING REGULATIONS, LOCATING PARKING LOTS BEHIND BUILDINGS, AND ESTABLISHING PEDESTRIAN-ORIENTED DESIGN STANDARDS. (WALKABLE COMMUNITIES) (PETITION NO. 400-01-48 AND PETITION NO. 400-01-12) View Attachment Janice Jardine, Doug Dansie, and Brent Wilde briefed the Council from the attached handout. Councilmember Christensen said he was concerned about potential changes to neighborhoods and transit-oriented changes. He said these changes were the most widespread City changes since the 1995 zoning rewrite. He said it would be helpful for him to have an outside consultant look at the issues. Councilmember Jergensen said one of the areas most affected by the proposed ordinance was 300 West from 800 North to North Temple. He said it would be helpful to have a consultant study the plan and suggest specifics. Councilmember Saxton said she agreed a consultant was needed to study the plan. She said she was concerned about the residential component along transit-oriented development. She said commercial businesses wanted parking in front for convenience. Councilmember Saxton said rear yards required 7-foot setbacks. She said landscaping only required a 4-foot tree. She asked that landscaping and setback issues be looked at. She said with a 7-foot setback in the rear yard, a tree could not be placed far enough away from the building to be viable. Mr. Dansie said the 7-foot setback was for surplus parking in the rear. He said building code did not allow unprotected windows within 20-feet of a property line. Councilmember Saxton asked about landscaping in the middle of parking lots. Mr. Dansie said there was a separate section in the proposed ordinance which covered landscaping. He said any parking lot with more than 15 stalls was required to have interior landscaping. Councilmember Saxton said along 400 South, the bus stops were every two blocks. She said that was not a transit-oriented corridor. She said buses needed to be more frequent than every two blocks. She said she wanted shelters included with the bus stops. She said she wanted allowances for affordability if the City allowed housing along 400 South. Councilmember Buhler asked if there were restrictions on 400 South with buses and Utah Transit Authority (UTA) . Mr. Dansie said zoning only applied to private property and what was done in the public right-of-way was negotiated. He said they could work with UTA for more bus stops. Councilmember Turner said he also wanted to hire a consultant. He said he agreed with the need for more frequent bus stops. Mr. Wilde said their department would be glad to work with a consultant. Councilmember Buhler requested Council staff pursue names of consultants and report back to the Council. 5. HOLD A DISCUSSION REGARDING APPROPRIATION OF ONE-TIME REVENUE. View Attachment Michael Sears, Mayor Anderson, Janet Wolf, and DJ Baxter briefed the Council from the attached handout. Mr. Sears said interest earned on an endowment fund through the banks was listed at approximately 6.25%. He said if the City had a $3 million endowment fund, the City would receive $180,000 a year in interest or $3.6 million over 20 years. Councilmember Buhler asked Mr. Sears to find out what restrictions were on endowments. 02 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 2002 Mr. Sears said during the budget amendment process, the Council had made two appropriations from one-time revenue, $200, 000 for the Houser sculptures and $1.38 million for capital expenditures out of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) fund. He said a total of $1.58 million had been used of the available $8.68 million. He said there was $7.1 million left. He said if the Council agreed with the recommended amount of $3.675 million for the east side of Library Square, $3.4 million in available funds would be left. Mr. Sears said in the Mayor's recommended budget for one-time money, $700, 000 had been included for neighborhood legacy projects, $150, 000 for youth program operating expenditures, and $3 million for a youth endowment fund. He said some additional requests were $450,000 for the National League of Cities, $2 million for the housing trust fund, additional capital improvement projects, purchase apartment buildings, Section 8 housing and improvements to Pioneer Park. Councilmember Turner asked if the one-time revenue was new money or if the City was getting paid back. Mr. Sears said the reimbursements of one-time money were $4.2 million of sales tax which the City fronted for completion of the Olympic facilities, $2.29 million for the Salt Lake Sports Complex rental fees, $77, 000 in excess revenue in the debt services guarantee fund, $567, 000 from the City and County Building debt service savings because of refinancing at a lower interest rate, and $600,000 for a UTA reimbursement for back sales tax for light rail. Councilmember Saxton asked how much money had been spent on the library. Mr. Sears said the allocation for the east side was $1.2 million. He said approximately $140, 000 had been approved by the Council for planning and schematic designs. He said approximately $1,060,000 was left. Councilmember Saxton said she thought the total dollar amount was approximately $4 million. She said the City had already earmarked $1.2 million for the library. Mr. Sears said that amount was in addition to this request. He said it was in the original bond. He said the total budget was $4.715 million. He said the City still needed to come up with $3.67 million. Councilmember Saxton said she wanted to put aside money for open space and housing. Councilmember Christensen said for the National League of Cities he was willing to go into existing fund balances. He said he met with the community councils in his district last month concerning the $100,000 for each Council district. He said the community councils wanted to reinvest the money into the Jordan River Parkway. Councilmember Jergensen said he had also met with his community councils. He said they had talked about spending $100,000 on entry features into the avenues area. He said bike trails needed to be upgraded in Capital Hills. He said housing and open space needed to be considered. Councilmember Turner said he supported $3.6 million for the library project and $150, 000 for youth operation expenditures. He said the Houser sculptures were a good Olympic endowment. He said he felt the National League of Cities should come from general fund. Councilmember Buhler said a study would be started on Pioneer Park soon. He said he did not want to spend one-time money on Pioneer Park until the Council knew how it should be spent. He said he wanted Pioneer Park to stay on the one-time revenue list because he wanted some money reserved for the park. Councilmember Love asked if funding should be set aside for ongoing programming for the Olympic Plaza at the Gallivan Center. She said she was interested in the Jordan River Parkway because Salt Lake City needed to do their part. All Council Members present were in favor of taking the National League of Cities off the one-time revenue list. 02 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 2002 Councilmember Buhler asked if there were timing issues with the Library block. Mr. Baxter said they were ready to start drafting construction documents. He said that would take approximately two months. He said they wanted to start construction on the common areas after the first of the year so it would complete by midsummer. Ms. Gust- Jenson said the library was scheduled for the budget opening on September 17th, 2002. She said if Council chose not to include the library in that budget opening, then funding would be included in next quarter's budget opening. Councilmember Saxton said the City was in a desperate situation as far as the loss of Section 8 housing. She said she could not put money into a library when thousands of people were going to be homeless. She said she did not want to purchase additional housing, she wanted to preserve what the City presently had. Councilmember Love said she was concerned about housing, but the City had made a commitment to Library Square. Councilmember Buhler said he had requested a briefing on housing for September 17th, 2002. Councilmember Buhler asked for a straw poll on funding $3.3 million for the east side of the library block from one-time money. All Council Members present were in favor except Councilmember Saxton who was opposed. Councilmember Christensen said he wanted to see the one-time revenue decided on by the second week in October. The meeting adjourned at 7 :07 p.m. bj 02 - 4 MEMORANDUM DATE: September 3, 2002 TO: Council Members FROM: Gary Mumford RE: CORRECTION TO ORDINANCE GOVERNING BUSINESS LICENSE REVENUE TAX IMPOSED ON BUSINESSES IN COMPETITION WITH BUSINESSES PROVIDING TELEPHONE SERVICES OR OTHER PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICES (Amendment to code section 5.04.180) Historically,the City imposed a franchise tax on public utility companies of 2%of gross revenue on services delivered within the corporate limits of the City. Later the City adopted a licensing revenue tax of 4% of gross revenue(code section 5.04.170). A"backup"provision, section 5.04.180,imposed the same 4%revenue tax on any business in competition with a telecommunication business taxed under section 5.04.170. Later, section 5.04.170 was changed to levy a license tax of 6%on gross revenue with a credit for any franchise fees paid,but the corresponding change to section 5.04.180 was not made. The general goal of this ordinance is to ensure that all companies that provide public utility service, including telephone service, are subject to the same regulations. With the continued evolution of technology, it is necessary for the ordinance to be very specific. The Administration desires to correct the oversight at this time, in order to avoid any argument that there is an unlevel playing field. The Council may wish to consider the proposed amendment to be a housekeeping item. cc: Rocky Fluhart,David Nimkin, Steven Allred,Chris Bramhall,DJ Baxter • SIAI 1 1� It C VIQS ROSS C."ROCKY"ANDERSON CHRISTOPHER E.BRAMHALL MAYOR LAW DEPARTMENT STEVEN W.ALLRED SENIOR CITY ATTORNEY ACTING CITY ATTORNEY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky J. Fluhart DATE: August 19, 2002 Chief Administrative Officer FROM: Christopher E. Bramhall Senior City Attorney SUBJECT: Ordinance Amending Section 5.04.180 DISCUSSION: The purpose of this amendment is to confoini Section 5.04.180 to Section 5.04.170. Section 5.04.170 was changed some time ago to impose on telecommunication providers a business license tax of 6% of gross revenues (up from 4%). Section 5.04.180, which imposes a similar tax on those in competition with providers under Section 5.04.170, was not changed, and presently reads 4%. The tax under Section 5.04.180 should be changed to 6%,to create a level playing field. CONTACT PERSON: Chris Bramhall, Steven Allred, 535-7788. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 505,SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7788 FAX: 801-535-7640 y YRECYCLEO PAPER SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2002 (Revenue Tax on Business In Competition With Public Utilities) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5.04.180 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO THE IMPOSITION OF A REVENUE TAX ON BUSINESSES IN COMPETITION WITH PUBLIC UTILITTF,S. WHEREAS, there is a need for the city to amend its ordinance that regulates revenue taxes on businesses in competition with public utilities; and WHEREAS, the City Council has now determined to amend the following ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah: SECTION 1. That Section 5.04.180, Salt Lake City Code, be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 5.04.180 Businesses In Competition With Public UtilitiesOthers: A. Revenue Tax On Business In Competition With Public e UtilitiesOthers: There is levied upon the business of every person or company entity engaged in the business, in the City, of supplying any services, including but not limited to telephone services, as defined in energy service in competition with any other person or entity then subject to a franchise fee, tax, license, fee, license fee, license tax or similar charge, or any combination of any of these, based upon the gross revenues of such person or entity, and providing services described in Title 11, Chapter 26, Utah Code Annotated, public utilities,as-an annual license tax equal to fe six percent (64%) of the gross revenue derived from the sale and use of such competitive services sold,.used or delivered within the corporate limits of the City, after November 1, 1977. * * * SECTION 2. Effect and Invalidity. If any section, sentence,paragraph, term, or provision of this ordinance is for any reason determined to be or rendered illegal, invalid, or superseded by other lawful authority including any state or federal legislative, regulatory, or administrative authority having jurisdiction thereof or determined to be unconstitutional, illegal, or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, this entire ordinance shall be voided and terminated. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2002. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved Vetoed MAYOR ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER - AFPnOVED AS 1"0 FORM (SEAL) slot Laka tty A 011-le's JY?ii;a Date '3y Bill No. of 2002 Published: G:\Ordinance 02\Amend 5.04.180.doc 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 definitions,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 Fluhart,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 TC portion. 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 codifying 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 1 S 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 Juel 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 mods 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 1/z 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 11 August,2002 MEMORANDUM To: Members of the Salt Lake City Council From: Mayor Rocky Anderson R6,9 Date: Tuesday, September 3, 2002 Re: YouthCity endowment proposal In addition to the materials we have already provided with regard to the proposed YouthCity endowment, please consider the following points. These issues were raised by some Council members in a recent newspaper article published in the Deseret News on August 29th. Oversight In the article, Carlton Christensen expressed concern about oversight of expenditures coming from endowment revenues. Let us assure you, the YouthCity Olympic Legacy Endowment will be established with rigorous oversight and evaluation from the beginning. The Council can impose those requirements now, and we would support them. First, the Council would decide whether to appropriate funds, based on a submitted budget, as is the case with other ongoing funds like the Housing Trust Fund. In addition to the oversight exercised by the City Council when appropriations are made, we propose that an oversight board for the endowment be formed. The board would consist of two City Council members or designees, a representative from the Salt Lake City School District, two parents involved with YouthCity programs, a student from YouthCity programs over age 16, and one at-large member from the community. We propose that the board would advise the Mayor and City Council on priorities and strategies for youth programs, ensure broad access to the programs, nurture relationships among stakeholders, and assist with keeping the public informed about available programs. All YouthCity programs would also be subject to annual evaluations by I program participants, parents, and teachers, as has been the practice for the past two years. Human Capital Investment vs. Infrastructure Investment Council members have expressed concern about giving priority for these one-time funds to youth programs when the city has other needs— specifically, our physical infrastructure. We see this as an opportunity to make a lasting investment in our human capital, a fundamental component of our community that has historically taken a back seat to other needs. Our commitment to City infrastructure (CIP fund), for example, exceeds $13 million each year, at least equal to 9% of the City's general fund. By contrast, a $3 million endowment, which would pay dividends for our City's young people, our families, and the entire community for many generations, would yield yearly proceeds of less than one-tenth of one percent of the City's annual revenue. This one-time, Olympic-related money provides us the opportunity to ensure the sustainability of youth programs long into the future, regardless of who is serving on the City Council or in the Mayor's Office. It is our chance to show, with concrete action instead of shallow words, that our City's children are our City's business. We cannot see to this business as passive observers. This responsibility requires our active and continual involvement. Salt Lake City Council Office Memo To: Salt Lake City Council From: Michael Sears, Budget&Policy Analyst Date: September 3, 2002 Re: Salt Lake City One-Time Revenue Appropriation request / Salt Lake City Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Budget The Salt Lake City Council considered appropriation of one-time revenue during the May and June fiscal year 2002-2003 budget adoption process. During the May 7, 2002 presentation of the Mayor's Recommended Budget, the Mayor recommended that$4 million be appropriated for the development of open space on the east side of Library Square. That request has been reduced to $3.6 million. The Mayor also requested $3 million for a Youth Endowment account and $150,000 for Youth Operating expenditures. The Council considered and appropriated $200,000 to act as matching funds for the purchase of Houser Sculptures. The original request was for$400,000. The Mayor also included in his recommended budget$700,00 for Neighborhood Legacy projects. The Council on September 3, 2002 considered the $3.6 million request for the development of open space on the east side of Library Square. A public hearing will be held concerning the requested appropriation at a later date. Of the original recommended budget items, the Council has not made a decision regarding the youth program endowment, and youth program operating expenditures and the Neighborhood Legacy project. The total of these three projects is$3.85 million. The Council Office has also received additional requests for funding from the available one-time revenue. The following items are the additional requests that the Council Office has received. The Council has received emails and letters that explain in further detail the requested appropriations. • Revenue for fundraising deficits for the National League of Cities Conference (approx. $460,000) • Revenue for the Housing Trust Fund ($2,000,000 or more) • Revenue to pay for the additional Capital Improvement Projects (all one-time revenue remaining) • Revenue to purchase the Milestone Apartments (at least$2,000,000) • Revenue to fund the future purchase of Section 8 housing projects (all one- time revenue remaining) • Improvements to Pioneer Park, now that the Olympic Legacy Park will be located elsewhere. During the discussion on one-time monies the Council may wish to consider the effect that rising construction costs are having on capital expenditures. The current interest rate that the City earns is a around 2.6%. The construction costs are inflating at around 3 to 5% each year. The City has enjoyed a very favorable bidding environment this year. If the current economy holds, the favorable bidding environment may allow the City to construct projects for less money than originally projected. The Council has approximately$7,103,047 available for appropriation to one-time expenditures. During the budget process the Council considered $8,686,853 in one-time revenue. $200,000 for matching funds for the purchase of the Houser Sculptures and $1,383,806 for capital projects was appropriated. The request for development funds for the east side of the Library Square is $3,675,886. If the Council appropriates the requested funds the remaining amount will be $3,427,161. •Page 2 AUG 3 0 2002 LUANN CLARK M.1�5+I =ialtr e,��,�l l j ROSS C.ANDERSON DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR DIVISION OF HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT August 28, 2002 Council Member Dave Buhler City Council Chairperson Salt Lake City Corporation 451 South State Street SLC, UT 84111 Dear Council Chairperson Buhler: This letter is to officially request the Salt Lake City Council consider making an allocation to the Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund from the Olympic Legacy funds. These funds would enable Salt Lake City to provide needed affordable and special needs housing for the citizens of Salt Lake City. In order to increase, much less maintain, a sufficient stock of affordable housing in the City, it is imperative that the Housing Trust Fund establish a one-time base of funds and a dedicated, on-going source of significant funds. Ultimately, the Trust Fund will need to acquire an appropriate level of funds to meet our future needs. A generous allocation of funds from Olympic Legacy funds to the Housing Trust fund would move the Trust Fund closer to this critical goal and would help the City accomplish the affordable housing needs goals established in the "Salt Lake Community Housing Plan." To this end, the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board is requesting $2,000,000 from the Olympic Legacy funds. The Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board will continue to work to help the City address its affordable housing needs. Your consideration of this request is appreciated. Sin fly, -- _ ) a Lin stuyl Vice Chairperson SLC Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7902 TOD: 801-535-6021 FAX: 601-535.6078 ®wcc.aco o.Pcn . . . . -- -••- . • ..,.., itaad,„ &Lit Lake e...thi _ 71,4 32z,a, ,,_ cepia4.- 44 atfuz. -K , -e-kez A.10),u2 - - -‘)- 4 -)4cu-ka4--,5 - c--Eri- --0-tea-t-45->i - fc-z4,1. ..e.../t,t, 79gt-il-e-i1P-0-1-t-e. CA--tocu cfs-)q-10.6,14(1-m _e,;„,_20_,Lt .,e,A,_ "1/14- AI CrYt"" — 0-ey-mr=c. .7-7,- 4 FiA44.ek ...4:56 tA-)4.- "ruze-.4 4,1 ,12,,Ykir--erzA-Ez-drt...y. •-e-,i1-k C--C-1. 7-1.C.:--4 -4 --Ielt ..---14-1-S _ . . ., 1-ruirt-424-s 0 .v,At /- • ...4&) .241...12ertrt_c...k,34_4zs ea ,ti-LeA,A, ora..n.±n-,-,.-e cer.4.7 14)e i,, ,e5-1xLef Ale,. i_,,, - ZL.f.-( 3 ni _,./.t.2, C-c,t4,-rxa_s og a... 1,..4- .21k>e ,rYtalt. i cleiLteciL41. ' 14„.. .. .„44.4, - 5- —11-6'c''''- IA). e .,64,z,2,y1A L•trailrd . .,C5 .4./Y7,4b-Z.L, ;6" ' 1,L)41-eA2. LA-$-4111 i.dte sy -tO, -4;1-)-4./ v—e e-ct.va yce (A.),2 ift 5 2/4-4 /).-4.'1:4-14-<3".LtVLL ji.el-44'4 '''hel- /NAAj 1 1A-I .. -AD (3-24/1- Vexrwo-c42) :3,ed4/.. .5_ c-.)-/ ii-ix4, ../-z_ciAib .e.i - .e,-,,t ...yyl.„2..zt Cil—kel- ,ry'Lao2,44,4, ./". 7 A":71.4, 47;11-)-4,-(,7"ri 'L..2 -- ----. - •-;--. 7-"- •':.-LZ-,•--,-, --,,,S..e.*Z--,:-":2.-::'' ' - l''r-r, ''') /:' 2. • d,' -7, 7 .. ..- -,,,.-/t:e7q .,' -i. -'77. -t"' '-- -.-- '- .,. . ,.,'-'7' .;•,' -.: \---: ' 7 ..-- ' .>•:;"'",. , -i" ':, ': i ,,-- •. : , :-,---' ',.... .--,,, :,,',_.... ,,----;' .7:-;,..--: ,-•-__________, yyi , : , : , .,..,., ...... ;• .Y ,: MEMORANDUM To: Members of the Salt Lake City Council From: Mayor Rocky Anderson 1 Date: Tuesday, September 3, 2002 Re: YouthCity endowment proposal In addition to the materials we have already provided with regard to the proposed YouthCity endowment, please consider the following points. These issues were raised by some Council members in a recent newspaper article published in the Deseret News on August 29th. Oversight In the article, Carlton Christensen expressed concern about oversight of expenditures coming from endowment revenues. Let us assure you, the YouthCity Olympic Legacy Endowment will be established with rigorous oversight and evaluation from the beginning. The Council can impose those requirements now, and we would support them. First, the Council would decide whether to appropriate funds, based on a submitted budget, as is the case with other ongoing funds like the Housing Trust Fund. In addition to the oversight exercised by the City Council when appropriations are made, we propose that an oversight board for the endowment be formed. The board would consist of two City Council members or designees, a representative from the Salt Lake City School District, two parents involved with YouthCity programs, a student from YouthCity programs over age 16, and one at-large member from the community. We propose that the board would advise the Mayor and City Council on priorities and strategies for youth programs, ensure broad access to the programs, nurture relationships among stakeholders, and assist with keeping the public informed about available programs. All YouthCity programs would also be subject to annual evaluations by program participants, parents, and teachers, as has been the practice for the past two years. Human Capital Investment vs. Infrastructure Investment Council members have expressed concern about giving priority for these one-time funds to youth programs when the city has other needs— specifically, our physical infrastructure. We see this as an opportunity to make a lasting investment in our human capital, a fundamental component of our community that has historically taken a back seat to other needs. Our commitment to City infrastructure (CIP fund), for example, exceeds $13 million each year, at least equal to 9% of the City's general fund. By contrast, a $3 million endowment, which would pay dividends for our City's young people, our families, and the entire community for many generations, would yield yearly proceeds of less than one-tenth of one percent of the City's annual revenue. This one-time, Olympic-related money provides us the opportunity to ensure the sustainability of youth programs long into the future, regardless of who is serving on the City Council or in the Mayor's Office. It is our chance to show, with concrete action instead of shallow words, that our City's children are our City's business. We cannot see to this business as passive observers. This responsibility requires our active and continual involvement. Wolf, Janet From: Mule, Daniel Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 12:09 PM To: Fluhart, Rocky; Wolf, Janet Subject: FW: Potential Endowment Endowment$3M.XLS Janet/Rocky: I contacted endowment specialists at U.S. Bank and Wells Fargo Bank. Current interest rates for a 20-year 100% bond endowment fund is approximately 6.25%. I had our Financial Advisor run a schedule of the interest payments on a $3 million endowment using a rate of 6% over a 20 year life. (See attachment. ) If this is something you will want to pursue, an RFP would need to be prepared and sent to a few of the local area banks. Also, how this money is managed depends on the donor's instructions and document/Council resolution requirements. Dan 1 Salt Lake City, Utah Potential Endowment OPERATION OF ENDOWMENT FUND Date Principal Rate Interest -Transfers Receipts Disbursements Cash Balance 510112002 • 6.0000000% - • - . 5/01/2003 6.0000000% 180,000.00 (180,000.00) - - 510112004 - 6.0000000% 180,000.00 (180,000.00) - 510112005 6.0000000% 180,000.00 (180,000.00) • • 510112006 - 6.0000000% 180,000.00 (180,000.00) • - 510112007 6.0000000% 180,000.00 (180,000.00) - • 510112008 6.0000000% 180,000.00 (180,000.00) • - 510112009 6.0000000% 180,000.00 (180,000.00) - - 510112010 - 6.0000000% 180,000.00 (180,000.00) - 510112011 • 6.0000000% 180,000.00 (180,000.00) - • 510112012 6.0000000% 180,000.00 (180,000.00) •• 510112013 • 6.0000000% 180,000.00 (180,000.00) - 510112014 - 6.0000000% 180,000.00 (180,000.00) - • 510112015 - 6.0000000% 180,000.00 (180,000.00) • - 510112016 - 6.0000000% 180,000.00 (180,000.00) - 510112017 - 6.0000000% 180,000.00 (180,000.00) - •. 5101/2018 6.0000000% 180,000.00 (180,000.00) •• 510112019 6.0000000% 180,000.00 (180,000.00) - 510112020 • 6.0000000% 180,000.00 (180,000.00) - 510112021 • 6.0000000% 180,000.00 (180,000.00) - 510112022 3,000,000.00 6.0000000% 180,000.00 (180,000.00) 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 - Total 3,000,000.00 3,600,000.00 (3,600,000.00) 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 Wells Fargo File—ENOOWMENT.SF-S3M Public Finance 5/1/2002 10:02 AM Building Endowments (Foundation Building Best Practice Study Excerpt) Page 1 of 4 111, Ill Global Philanthropy The Synergas institute Global Philanthropy Home>Knowledge Base>Mobilizing Resources&Support>Building Endowments Foundation Building Best Practice Building Endowments This is an excerpt from the This section looks at the cases of Foundation Building Summary Points Sourcebook:A Practitioners several foundations that have built Guide Based on Experience 0 Investing time and in Africa,Asia and Latin endowments by taking advantages America. of opportunities within their national energy inconsultation contexts. can buildd support for an Download printable endowment fundraising PDF copy(125k)of o Example 1: Local effort. People are more this document, p p including source Philanthropy and Debt-for- likely to give to something material on the Development in which they have a foundations mentioned. p vested interest. The FDC Foundation For Community and the PRCF both Order a complete 336 page Development(Mozambique) planned to create local Sourcebook o Example 2: The Capital philanthropy over the long term and viewed The Sourcebook Campaign consultation as a crucial was written by A.Scott Puerto Rico Community element in launching their DuPree and David Winder with Cristina Parretti, Foundation efforts. Consultation also Chandni Prasad and Shari may require significant Turitz. o Example 3: Debt-for-Nature compromise. In the case Foundation For The of the FPE, Philippine Philippine Environment nonprofit leaders pressed for greater ownership and representation on the part What is an Endowment? of local civil society. o Raising financial Endowments are permanent assets support for the (money, securities, property) that fundraising effort itself are invested to earn income. Trust can be a crucial elem nt funds, memorial trusts, patrimony of its eventual succe s. In all three cases, financial and capital or asset base are other support enabled founders terms used to refer to endowment to pursue a strategic effort funds. Depending on the cultural to raise an endowment. It and legal context, one or more of was also an important these terms may be in common leverage for additional funding.The PRCF and use. the FDC received this support from other An endowment may be created by foundations.The FPE the contribution of a single donor or effort was funded as part of a government the collective contributions of any assistance program. number of donors. o Building a track record as a grantmaker will Some common types of funds that raise understanding and may describe all or part of an credibility forth eff rt. endowment are: In Mozambique and http://www.synergos.org/globalphilanthropy/00/fbsresources2.htm 4/23/02 Building Endowments (Foundation Building Best Practice Study Excerpt) Page 2 of 4 1 UGI lV I V eV, VVI MI G II IGI G o Unrestricted funds — Interest were no other earned or capital from these grantmaking foundations funds may be used at the or very few, the FDC and the PRCF are pioneers in discretion of the board of the the field. They have foundation towards its succeeded in raising charitable mission. endowment contributions o Restricted funds —These but believe that they must show what they can do funds must be used for a and that they can be particular purpose or successful in order to beneficiary at the discretion of convince many new the foundation; examples donors to contribute. Both foundations have focused include the "family funds" of on raising program the Puerto Rico Community funding that will help them Foundation (PRCF). Some of to make this impact. the various terms used for o A good plan and restricted funds are: strategy on how the • Donor advised or endowment will be invested can convince designated - The potential donors to original contributor to contribute. Investment the restricted fund has advice and expertise can given some degree of be very expensive.All guidance as to how the three foundations have sought out board proceeds of the fund members who bring this are to be spent. expertise to the • Field of interest - The foundation.These board members have helped to fund focuses on some craft an investment aspect of the strategy. In the case of the foundation's mission. FPE, that strategy includes having a staff Occasionally, a donor will create a investment manager in a charge of investing a fund that is designed not to be portion of the endowment permanent or an organization will and who must compete decide that it will spend out its with external companies endowment over a specified that invest other portions of the endowment. amount of time. As endowments o Some foundations are very difficult to raise and the develop restricted funds funds are difficult to replace, this as a service to donors practice is rare. who are concerned about a particular cau e. How Are Endowments Raised? The community foundation approach of offering services to donors by Some grantmaking foundations setting up restricted funds have been established by that can be employed for endowment contributions from a causes and purposes they care about is beginning to single corporation, government be tried in many countries. agency, official development The PRCF has started to assistance agency, individual, raise these restricted family or other foundation. The funds. Its Family Fund objective of this contribution is program sets up trust http://www.synergos.org/globalphilanthropy/00/fbsresources2.htm 4/23/02 Building Endowments (Foundation Building Best Practice Study Excerpt) Page 3 of 4 often to establish a sustainable family or individual that source of funding for a particular support particular fields of cause or community. The interest. foundation, because it does not o One or two significant come into existence until later, contributions to the plays no role in raising these initial endowment fund endowment funds. Its role is to demonstrate the feasibility of the effort invest the funds wisely and, in and can leverage more some cases, to raise additional funding. The commitment funding. of resources, both contributions and the The endowment of the Foundation energy and time of the founders, demonstrate the for the Philippine Environment likelihood of successfully (FPE) rose from a contribution and establishing an debt-for-environment swap endowment. In the case of agreement with the US Agency for PRCF, having the support of a well-known US International Development foundation and a (USAID). Foundations may be pharmaceutical company created by individuals or encouraged other organizations with the mission of foundations and building an endowment by companies to become a part of such a successful fundraising from multiple sources. effort. The mission of building an endowment goes side-by-side with the foundation's efforts to mobilize resources for the work of other organizations. The Foundation for Community Development (FDC) of Mozambique raised an endowment from local business and individual contributions that partly enabled it to receive funding from a debt-for development swap. A common way to raise an endowment is to solicit contributions from members of the community that the foundation intends to serve. The Foundation can be a vehicle for social change over the long term and a mechanism for disbursing, monitoring and evaluating contributions. Community foundations, like the PRCF discussed in this chapter, (a type of foundation that serves the interests of a defined community and manages donor designated funds) take this approach and have had considerable success in the United States and Canada. The PRCF endowment began with a challenge grant from a group of American foundations (led to a large extent by the Ford Foundation) and the contributions of several corporations. How is the Case for an Endowment Made? Many nonprofit organizations are attracted to the idea of endowments because they offer financial sustainability and http://www.synergos.org/globalphilanthropy/00/fbsresources2.htm 4/23/02 Building Endowments (Foundation Building Best Practice Study Excerpt) Page 4 of 4 increased autonomy. Endowment contributions, however, must compete with other immediate needs. In raising contributions, the foundation must make the case for why a permanent source of income is necessary for it to have an impact against the issues it seeks to address. The ownership of an endowment gives an organization a degree of independence from funding trends that are outside of its control and increases its capacity to plan over a longer term because it can be assured of being able to fund its initiatives. Critics of endowments point to two significant issues in endowing organizations. First, an endowment can shield an organization The synergos Institute from competitive forces and reduce the pressure on it to be 9 East 6sth street p New York,NY 10021 USA responsive to its constituents. Second, insofar as a foundation tel+1 (212)517-4900 fax+1 (212)517-4815 exists to eliminate a particular problem, why should resources be synergos@synergos.org set aside indefinitely? Home>Knowledge Base>Mobilizing Copyright©1998-2000 Synergos Written 2000 Resources&Support> http://www.synergos.org/globalphilanthropy/00/fbsresources2.htm 4/23/02