Loading...
04/08/2003 - Minutes (2) PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, APRIL 8 , 2003 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Tuesday, April 8, 2003, 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, Dave Buhler and Dale Lambert. Also in Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Mayor Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson; Steve Fawcett, Management Services Deputy Director; LeRoy Hooton, Public Utilities Director; Lehua Weaver, Council Staff Assistant; Michael Sears, Council Budget & Policy Analyst; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Nancy Tessman, Library Director; Edwin Rutan, City Attorney; Marge Harvey, Council Constituent Liaison; Susi Kontgis, Budget Analyst; Laurie Dillon, Budget Analyst; Tim Harpst, Transportation Director; David Nimkin, Mayor' s Chief of Staff; Mary Johnston, City Courts Director; Nazar Mohamed, Mayor's Policy & Research Analyst; Dan Berganthal, Transportation Engineer; Dani Eyer, American Civil Liberties Union; Roger Sandack, Library Board of Directors President; and Beverly Jones, Deputy City Recorder. Councilmember Christensen presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:36 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. No report was given. See File M 03-5 for announcements. #2. INTERVIEW LELAND MYERS PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HIS APPOINTMENT TO THE PUBLIC UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE. Councilmember Christensen asked Mr. Meyers about his joint service on the Public Utilities Advisory Committee and as an appointed member from Salt Lake City on the Metropolitan Water District. He asked if that presented a conflict of interest. Mr. Myers said the Metropolitan Water District was a separate governmental entity but was governed by five appointed members from Salt Lake City and two appointed members from Sandy City. He said by serving on the Public Utilities Advisory Board he understood the needs and concerns of the Public Utilities Department. Councilmember Lambert said Mr. Myers had served on the board that recommended the proposed water rate structure. He asked Mr. Myers if he had any comments or recommendations on the proposed schedules. Mr. Myers said without a cost component the City would not achieve true conservation. He said he felt the rate structure had the potential to help. #3. RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING ON THE LIBRARY BUDGET. View Attachment Nancy Tessman, Roger Sandack and Russell Weeks briefed the Council from the attached handout. Councilmember Christensen said adjustments had been made to earlier recommendations. Councilmember Buhler said current recommendations would get the Library through the current fiscal year. He said the recommendations did not address next year's budget starting on July 1st, 2003. Mr. Sandack said the Board had met and planned to brief the Council next month with more permanent recommendations if necessary. 03 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, APRIL 8 , 2003 Councilmember Lambert asked about plans for a new library branch on the Westside. He asked if discussions had been held with the school district on ways to share the proposed library. Ms. Tessman said there had been no current discussions with the Salt Lake City School District. She said shared services between public and school libraries had been met with mixed success. She said it could succeed but was difficult to do well. Councilmember Lambert asked if land had been purchased for the proposed library. Ms. Tessman said the Library Board had determined the next branch library should be placed in the southwest quadrant. She said the budget recommendation was a reduction in savings available for that branch. She said the Library wanted to set aside savings to move in that direction. She said alternatives had been presented but were contingent on long term funding. She said the Library had enough reserve to begin planning but not enough to build the branch. Councilmember Saxton asked about monies in fund balance. She asked how much there was, if the money was kept on a yearly basis or continually rolled over. Ms. Tessman said they had reserved $950,000 of one-time funds for operation of the new main library for the first year. She said they had expended approximately $400,000. She said they were still looking at real needs over the next few months. She said at the end of the year they would recognize the balance as part of the savings for the year. Councilmember Saxton asked if the Library had money in fund balance. Ms. Tessman said they did not usually have money in fund balance but this had been an unusual year. She said the Library had operating contingency and capital fund balances. She said the Library always had capital reserves. She said it was carried from year to year. Councilmember Saxton asked how that amount was determined. Ms. Tessman said it was determined by the strategic plan and the objectives for the next few years. Councilmember Turner asked if the Library Board had considered cutting hours or closing on Sundays. Mr. Sandack said the Board had considered cutting operating hours for some if not all of the libraries, closing days such as Sunday, reducing full-time employees (FTE) , and reducing health benefits. He said he had previously projected to the Council that there would be increased usage of the library by 20% to 25%. He said the actual percentage averaged out at 80% and over 200% for the Children' s Library. He said the need for personnel, security and other operating expenses was a tremendous cost to the Library. Councilmember Christensen asked what the strategic plan called for long term. Ms. Tessman said impact from a capital perspective was a major priority expressed by staff. She said the community had requested expanded hours. She said it was hard to consider reductions when the public wanted the libraries opened longer and all branches open on Sundays. She said they were trying to find private partnerships to help achieve objectives without impacting the budget. #4. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO THE TRAFFIC CODE. View Attachment Dan Bergenthal, Mary Johnston, Edwin Rutan and Russell Weeks briefed the Council from the attached handout. Councilmember Christensen asked why the traffic code needed to be amended. Mr. Bergenthal said when the current ordinance was passed last fall, it was sent to the Police Department and the Justice Court. He said many police officers felt they could not enforce the ordinance because existing wording redefined what the term "yielding" meant. He said the officers felt someone could drive slowly through a crosswalk without actually stopping for a pedestrian. Councilmember Buhler said the proposed ordinance changed "yield" to mean if there was a pedestrian in a crosswalk, a driver had to stop. 03 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, APRIL 8 , 2003 Councilmember Jergensen asked how the public would be educated regarding the specifics of the ordinance. Mr. Bergenthal said there would be press releases, possibly a training exercise with police officers and the media. He said pamphlets would be handed out. Ms. Johnston said the City Traffic School instructor explained pedestrian ordinances while instructing traffic school classes. Mr. Bergenthal said they would be working with Information Management Services (IMS) to create short videos for the City's cable channel. Councilmember Jergensen suggested the City' s web site and the City Council's newsletter as other options. Councilmember Saxton asked if there had been any issued tickets thrown out of court by Salt Lake City judges. Mr. Bergenthal said no because the ordinance was not being enforced. Councilmember Saxton said enforcement was an issue because she had problems in her district with crossing guards and schools. She said she was comfortable with the current ordinance and wanted it enforced. Councilmember Turner said the proposed ordinance increased the penalty if a driver drove through a crosswalk. He asked about the increased fee and if the City could legally charge the fee. He asked if the City was in compliance with State law. Ms. Johnston said there was a discrepancy in what the City charged for a Class B misdemeanor. She said the fee in the State Code was higher. She said fees for a civil violation could be as high as $1000. Mr. Weeks said next week the Council would receive a briefing on a proposed ordinance which re-criminalized moving traffic violations. He said that ordinance would bring the City Traffic Code into compliance with a newly adopted State legislation. He said currently the penalty for pedestrian issues was a civil fine. He said the re- criminalization ordinance would make that penalty an infraction which was a criminal penalty. He said current City Code showed the maximum the City could charge someone convicted of an infraction was $500. He said State law showed the maximum someone could be charged for an infraction was $750. He said at some point City Code could be changed to reflect $750 instead of $500. Councilmember Saxton asked about marked and unmarked crosswalks. She asked if there was City policy or resistance by the City to put crosswalks in if a citizens group or an individual wanted a crosswalk in an area. She asked what the process was. Mr. Bergenthal said a study would be performed to see how many pedestrians used the unmarked crosswalk. He said if it was determined that many people used it, then the City would consider putting in a crosswalk. Councilmember Saxton asked what the study would cost. Mr. Bergenthal said he was not sure. Councilmember Saxton asked what it would cost to paint lines on a crosswalk. Mr. Bergenthal said the cost would be minimal. All Council Members were in favor of forwarding this issue. #5. RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING ICE CREAM VENDORS INCLUDING ADMINISTRATIVE FEES, A PERMIT APPLICATION PROCESS, RELATED OPERATING STANDARDS AND SAFETY AND PUBLIC PEACE RESTRICTIONS. View Attachment Nazar Mohamed, Edwin Rutan and Russell Weeks briefed the Council from the attached handout. Mr. Mohamed said initially the proposed ordinance contained a 130-foot noise requirement. He said Salt Lake County had two categories for noise regulations. He said one category established a 50-foot threshold and addressed radios, VCR's and TV' s. He said the other category addressed loud speakers. He said the subcommittee had suggested reducing fees for inspections conducted by the City. He said initially the ordinance required two inspections at $25 each. He said the proposed ordinance now required one $25 inspection a year. 03 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, APRIL 8 , 2003 Councilmember Buhler asked if background checks were required for drivers. Mr. Mohamed said yes. Councilmember Buhler said he wanted the proposed ordinance to read "one or more felonies" instead of "two or more". He said the only justification for imposing regulations on small businesses was public safety. He said in District 6 an ice cream vendor had followed children home from school. He said once a vendor received two felonies they should not be allowed to drive an ice cream truck. Councilmember Lambert said anything unrelated to safety issues could disqualify someone from selling ice cream. He said certain kinds of felonies could be identified in the proposed ordinance. He said he felt the City was making it impossible for someone with a felony to work. Mr. Weeks said the proposed ordinance stated "if a person had been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude" then they would not receive a license. Councilmember Lambert said he felt by reducing noise from 330-feet to 50-feet was an effort to eliminate ice cream vendors. He said 50-feet meant the vendor would not be heard and that would eliminate their ability to do business. He said the City might be able to exercise control on a different basis. Councilmember Saxton asked if there were problems with ice cream vendors against children in neighborhoods. Mr. Mohamed said there had been a number of vendors following children home from school trying to sell them drugs. Councilmember Saxton asked if it was one particular vending company or different individuals. Mr. Mohamed said it was hard to tell because the City did not require company names on ice cream trucks or identification badges for operators. He said if a vendor was playing loud music in a neighborhood, there was nothing the neighbors could do because there was no name or phone number on the trucks. Councilmember Saxton asked if the number of times a vendor drove down the same street could be limited. Mr. Mohamed said the proposed ordinance allowed vendors to travel the same block face once every two hours. Councilmember Saxton asked what the hours of operation were. Mr. Mohamed said 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. during summer months. Councilmember Jergensen said during winter months ice cream could be sold until sunset. Councilmember Love asked if unincorporated Salt Lake County had an ordinance regulating noise from ice cream vendors. She asked about other municipalities. Mr. Weeks said he did not recall what noise restrictions were for West Valley City and Bountiful. He said he would check with them. He said it was clear the County was taking a stand on 50-feet. He said the County had defined ice cream truck music as an audio tape player. Ms. Gust-Jenson said the County Health Department did not have enforcement staff for this issue. She said when an ice cream truck parked in the street for long periods of time playing loud music, the noise condition would allow the City to enforce the abusive situation. Councilmember Christensen asked the Council if they were comfortable with two felonies. Most Council Members were in favor. Council Members Christensen, Jergensen, and Turner were comfortable with the 50-foot requirement. Council Members Lambert, Love and Saxton were not in favor of the 50-foot condition. Councilmember Christensen said the requirement gave the City an enforcement tool. Councilmember Saxton said she did not want to allow trucks to stay stationary and play music. Councilmember Christensen asked if a public hearing would be scheduled. Mr. Weeks said that was the Council' s option. Ms. Gust-Jenson said there was no legal requirement. Councilmember Buhler said the Council should hold a hearing and make an effort to contact the vendors. #6. RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING ON A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE. 03 - 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, APRIL 8 , 2003 View Attachment Michael Sears briefed the Council from the attached handout. He said the Council had continued the public hearing indefinitely. He said the proposed revision which allowed low-income housing development exceptions was not unanimous. Mr. Sears said the only impact fee the City was dealing with was the general fund. He said that was $890 per housing unit. He said that dealt with police, fire, parks and open space. He said the fees were not public utilities related. He said there were no exemptions allowed for those. Councilmember Lambert asked when an impact fee was triggered. Mr. Sears said the impact fee would be paid when a permit was pulled for construction or remodeling. Councilmember Love said the Council should close the public hearing and consider the proposed ordinance which addressed the three eliminations of exemptions the Council had agreed upon. She proposed holding out the low income housing exemption until after the housing hearing was held. All Council Members were in favor. Councilmember Buhler said he would vote against this issue because he did not support impact fees. #7. HOLD A DISCUSSION REGARDING A REQUEST BY COUNCILMEMBER NANCY SAXTON RELATING TO CONSIDERATION OF TIME, PLACE AND MANNER. View Attachment Councilmember Saxton said she was encouraged last week when the Council talked about releasing the opinions of the Council's private counsel to the public. She said the public needed as much information as possible to make a decision. She said the second half of her proposal was to give consideration to time, place and manner. She said the community had participated on many aspects of this issue without many details or specifics. She said there were many possibilities not yet pursued. Councilmember Saxton said there were discouraging aspects to time, place and manner. She said there was a possibility an option would be found to remedy this issue long term. She said she felt there was a way to formulate a plan to alleviate the fears of the LDS Church. Councilmember Buhler said it was important to the public to know the Council considered every option before making a decision. He said the Council had considered and discussed time, place and manner with the public. He said on December 10, 2002 during a fact finding hearing, time, place and manner was discussed at length. He said on December 17, 2002 a three hour public hearing was held. He said there had been tens of thousands of e-mails and phone calls. He said discussion would continue until the Council made a decision. He said to restart a new process would not be helpful or necessary. He said he was glad the Council asked for a summary of the opinion from the private legal counsel. He said that would show the public what the Council had done to get an independent look at the issue. Councilmember Lambert said he had and would remain willing to listen to concrete proposals. He said he agreed the public needed to understand that hearings and discussions would include time, place and manner. He said people who had participated in the meetings understood they could discuss time, place and manner. He said to start over would introduce more divisiveness. Councilmember Love said she would not support creating an entirely separate public process. She said the last seven months had been emotionally draining and divisive for the community. She said she was supportive of Councilmember Saxton' s idea of getting information to the public. She said when the Council received the executive summary of the legal opinion they should get copies to the community council chairs. 03 - 5 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, APRIL 8 , 2003 She said when the hearing date was set, she felt the Council should specify that they would take comments on any idea. She said she supported posting the legal opinion on the web site. Councilmember Jergensen said the Council would ensure that all options including time, place and manner would be open for discussion. He said discussion of time, place and manner had happened and would continue to happen. He said development of a separate process would not lead to a sense of termination but to confusion. He said everyone needed to move together to resolve this issue. Councilmember Turner said he wanted to look at anything brought forward. He said options were still open. Councilmember Christensen said he supported the concerns of the rest of the Council. He referred to Councilmember Saxton's recommendations: 1) Consider requesting a summary of the Dryer legal opinion. He said this process had already begun. 2) Notify the community council chairs and organizations that have expressed interest in time, place and manner via letter of a public comment period; set an end date for the comment period. He said this appeared to be part of a separate process. He said the Council could do notification whenever the public hearing was set. Councilmember Christensen said 3) When setting the hearing date for the hearing on the proposal currently being advanced by the Administration, specify that comment will also be accepted at that time on time, place and manner. He said this would coincide with the other option. 4) Post the legal opinion summary and any other relevant documents on the City's web site, and make the information available via fax or mail to those who request it but do not have access to the internet. He said there was other information which could be put on the web site. Councilmember Christensen said 5) Consider holding an open house, a single public meeting or a series of public meetings to gather input in advance of the Council's public hearing on the issue of the Main Street hearing. He said there were issues with this item. 6) Consider requesting that the City Attorney and/or outside legal counsel review recommendations from the public prior to the Council meeting. He said if there were other recommendations, the City Attorney would be asked to study them. Councilmember Saxton said at the Central City Community Council meeting residents discussed and asked whether or not the community could consider time, place and manner. She said a member of the community felt they were not free to do that because that was not what the Administration was presenting. She said the community council felt the only option was vacation of the easement that was being discussed by the Administration. Councilmember Buhler said when the Mayor made a recommendation he had the obligation to promote that recommendation. He said when a proposal came to the Council they had the option to modify, reject or accept the recommendation. Councilmember Lambert said he continued to hear from the public on Main Street. He said many of them were in favor of the Mayor' s proposal and many of them were in favor of time, place and manner. He said the Council held a public hearing with no restrictions on what position the public took. He said the Council needed to make it clear that comments were still being accepted. The meeting adjourned at 9:19 p.m. bj 03 - 6 MEMORANDUM• DATE: April 4, 2003 TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks RE: Briefing—Library Budget Amendment No. 1 CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson,Rocky Fluhart,Nancy Tessman,David Nimkin, Gary Mumford,Michael Sears This memorandum addresses a proposed Salt Lake City Library System budget amendment for fiscal year 2002-2003. A public hearing is scheduled for April 15 for the City Council to consider amending the Salt Lake City Library System's budget for fiscal year 2002- 2003. The City Council staff and the City Attorney's Office will prepare an ordinance similar to the attached sample to amend the Library System Budget. The City Council tentatively is scheduled to amend the budget after the April 15 public hearing. 11110 The Library System Board of Directors approved amending the budget for the current fiscal year at a special Board meeting March 31. Through the proposed budget amendment ordinance,the Library Board is seeking City Council approval and ratification of the Board's action. According to the attached Library System transmittal, a shortfall originally projected at about$1 million, now appears to be about$723,000. During a March 11 briefing before the City Council,the Library System's executive director indicated that to meet the$1 million shortfall the system would: • Take$500,000 from the System's$950,000 Operating Fund Balance. • Reduce or defer$150,000 in operating expenses. • Take$350,000 from the System's $930,000 Prior Year/Contingency Capital Reserve. According to the Library System transmittal,the Library Board now proposes to: • Take$350,000 instead of$500,000 from the Operating Fund Balance. • Continue to reduce or defer$150,000 in operating expenses. • Take$223,000 instead of$350,000 from the Prior Year/Contingency Capital Reserve. The Library-System transmittal outlined the$150,000 reductions or deferrals to operating expenses in the following manner: 1 • One full-time librarian position for six months: $17,000 • • Reduce travel budget by 50%: $14,000 • Reduce program costs: $18,000 • Reduce materials expenditures: $35,000 • Reduce publicity and printing costs: $10,000 • • Reduce equipment purchases: $15,000 • Reduce security services: $12,000 • Use unspent reserves for utilities: $29,000 One issue raised during the March 11 briefing involved whether using$350,000 from the Prior Year/Contingency Capital Reserve would delay plans for a new branch library in City Council District 2.One question the City Council may wish to ask is whether using$223,000 instead of$350,000 would have an effect on plans for a new District 2 branch library. i • 2 0 00-1 B 99-3 • SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No.45 of 2000 (Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 65 of 1999 which adopted the Final Budget for the Library Fund of Salt Lake City, Utah for Fiscal Year 1999-2000) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE NO. 65 OF 1999 WHICH APPROVED, RATIFIED AND FINALIZED THE BUDGET FOR THE LIBRARY FUND OF SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1999 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 2000. PREAMBLE On June 17, 1999,the Salt Lake City Council approved,ratified and finalized the budget for the library fund of Salt Lake City, Utah for the fiscal year beginning July 1, • 1999 and endingJune 30,2000,in accordance with the requirements of Section 118, q Chapter 6, Title 10 of the Utah Code Annotated,and said budget was approved by the Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah. The City's Policy and Budget Director,acting as the City's Budget Officer, prepared and filed with the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget,copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and inspection by the public. S The City Council fixed a time and place for a public hearing to be held on June 15, 2000 to consider the attached proposed amendments to the budget and ordered notice thereof be published as required by law. • Notice of said public hearing to consider the amendments to said budget was duly • budget and a public hearing to consider the attached amendments to said was held on June 15,2000, in accordance with said notice at which hearing all interested parties for and against the budget amendment proposals were heard"and all comments were duly considered by the City Council. All conditions precedent to amend said budget have been accomplished. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the budget for the library fund of Salt Lake City as approved, ratified and finalized by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 65 of 1999. SECTION 2. ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS. The budget amendments, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be,and the same hereby are • adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City,Utah for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1999 and ending June 30, 2000, in accordance with the requirements of Section-128, Chapter 6,Title 10, of the Utah Code Annotated. SECTION 3. CERTIFICATION TO UTAH STATE AUDITOR. The City's Policy and Budget Director,acting as the City's Budget Officer, is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments with the Utah State Auditor. SECTION 4., FILING OF COPIES OF THE BUDGET AMENDMENTS. The said Budget.Officer is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget . `amendments in the office of said Budget Officer and in theoffice of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection. . . • 2 , SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect on its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah,this 15th day of June 15, 2000 , 2000 CHAIRPERSO ATTEST: F DEPUTY CI RE ORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on June 15, 2000 Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. YOR APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorneys Office Date S- r-- aaorJ • 3 ATTEST: • 'moo fin) CHIEF DEPUTY CITY CORDER AIS (SEAL) " ',j .;! , Bill No. 45 of 2000. Published: June 27, 2000 `t< A'TB • • G:1Ordina00\Amending library budget.doc 4 APR 0 1 200: • April 1, 2003 To: Salt Lake City Council Mayor Rocky Anderson From: Nancy Tessman Director, City Library Re: 2002-2003 Budget The final settlement for property tax revenues has now been received by the Library and we will experience a shortfall of$623,000 for the current budget year. In addition, we predict a shortfall in anticipated interest revenue of approximately$100,000. To address this reduction of$723,000 in revenue for 2002-2003, the City Library Board proposes to: • Utilize unexpended operating contingency that was reserved for the first year of operating the new Main Library and expanded branches up to $350,000. • Reduce the Capital Reserve now at approximately$1,000,000 by$223,000. • Reduce expenses throughout the operating budget: • o 1 Full-time Librarian(6 mos) $17,000 o Reduce Travel Budget by 50% 14,000 o Reduce program costs 18,000 o Reduce materials expenditures 35,000 o Reduce publicity/printing 10,000 o Reduce equipment purchases 15,000 o Reduce security services 12,000 o Use unexpended utility reserves 29,000 $150,000 Total reductions of$723,000 for 2002-2003. The Library Board is currently developing the budget proposal for 2003-2004. With the likelihood that these reductions in revenue will carry over into the next fiscal year, the Library has instituted a hiring freeze on many positions in anticipation of further reductions in services and programs that may be required next year. cc. Cindy Gust-Jenson Russell Weeks Rocky Fluhart Steven Fawcett • • MEMORANDUM . DATE: April 3,2003 TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks RE: Briefing:Traffic Code Amendments CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rocky Fluhart,David Nimkin, David Dobbins, Tim Harpst, Mary Johnston, Dan Bergenthal, Gary Mumford This memorandum pertains to three proposed amendments to Salt Lake City's traffic code. According to the Administration's transmittal letter,the proposed amendments are meant to "fine tune"portions of the traffic code to clarify motorcycle driving rules,to clarify where a vehicle must stop at intersections marked by a stop sign,to clarify that vehicles must stop when yielding to a pedestrian in a crosswalk,and to include school-crossing guards as a specific category of people protected by an increased penalty if a driver is issued a citation for failing to yield to them. • POTENTIAL OPTIONS - • Adopt the proposed amendments. • Do not adopt the proposed amendments. • Do not adopt the proposed amendment to Section 12.76.045 that would include school- crossing guards-as a specific category of people protected by an increased penalty if a driver is issued a citation for failing to yield to them.(It should be noted that a separate, category may not be necessary because the ordinance includes the words"any other pedestrian"in the section that designates who is protected by the ordinance.) • Amend the proposed amendment to Section 12.76.045 to include children accompanied by a-school-crossing guard as a specific category of people protected by an increased penalty if a driver is issued a citation for failing to yield to them. • The City Council may wish to amend the title of Section 12.44.060 to make clear that the lane roadway driving procedures regulate all vehicles,not solely motorcycles. POTENTIAL MOTIONS • - I move,that the City Council adopt the ordinance. - • I move that'the'City Council not adopt the ordinance. • I move that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance except for the words``crossing guards with a sign upheld;and." , • I move that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance with the following amendment:.In Section 12.76.045 after the words"crossing guards with a sign upheld; and"the words"children accompanied by a crossing guard;and"be inserted. • • I move that the City Council amend the title of Section 12.44.060,Lane Roadway Driving Procedures—Motorcycle Rules,by omitting the words"Motorcycle Rules." • ISSUES/POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION • What would be the effect on Section 12.76.045 if the City Council adopts a proposed ordinance to conform to Utah law passed by the 2003 Legislature to re-criminalize moving traffic violations? • Is it valid public policy to add certain people as a special category protected by an increased penalty if a driver is issued a citation for failing to yield to them? • The proposed ordinance would add"crossing guards with a sign upheld"as a special category protected by an increased penalty if a driver is issued a citation for failing to yield to them. One might infer that a crossing guard with a sign upheld would have the sign upheld to ferry children through a crosswalk.If the City Council determines that it is • valid public policy to add certain people as a special category protected by'an increased penalty if a driver is issued a citation for failing to yield to them,the Council may wish to consider adding children accompanied by a crossing guard with sign upheld in a crosswalk as a category as well-as crossing guards.- DISCUSSION/BACKGROUND According to the Administration,the proposed amendments to the traffic code stem from discussions among.City Court judges,police officers,and transportation officials.There apparently have been some ongoing problems involving the sections of the traffic code the proposed amendments would change:The problems involved the successful contesting of traffic citations by people who received them.According to the Administration,police officers said the wording of ordinances were ambiguous and made enforcing the particular,ordinance sections difficult.Officers also said they had observed several instances in which vehicles-had not stopped for crossing guards holding up signs indicating that traffic should stop. - ' However,another proposed ordinance that the City Council hasjet to see may affect the proposed Ordinance addressed in the memorandum. (Additional detail is included in the discussion below.) FINE SCHEDULE Council Members may recall that when the Council adopted revisions to the traffic code in September 2002 that Section 12,76.045 titled, Yielding Right of Way at Marked or Unmarked Crosswalks Driver and Pedestrian Duties,included a paragraph that allowed for enhanced fines based on civil penalties for people convicted of failing to yield to several categories of people including:those carrying orange pedestrian flags;those using white canes or service animals; . . those using wheelchairs or other motorized vehicles customarily used by people with mobility • impairments;and"pedestrians exhibiting clear and objective signs of impairment or infirmity of any kind,including,but not limited to infirmity resulting from advanced age..."The enhanced fine of a.civil penalty allowed a judge to enhance the fine"up to-the.maximum penalty provided by Section 1.12.050 of this code or its successor?'Section 1 A2.050 allows.a maxiinum civil penalty of"not in excess of one thousand dollars." • 2 • However,the Administration has submitted another ordinance on which the City Council • has to be briefed that would change the classification of yielding the right of way at marked or unmarked crosswalks from a civil fine to an infraction.The ordinance on which the City Council has yet to be briefed is intended to"re-criminalize"some violations that were designated as civil violations.The ordinance is designed to make City ordinances conform to a State law passed by the Utah Legislature in its 2003 session. Under that ordinance,as Council staffreads it,penalties for violating Section 12.76.045 would be changed from civil penalties to criminal infractions. Section 1.12.050 sets the maximum fine limit for an infraction at"any sum not exceeding five hundred dollars."State law 76-3-301 says a person"convicted of an offense may be sentenced to pay a fine not exceeding: ... $750.for a class C misdemeanor conviction or infraction conviction." It appears to Council staff that the minimum effect of the ordinance to conform City ordinances to State law will be to lower the ceiling for an enhanced penalty for violations of Section 12.76.045.The City Council may wish to explore whether the ordinance to re-criminalize moving traffic violations will have any other effect on the ordinance the Council will discuss on April 8. YIELDING TO PEDESTRIANS In the proposed ordinance under discussion April 8 revisions of two sections may resolve an issue that the City Council discussed at length during previous consideration of amending the traffic code. - The proposed ordinance would amend Section 12.48.030 titled Stops Required at Stop SignsAwould make clear that vehicles must stop at a designated location before entering the intersection. The proposed ordinance also would amend Section 12.76.045 titled Yielding Right of Way at Marked or Unmarked Crosswalks—Driver and Pedestrian Duties to make clear that vehiclesiinust come to a"complete stop at the crosswalk and not entering the crosswalk while such pedestrian is lawfully within a marked or unmarked crosswalk and is in.the vehicle's travel lane or'adjoining lane." Both revisions are designed to make clear that a vehicle must stop—and not simply slow down—to"verify that no pedestrian is within their travel lane or an adjoining lane in a marked or unmarked crosswalk." Some might note that the revisions—at least obliquely—address concerns raised by previous and current City Council members about vehicle'drivers paying more attention to pedestrians entering crosswalks.According to the Administration,the revisions were proposed to prevent arguments that,a driver could slow down—but not stop—at a crosswalk where the intersection was controlled by a stop sign or a semaphore because the driver's vehicle was behind another vehicle that had stopped. Again,a proposed amendment to Section 12.76.045 would add crossing guards as a special category protected by an increased penalty if a driver is issued a citation for failing to yield to them. According to the Administration,police officers suggested that crossing guards be added as a category after seeing vehicles not stopfor them.The City's Pedestrian Safety Committee reviewed the suggestion and determined that crossing guards should have the same protection as the other•speciatcategories of pedestrians already designated by 12.76.045.The proposal raises two issues:First, is it valid public policy to protect categories of pedestrians more than others?Second,crossing guards are walking in a crosswalk with,a sign held aloft suggests 3 that they are ushering children through the crosswalk. If crossing guards are added as a category, should children under their care also be added? • LANE ROADWAY DRIVING PROCEDURES—MOTORCYCLE RULES The proposed ordinance also would amend Section 12.44.060 titled Lane.Roadway Driving Procedures—Motorcycle Rules. The proposed amendment would make clearthat unless there is an emergency or a"safety related maneuver,"vehicles must remain in a'single lane and not weave to another lane at will.The City Council may wish to amend the title of Section 12.44.060 to make clear that the lane roadway driving procedures regulate all vehicles,not solely motorcycles. - IP 4 MAR 1 0 2,903 al ALISON WEYHER `A ' .' \1 o'"lJJtiI[ lz1®l P O R{rat iI'�i�:1 - �.a � -- 3 ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL 2 TO: Rocky J. Fluhart,Chief Administrative Officer\ ' DATE: February 27, 2003 1\, :FROM: Alison Weyher l SUBJECT: Traffic Code Amen ents pertain. Administrative Court, pedestrian and drivers yielding duties. CONTACT: Mary Johnston, City Court Director(535-7173) Dan Bergenthal, Transportation Engineer(535-7106) DOCUMENT TYPE: Salt Lake City Ordinance • BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: This ordinance amendment fine tunes the wording of three ordinances recently adopted by the City Council in September 2002. The fine tuning addresses issues identified by Justice Court judges, police officers and the Pedestrian Safety Committee. The three ordinances are 12.44.060 Laned Roadway Driving Procedures-Motorcycle Rules, 12.48.030 Stops Required At Stop Signs and 12.76.045 Yielding Right Of Way At Marked Or Unmarked Crosswalks-Driver And Pedestrian Duties. Changes to ordinance 12.44.060 Laned Roadway Driving Procedures-Motorcycle Rules, address the Justice Court judges' concerns that the word "practicable"was vague and made the ordinance hard to enforce. Changes to ordinance 12.48.030 Stops Required At Stop Signs clarify exactly where someone must stop before entering the intersection or crosswalk. The defense being used was that since their vehicle already came to a complete stop, three cars lengths back from the intersection, and they were able to clearly view the intersection from that point, there was no need to stop again. The Police Department felt that this was a safety issue. ill 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH S41 1 1 TELEPHONE: S01-535-6230 FAX: SO1-535-6005 RECVC[EQ PAPER Three changes were made to ordinance 12.76.045 Yielding Right Of Way At Marked Or • Unmarked Crosswalks-Driver And Pedestrian Duties: 1. In response to a request from police officers requesting the ability to impose higher fines on drivers not yielding to crossing guards, the Pedestrian Safety Committee added crossing guards to the list of pedestrians in section A(1)(a) for which a higher initial fine for not yielding is required. 2. Police officers argued and the Justice Court judges agreed that the new ordinance redefines "yielding" to mean"slowing or stopping." As such, the ordinance was unenforceable since it allows drivers to continue driving slowly through a crosswalk while pedestrians are present. All references to slowing were therefore removed and replaced with stronger language emphasizing stopping. 3. The word"lawfully"was inserted into section A(1) to emphasize to pedestrians the idea that they only have the right-of-way in a crosswalk when they are lawfully within the crosswalk. For example, a pedestrian desiring to enter a crosswalk at a signalized intersection, while facing a non-flashing, illuminated, red ball traffic signal, cannot lawfully enter the crosswalk. • d - • MEMORANDUM - DATE: Apri1'4, 2003 ' TO: City Council.Members" ' FROM: Russell Weeks RE: Briefing:Proposed Ordinance Regulating Mobile Ice Cream Vendors CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rocky Fluhart,David Nimkin,Ed Rutan,Alison Wehyer,David Dobbins,Roger Evans,Edna Drake, Larry : . Spendlove, Gary Mumford,Nazar Mohamed This memorandum is'intended to address a proposed ordinance to enact regulations for • mobile ice cream vending trucks.,The City Council first was briefed.on the proposed ordinance in • - • 'July 2002. A City Council Subcommittee met in.August and on November 19 to discuss,the • - proposed ordinance.The Subcommittee then,forwarded the proposed ordinance to the"full City . Council for a further briefing at the Council's work session January 7. The proposed ordinance. - - . includes recommendations by the Council"Subcommittee and the full City Council as discussed at the January 7 work session. . ' ' .. 0 . • . ' . . . POTENTIAL OPTIONS - • . . • Forward the.proposed ordinance for formal consideration. - " •-. Do not forward the proposed ordinance for consideration. . '. Forward proposed ordinance and schedule a public hearing on the proposed ' ordinance. - • Return the proposed ordinance'to the City Attorney's Office for further amendment if issues arise during the April 8 briefing. . ' ISSUES/POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION - 1.' If the City Council forwards the proposed ordinance for formal consideration;the - . .. Council may wish to consider•whether companies that would be.regulated by the ordinance be notified.of the.Council's intent"to.consider the ordinance and whether a public hearing should be held.It has been the City Council's practice when a new fee is . proposedto-request that•the Administration•notify parties affected by the fee and to hold . . • . a public.hearing:-. , _ . ` . • . '2.` The proposed ordinance contains the following revisions based on the City Council's . ' discussion-January 7: . . - - • _ • .• In Secti•on 5'64.580,titled Application Fee Requited,the:fee for an ice cream vehicle • •. � - . operator's,license has-•beenreduced from-the$80.proposed in earlier drafts to$30:' ;. . 1 • In Section 5.64.640,titled Driver's Qualifications, people who have been convicted of two or more felonies are barred from obtaining an ice cream vehicle operator's license. Earlier drafts barred people convicted of three or more felonies. • In Section 5.64.720,titled Noise Restrictions,two items have been revised.In Paragraph B the latest an ice cream vehicle may"play or employ any sound"from the vehicle is 8 p.m. Earlier versions prohibited playing sounds after 7 p.m. In Paragraph C the limit of which a sound may be played has been reduced to 50 feet from an ice cream vehicle. Earlier versions limited the sound to 330 feet. • In Section 5.64.740.titled, Vehicle Inspection Prior to Licensing—Fee Required,the cost of the inspection fee has been reduced from a total cost of$50 per vehicle to$25 per vehicle. DISCUSSION/BACKGROUND The proposed ordinance would add mobile ice cream vending truck companies to businesses regulated by Salt Lake City.It is City Council staffs understanding that various community councils and residents have sought for some time to have ice cream vending trucks regulated in at least some manner. Of particular concern are potential safety hazards created by children's attraction to theice cream vending trucks and the level of music coming from ice cream trucks as they travel through residential neighborhoods. There`also apparently have been complaints about mobile ice cream vendors in City parks.The complaints largely appear to have involved the length of time vendors stay in one location in City parks while playing music from amplified systems. As mentioned earlier,the City Council first was briefed on the proposed ordinance in July 2002. A City Council Subcommittee met in August and on November 19 to discuss the proposed ordinance.After its November 19 meeting the Subcommittee made several recommendations and forwarded them to the full City Council for a further briefing at the Council's work session January 7, After the January 7 briefing the City Attorney's Office revised the proposed ordinance,and the Administration sent the revised document to the City Council for further consideration. To review,the Subcommittee—comprised of City Council Members Eric Jergensen,Jill Love,and Van Turner—said it was comfortable with,the bulk of the proposed ordinance that would regulate the mobile ice cream vendors and vending equipment. However,the Subcommittee focused on two aspects of the proposed ordinance—fees and noise restrictions for the operators of mobile ice cream vending trucks. FEES Under current ordinances,ice cream truck vendors located in Salt Lake City are required to obtain a City business license.According to the City Attorney's Office,the City acknowledges other cities' business licenses under City Code 5.04.040-C titled Reciprocal Agreements. However,the proposed ordinance would require drivers for mobile ice cream vending companies located in other cities to obtain ice cream truck operators' licenses. Ice cream vending trucks also would be inspected by Salt Lake'City. Besides the$70 business license fee for mobile ice cream vending companies located in Salt Lake City,the proposed ordinance would require that each person who would drive a vending vehicle to obtain an ice cream truck operator's license. Each applicant for an operator's • 2 • license would pay a$30 application fee.Under the revised proposed ordinance,companies that • own ice cream vehicles also would pay an annual inspection fee of$25 per vehicle. According to the Administration,the Business Licensing Division would conduct the vehicle inspections.The inspections would involve checking for compliance with ordinance regulations involving the presence of back-up warning devices,flashing lights,swing arms,and other items. The proposed ordinance also would require a business license applicant to obtain a health permit from the Utah Department of Agriculture.According to the Administration,the Salt Lake Valley Health Department stopped inspecting mobile ice cream vending vehicles two years ago. The Utah Department of Agriculture continues to inspect the refrigerated compartments in the vehicles but nothing else,according to the Administration. NOISE RESTRICTIONS The Subcommittee agreed on three items pertaining to noise restrictions: It agreed to recommend amending Section 5.64.720 B to change the word"seven"to the word"eight"to allow mobile ice cream vending vehicles to operate an extra hour,particularly during the summer. The Subcommittee also agreed to let stand a paragraph in Section 5.64.720 that would prohibit the playing of"any sound"while an ice cream vehicle is stationary.It was the Subcommittee's understanding that the paragraph not only would regulate mobile ice cream vending vehicles on streets but also in City parks. • :After the City Council discussion on January 7,the City Attorney's Office significantly altered Paragraph C of Section 5.64.720.As mentioned,the original proposed ordinance allowed ice cream vending vehicles to play sounds,"in such a manner that such sound is plainly audible at more than 330 feet from such vehicle."However,a representative of the Salt Lake Valley Health Department informed the Administration that the 330-foot limit exceeded the limit allowed,by Salt Lake County Health regulations.According to the Administration,the Salt Lake Valley Health Department views the audio systems used in ice cream vending..xehicles as tape players that fall under the county regulation restricting sound from tape players to 50 feet a sound's source.Given that,the Attorney's Office revised the proposed ordinance to comply with Health Department regulations. DRIVER'S QUALIFICATIONS At the January 7 briefing,the City Council addressed an issue in Section 5.64.640 titled Driver's Qualifications.Part of the section prohibited a person convicted of three or more felony crimes from obtaining an operator's license..The revised ordinance would reduce the prohibition from obtaining an operator's license from three or more felony convictions to two or more.In effect,the revision would allow the City to issue an operator's license to a person convicted of one felony.However,the revised ordinance retains an appeal process before a hearing officer if an applicant can prove"by a preponderance of evidence"that an applicant with-more than one felony conviction has reformed his or her character"so as to pose no threat to members of the public." - 3 t, OTHER PERTINENT ITEMS The proposed ordinance would enact several requirements(Section 5.64.730)for a • mobile ice cream vending vehicle and its operation.Requirements include: • A clearly audible backup warning device that will activate whenever the vehicle is shifted into reverse. • At least two flashing yellow beacons on the vehicle''s,roof that will activate"whenever merchandise is being sold, offered for sale or displayed for sale." • An operable swing-arm attached to its left side of"a type, size,and description approved by the City."The arm would be activated whenever the vehicle stops to sell,offer to sell or display'merchandise. • A prohibition of selling items on streets where the speed limit is more than 25 miles per hour. Salt Lake City generally has three categories of streets—local,collector, and arterial.The limit generally would confine selling ice cream to local streets.Collector and arterial streets generally have speed limits higher than 25 miles per hour.(Council staff has attached a street map to help show which streets would be available to ice cream vending trucks.) • A requirement that the vehicle be completely stopped and parked before selling or displaying wares. • A prohibition againstmoving the vehicle backwards to sell or display merchandise. Besides the prohibition of a person convicted of two or more felonies,other regulations pertaining to drivers'qualifications include prohibitions from the following to obtain an operator's license: • People under age 21. ' • Anyone required to register as a sex offender. • Anyone convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude,narcotic or dangerous drugs,and a felony conviction for an offense against a person or property within a five-year period of the time of the permit application. • Anyone convicted of reckless driving or driving a vehicle while under the influence'of alcohol or a controlled substance or convicted of being in or about a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or a contra-led substance with the intent of driving the vehicle within a five-year period of the time of the permit application. , Applicants for an operator's license would be required to provide the following information. ' • An employment history dating back three years from the time the application is filed.. . • A history dating back five years from the time of the application to indicate whether the applicant has ever had any professional Or vocational license or business license or permit"denied,revoked,or suspended."The applicant also would have to say why any,of those licenses were denied,revoked or suspended and provide'a copy of the order from the agency or government that took the action. ' • • A history dating back five years from the time of the application of all criminal Ank convictions or no-contest pleas to criminal complaints. Ilr 4 ' • • The names and addresses of three residents of Salt Lake City"who have known ithe prospective applicant for a period of thirty days and who"will vouch for the sobriety,honesty and general good character of the applicant." • A photograph and two sets of fingerprints taken at the Police Department headquarters. A couple of items might be noted: The application requirements and driver's qualifications in the proposed ordinance are almost identical to application requirements and driver's qualifications in the section of the City Code regulating taxicabs. The insurance requirements in the proposed ordinance are the same general liability requirements as those of sidewalk vendors. MODEL ORDINANCE, After the January 7 meeting,Don Ganser,the owner of a company involved in mobile ice cream vending,sent Council staff a model ordinance prepared by the International Association of Ice Cream Vendors Safety Committee. Aside from higher fees and drivers' qualifications,the proposed ordinance appears to comport with much of the model ordinance. Some similarities are: Model Ordinance—Signal lamps mounted at the same level and as high and as widely spaced laterally as practicable.The lamps shall be five to seven inches in diameter and shall "display two alternately flashing red lights visible at 500 feet to the front and rear in normal sunlight upon a straight level highway. Proposed Ordinance—The motorized vehicle shall have at least two flashing yellow beacons on the roof of the vehicle,one at the front and one at the rear,at leas one of which is visible from all side of the vehicle.The beacons shall be activated whenever merchandise is being sold,Offered for sale,or displayed for sale. • Model Ordinance—A slow signal arm that can be extended horizontally from the left side of the truck ... Proposed Ordinance—The motorized vehicle shall have an operable swing-arm attached to its left side.This swing-arm shall be of a type, size,and description approved by the City ... . • Model Ordinance—An outside passenger side mirror that provides visibility to the right side and to the rear of the vehicle. Proposed Ordinance—The motorized vehicle shall have a convex mirror mounted on the front of the vehicle so that the driver,in a normal driving position,can see the area in front of the vehicle that is obscured by the hood: ' Model,Ordinance-A sign or decal with the business address and telephone number of the business license holder printed on the side of the vehicle in letter of not less than two inches in height. 5 MAR 1 8 2003 SS C. "ROCKY"ANDERSON S' fits r A\ ©� 11 r" : >s 'p'II'A A'A,� MAYOR ..�.�,.�.g ®��G��,�� `. ORPO DOF SALT LAKE 2002 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Q 9 COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky FluhartcLtfj Date: March 17, 2003 Chief Administrative Officer FROM: Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Mobile Ice Cream Vendors STAFF CONTACT: Nazar Mohamed DOCUMENT: Proposed Ordinance Budget Impact: Business License fee ($70.00), Operator's License($30.00), and Inspection Fee ($25.00). DISCUSSION: • • The administration included recommendations of the city council and its subcommittee as follows: • Reduced the operator's license fee in Section 5.64.580 from$80.00 to $30.00. ■ Reduced the number of annual inspection of vendor vehicles in Section 5.64.740 from two to one. • Limited the number of felonies in Section 5.64.720 to one, instead of three. • Noise restriction, Section 5.64.720(c), is based on 50 linear feet to ensure conformity with the regulations of Salt Lake Valley Health Department(SLVHD 8.2b). RECOMMENDATION: • Passage of the proposed ordinance will protect residents of Salt Lake City, especially children, from unnecessary health and safety risks as well as preserve the peace. • 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE:801-535-7704 FAX:801-535-6331 ® xtCIUED PAPER • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE April 4,2003 SUBJECT: Impact Fee Ordinance Revision Follow-Up Briefing AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: Citywide STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears, Budget&Policy Analyst ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. HAND AND CONTACT PERSON: LuAnn Clark KEY ELEMENTS: On September 3,2002 the Council held a public hearing on revisions to the Impact Fee Ordinance.The hearing was continued indefinitely and no action was taken on suggested revisions to the ordinance.The Council requested the following revisions be made to the Impact • Fee Ordinance: • Eliminate all exemptions that currently are allowed for low-income housing developments. (This item is NOT being recommended for action at this time) • Eliminate exemptions that currently are allowed for developments that show a net positive fiscal impact. • Eliminate exemptions that currently are allowed for development activity that is funded or subsidized by the City or the RDA. • Amend the Impact Fee Schedule format. The Council is reviewing the affordable housing exemptions as part of the Council's Housing subcommittee. This issue can be addressed at a future date. The Council may wish to continue the Impact Fee Ordinance public hearing and after closing the hearing consider adopting the revised ordinance that addresses the concerns raised by the Administration and Council. SUMMARY OF BRIEFING/PUBLIC HEARING: On April 4,2002 the Council held a briefing concerning the Administration's proposed changes to the Impact Fee Ordinance.The Council discussed the merits of having other funds (specifically the Housing Trust Fund)pay for exempted impact fees.The Council formed a subcommittee to discuss the proposed revisions and to make recommendations to the full council. • The Council subcommittee met and discussed different funding mechanisms for project costs (including impact fees).The Council subcommittee then reported back to the full Council on July 2,2002. During the presentation to the Council,Council Subcommittee Members explained that other sources of funding to pay for impact fee exemptions had been looked at.It was indicated that the subcommittee felt that no one should be exempt from impact fees and that the • Administration could work with the developers of low-income housing projects to make sure that other incentive tools were available. The Attorney's Office prepared an ordinance that incorporated the requested revisions. Following the public hearing the Council voted to continue the public hearing indefinitely. The Council has decided to study the low-income housing exemptions as part of their Housing subcommittee. The Administration has prepared a revised ordinance that addresses the remaining three revisions to the Impact fee Ordinance.The Administration is requesting that the Council complete the public hearing,dose the public hearing and adopt the revised ordinance to address the three revisions.The low-income exemption issue can be brought before the Council after the Council Housing subcommittee has completed their review. BACKGROUND: Basic Information about Impact Fees in Utah: • An impact fee is a one-time charge for specific, tangible, capital improvements with a useful life of more than ten years. • Impact fees may be assessed in Utah for the purpose of raising revenue to offset certain public facilities required to serve new growth. They cannot be assessed to address issues of deferred capital infrastructure. • Impact fee revenues can be used to fund water distribution and water supply,treatment • and distribution facilities; wastewater collection and treatment facilities; storm water, drainage and flood control facilities; municipal power facilities; roadway facilities; parks, recreation, open space, and trails; public safety facilities (police and fire stations but not jails);and certain habitat conservation measures. • In order to collect impact fees, a local jurisdiction must prepare a capital facilities plan and impact fee ordinance which addresses the basis for fee assessment and a fee calculation plan; what will be funded with impact fees based on capital plans; service areas; existing levels of service; tracking of revenue; and"credits, exemptions and alternate fee calculations and refunds. One area that the Council may wish to pursue,in addition to the recommended changes,is the use of City staff time and resources to offset General Fund cash required when impact fees are exempted.Similar to the use of employee staff time and resources as a local match to State and Federal Grants,staff time could be used as part of the impact fee exemption.It appears that this option is available under the current State Impact Fee Code,but before any process could be implemented a review by the City Attorney may be necessary. cc: Cindy Gust-Jenson,Rocky Fluhart,David Nimkin, Alison Weyher,David Dobbins, Steve Fawcett,Gordon Hoskins,Randy Hillier,and Luann Clark File location: Michael\Impact Fee TO: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: COUNCIL MEMBER NANCY SAXTON, DISTRICT FOUR DATE: March 31, 2003 SUBJECT: TIME, PLACE AND MANNER - MAIN STREET PLAZA Given the significant community interest and the divergence of opinion associated with the Main Street Plaza issue, I would like to propose that the City Council ensure that all options -including Time, Place and Manner -- are open for discussion when this issue comes before us. The focus of the recent public process has been the proposal that includes selling / trading the easement with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I am recommending that the Council consider expanding the remaining portions of the public process to include the draft Time, Place and Manner ordinance (with modifications as deemed necessary by the City Administration, the City Attorney's Office and the legal opinion from Randy Dryer). I believe we have all seen the significant value public input brings to the resolution of City issues. While the Time, Place and Manner issue is a complex legal issue I believe if we as a Council agreed to release a summary of the Dryer legal opinion those with specific interest in or knowledge of these legal issues would have the opportunity to • provide written comment to the Council prior to our consideration of this issue. Following is a summary of my recommendation and a potential sequence: 1. Consider requesting a summary of the Dryer legal opinion. 2. Notify the Community Council Chairs and organizations that have expressed interest in Time, Place and Manner via letter of a public comment period; set an end date for the comment period (May 15, for example) 3. When setting the hearing date for the hearing on the proposal currently being advanced by the Administration, specify that comment will also be accepted at that time on Time, Place and Manner. 4. Post the legal opinion summary and any other relevant documents on the City's web site, and make the information available via fax or mail to those who request it but don't have access to the internet. 5. Consider holding an open house, a single public meeting or a series of public meetings to gather input in advance of the Council's public hearing on the issue of the Main Street Plaza. 6. Consider requesting that the City Attorney and / or outside legal counsel review recommendations from the public prior to the Council hearing. I would appreciate your consideration of my recommendation for this expanded public process on this issue of broad public interest. •