The URL can be used to link to this page

08/12/2003 - Minutes (2) PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2003 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Tuesday, August 12, 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, Nancy Saxton, Jill Remington Love, Dave Buhler, Dale Lambert, Eric Jergensen and Van Turner. Also in Attendance: Mayor Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson; Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer; Ed Rutan, City Attorney; D.J. Baxter, Senior Advisor to the Mayor; David Nimkin, Mayor's Chief of Staff; Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Gary Mumford, Council Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor; Michael Sears, Council Budget & Policy Analyst; Janice Jardine, Council Planning & Policy Analyst; Lehua Weaver, Council Constituent Liaison; Alison McFarlane, Economic Development Manager; Cheri Coffey, Northwest/Long Range Planner; Everett Joyce, Environmental Planning & Urban Design/Ordinance Planner; Steve Fawcett, Management Services Deputy Director; Tim Harpst, Transportation Director; Craig Timothy, Traffic Calming Coordinator; LuAnn Clark, Housing and Neighborhood Development Director; Steve Fawcett, Management Services Deputy Director; Rick Graham, Director of Public Services; Dan Mule' , City Treasurer; Mary Johnston, City Courts Director; Laurie Dillon, Senior Administrative Budget Analyst; Kay Christensen, Administrative Budget Analyst; Susi Kontgis, Senior Administrative Budget Analyst; Dan Andrus, Fire Chief; Dennis McKone, Fire Department Administrative Assistant/Media Relations; Scott Atkinson, Executive Administration Assistant Police Chief; Nancy Tessman, City Library Director; Mitch Minkevitch, Director of the Road Home; Major Wayne Froderberg, Salvation Army; Tim Funk, Crossroads Urban Center; Sheila Walsh McDonald, Director of Advocacy Program Salt Lake Community Action Program; Kelly Murdock, City Financial Advisor for Wells Fargo Bank; Jeff Salt, Audubon Society; Paul Burke, President of the Utah Youth Soccer League; Craig Dinsmore, Executive Director of the Bogle Zoo; and Pam Johnson, Deputy City Recorder. Councilmember Christensen presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:32 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. View Attachment Ms. Gust-Jenson said Dan Mule' and Kelly Murdock were present should Council have questions on the Rail Yard Special Improvement District bond and the Gateway bond purchase, Item No. F-1 (a) and (b) , scheduled on the City Council agenda. Ms. Gust-Jenson said Council Members Love and Lambert had a Legislative action item they wanted to present to the other Council Members. Councilmember Love said she and Councilmember Lambert had discussed a desire to create an Open Space Trust Fund and create a board to oversee the fund. She said the objective of the board would be to create and recommend a process for property to be purchased and maintained as City open space. Councilmember Lambert said they felt it was best for the Council to establish the Open Space Trust Fund and the Board rather than have the administration do it. Councilmember Buhler asked for clarification of the boards duties. Councilmember Lambert said they would serve in an advisory capacity only. He said funding and expenditure discussions would be made by the Council. Ms. Gust-Jenson said Council Members needed to submit their registration to staff members for the upcoming Utah League of Cities and Towns annual conference. She said traditionally the Council co-hosted a dinner with the league one night of the 03 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, AUGUST 12 , 2003 conference. The agenda and schedule for the conference was discussed. Refer to file M 03-5 for additional announcements. #2. INTERVIEW MARILYN PEARSON PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HER REAPPOINTMENT TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BOARD. Ms. Pearson said she had learned a great deal about the City in the year she had spent on the Board. She said she appreciated the opportunity to be able to learn and experience the City' s capital improvements in a hands-on manner. #3. INTERVIEW PEGGY LANDER PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HER APPOINTMENT TO THE BUSINESS ADVISORY BOARD. Ms. Lander said her interest in this board was in part the fact she herself was a small business owner in the City. She said she brought her experience working with other business entities and her communication expertise to the board. #4. INTERVIEW MELVA KRAVITZ PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HER REAPPOINTMENT TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD. This item was pulled from the agenda. #5. INTERVIEW PAUL DALRYMPLE PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HIS REAPPOINTMENT TO THE LIBRARY BOARD. Mr. Dalrymple said construction of the new library was positive for the revitalization of downtown Salt Lake. He said he had experience serving on several boards previously, but was impressed by the detail the library board gave every issue. #6. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE AUDIT OF THE TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM. View Attachment Tim Harpst, Craig Timothy, Michael Sears, Fire Chief Dan Andrus and Assistant Police Chief Scott Atkinson briefed the Council from the attached handout. Mr. Harpst said information provided in the handouts addressed the audit of the traffic calming program and questions the Council had. He said the information included recommendations for program modifications. He said the recommended changes could be implemented immediately to expedite lifting the current moratorium on the traffic calming program. He said if the moratorium remained, traffic calming testing would not be completed by the end of the year. Mr. Harpst said steps had been taken to broaden and improve the notification process for property owners in the area of traffic testing. He said notification included a phone number to record citizen' s comments. He said public meetings would be held to allow public input. Councilmember Buhler asked if these steps would include taking action in response to the comments. Mr. Harspt said all data would be reviewed keeping in mind not all residents would be affected equally. He said those using the street as a transportation route would be against speed humps, while residents living on the street would be in favor. He said in addition to involving property owners, other City departments were included in decision making to determine potential conflicts with emergency response, snow plowing and trash collection. He said this collaboration resulted in use of speed tables rather than speed bumps on roads used as Fire Department response routes. Councilmember Buhler said it would be helpful to have that information and asked that Council be provided with a map showing the City' s Fire Department response routes. 03 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2003 Councilmember Love asked how areas were selected to participate in traffic calming programs. Mr. Timothy said an eligibility point and ranking system formula was used. He said the number of pedestrians in the area would generate points as would speed. He said a neighborhood or travel route would need to score in the 85th percentile to qualify. He said areas scoring lower were given other options for traffic calming measures. Additional discussion was held on the City' s traffic calming measures. Assistant Chief of Police Atkinson said increased traffic enforcement did not change the public's behavior. He said officers seemed to respond to the same neighborhoods on a routine basis for traffic enforcement. He said if enforcement was the primary answer, enforcement over time would have already extinguished the problem. Councilmember Buhler said enhanced fees could be established for speeding in residential areas. Councilmember Turner said speed limit postings needed to be painted on streets in a brighter color. He said white paint currently used was hard to see. A discussion was held on the testing done with speed tables and speed humps on emergency response vehicles. #7 . RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING PROPOSED GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PROJECTS. View Attachment Mayor Anderson, Rocky Fluhart, Rick Graham, Nancy Tessman, Paul Burke, Jeff Salt, Craig Dinsmore and Michael Sears briefed the Council from the attached handout. Councilmember Lambert asked how General Obligation (GO) Bond wording would appear on the November ballots. He said there were conditions placed on several proposed projects stating they would need to obtain additional funding prior to being awarded any monies from the GO Bonds. He said it was important that the public was aware the GO Bonds were not funding all the proposed projects in their entirety. Mr. Fluhart said if the GO Bond issue was placed on the ballot, voters would simply be giving Council the authority to administer the bonds. He said Council was not obligated to exercise that authority. He said conditions could be made directly with each project administration that a certain amount of fundraising needed to be established prior to receiving any portion funded by the bond. Mayor Anderson said voters needed to be made aware of conditions made on each proposed project. Councilmember Jergensen said Council would direct language appearing on the ballot for the GO Bond issue. Mayor Anderson reviewed each proposed project with the Council. He said approximately $10,000,000 from the City bond proposal would be used for the Leonardo project. He said private donations of $10,000,000 in matching funds would be obtained by prospective tenants prior to issuance of City bonds. He said the branch library proposal would fund construction of the Glendale and Capitol Hill Branches. He said construction costs were $5,000, 000, property acquisition costs were $250, 000 for a total bond amount of $5,250, 000. Mayor Anderson said the Open Space Trust Fund would be created to purchase, receive and manage open space lands in the City. He said a general obligation bond issue offered the best opportunity to finance land conservation. He said the $22,500,000 requested for the Salt Lake City Sports Center would include both indoor facilities and outdoor improvements. He said another $2,500, 000 could be spent on a nature center in the same area. He said the Jordan River corridor would be ideal. He said this proposal would include a dollar for dollar match be made prior to monies being funded from City bonds. He said additional proposed projects were the Hansen Planetarium, Tracy Aviary, Pioneer Park and Hogle Zoo. Councilmember Buhler said it would be helpful to see a comparison on how property taxes 03 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, AUGUST 12 , 2003 would increase for both commercial and residential properties. He asked the administration to provide that information to the Council. Councilmember Saxton asked that Council be provided a feasibility study for the Regional Sports Field Complex. She said it would be helpful to know what other facilities were available outside City limits. She said a feasibility study would show what already existed and what might still be needed. Councilmember Buhler said he wanted a Pro Forma report provided to the Council. Additional discussion was held on the GO Bond funding and the proposed projects. #8. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE PROPOSED MOUNTAIR ANNEXATION. View Attachment Cheri Coffey, Everett Joyce and Janice Jardine briefed the Council from the attached handout. Mr. Joyce said the annexation would take City boundaries to 3300 South and would include 1300 residents and 116 businesses. He said when the petition was first brought before Council only 6% of those property owners protested the annexation. He said the protest period had passed, but since that time residents had continued to remove their names from the petition supporting the annexation. Ms. Coffey said the majority of residents and business owners were in support of the petition and it could be moved forward. Councilmember Lambert said the annexation would help establish clearer boundaries between the City and County for emergency or public services. A discussion was held on improvements and services needed in the proposed annexation area. #9. HOLD A DISCUSSION REGARDING A RESOLUTION ON HOMELESS SERVICES IN DOWNTOWN SALT LAKE CITY. View Attachment David Nimkin, Mitch Minkevitch, Sheila Walsh McDonald, Tim Funk and Janice Jardine briefed the Council from the handout. Mr. Nimkin said growing concerns of homeless service providers prompted extensive meetings to address the future for the City's homeless population. He said the homeless service providers did not have a sense of support with long term planning, development and the unique challenges. He said from those meetings the providers and Mayor Anderson entered into a common ground understanding to offer clarity between the City and other supporters as to the direction needed for the homeless service providers. He said the Common Ground Statement eliminated the City acting without taking the needed services into consideration. Mr. Minkevitch said some property owners and other prominent forces might feel it is in the best interest to relocate the homeless services from the downtown area. He said it was necessary for the services to remain close to the downtown area and in close proximity to other like services. He said to find another viable downtown location for all the services to operate within close proximity was unlikely. Mr. Funk said Salt Lake City was at a crossroad in determining how it would continue providing for its homeless population. He a resolution would expand the statements made in the Common Ground Statement. He said the proposed resolution would ensure that the homeless service providers and the facilities remained undisturbed in the Rio Grande neighborhood. He said the neighborhood needed to be developed with the understanding it needed to remain a diverse area. Councilmember Jergensen said the value of downtown Salt Lake was growing at an enormous rate. He said it might make financial sense to sell existing properties, relocate elsewhere and use the profits to provide more and better services. Mr. Minkevitch said the quality of current services would be compromised. He said he was not aware of another area that would work as well as the Rio Grande neighborhoods. Ms. Walsh 03 - 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2003 McDonald said it was important to remember the homeless services grew around the homeless population. She said the homeless did not travel to the services, so services needed to be provided at locations where they were needed most. #10. HOLD A DISCUSSION REGARDING HOUSING. View Attachment LuAnn Clark and Janice Jardine briefed the Council from the attached handout. Ms. Jardine said she had provided a summary of the issues discussed at the housing fact finding meeting held in April 2003, for the Council. She said she had summarized the issues addressed at the meeting into three categories: 1) affordable housing, 2) zoning and other regulatory requirements, and 3) funding. She said under each category she had listed suggestions which highlighted ideas to improve those issues. She said she had also provided a handout with potential process options for the Council's consideration. She said the administration was now waiting for direction from the City Council in order to move forward. A discussion was held on provided information and information needed to advance the City's Housing Policy. A sub-committee comprised of Council Members Love, Saxton and Jergensen was established. Councilmember Christensen asked for a Housing and Neighborhood Development (H.A.N.D. ) staff member to work with the Council's Housing sub-committee. Luann Clark said she would volunteer for the assignment. Councilmember Lambert said it would be helpful for each Council Member to review the Housing Policy and forward their concerns to the sub-committee. He said that would help to narrow the amount of information and establish a set direction to work from. Councilmember Christensen asked for a follow-up meeting on the City' s Housing Policy to be scheduled in October of 2003. The meeting adjourned at 10:43 p.m. pj 03 - 5 S' #'i' f A\ MTN 0' R,PJ. ke' I 11. OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL Salt Lake City Council AGENDA City Council Chambers City&County Building 451 South State Street,Room 315 Salt Lake City,Utah Tuesday,August 12,2003 7:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m., some Council Members may dine together in Room 343 at the City & County Building. (The room is open to the public.) A. WORK SESSION: 5:30 p.m.,Room 326,City&County Building,451 South State Street (Items from the following list that Council is unable to complete in Work Session from 5:30-6:55 p.m.will be addressed in a Work Session setting following the Consent Agenda.) 1. Report of the Executive Director,including review of Council information items and announcements. 2. The Council will interview Marilyn Pearson prior to consideration of her reappointment to the • Capital Improvement Program Board. 3. The Council will interview Peggy Lander prior to consideration of her appointment to the Business Advisory Board. 4. The Council will interview Melva Kravitz prior to consideration of her reappointment to the Community Development Advisory Committee. 5. The Council will interview Paul Dalrymple prior to consideration of his reappointment to the Library Board. 6. The Council will receive a briefmg on the audit of the Traffic Calming Program including a response from the Administration regarding the moratorium. 7. The Council will receive a briefmg on the proposed General Obligation Bond projects. 8. The Council will receive a briefmg on the proposed Mountair annexation. 9. The Council will hold a discussion regarding a resolution on homeless services in downtown Salt Lake City. 10. The Council will hold a discussion on housing. B. OPENING CEREMONY: 1. Pledge of Allegiance. 2. The Mayor will present the Utah Humanities Award to Alberta Henry. • 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7600, FAX: 801-535-7651 Salt Lake City Council Agenda Tuesday,August 12,2003 C. PUBLIC HEARINGS: • 1. Ordinance: Petition No. 400-03-12,rezone property located at 1433 and 1435 South 1100 East from Residential Business to single family residential Accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance rezoning property located at 1433 and 1435 South 1100 East from Residential Business(RB)to single family residential(R 1-5000), pursuant to Petition No. 400-03-12.(Chabad Lubavitch of Utah Synagogue) (P 03-16) Staff Recommendation: Close and adopt. 2. Ordinance: Truth in Taxation Staff Recommendation: Close and consider options. a. Ordinance:Adopt the fmal budget,excluding the budget for the library fund which is separately adopted, and the employment staffing document of Salt Lake City for fiscal year 2003-2004 Consider adopting an ordinance adopting the final budget(excluding the budget for the library fund which is separately adopted)and the employment staffing document of Salt Lake City for fiscal year 2003-2004. (B 03-1) b. Ordinance:Adopt the fmal budget for the Library Fund of Salt Lake City,Utah for fiscal • year 2003-2004 Consider adopting an ordinance adopting the fmal budget for the Library Fund of Salt Lake City,Utah for fiscal year 2003-2004. (B 03-3) c. Ordinance:Adopt the final rate of tax levy upon all real and personal property within Salt Lake City made taxable by law for fiscal year 2003-2004 Consider adopting an ordinance adopting the fmal rate of tax levy upon all real and personal property within Salt Lake City made taxable by law for fiscal year 2003-2004. (B 03-6) D. COMMENTS 1. Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. 2. Comments to the City Council (Comments are taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing,as well as on any other City business. Comments are limited to two minutes.) E. NEW BUSINESS: (None.) 2 • Salt Lake City Council Agenda Tuesday,August 12,2003 F. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: • 1. Railyard SID a. Ordinance:Railyard SID Assessment Consider adopting an assessment ordinance confirming the assessment rolls and levying an assessment against certain properties in Salt Lake City,Utah Railyard Special Improvement District,for the purpose of paying the costs of improvements on certain streets and public rights of way in Salt Lake City,Utah,and completing any miscellaneous work necessary to complete the improvements in a proper and workmanlike manner; establishing the method and rate of assessments;providing for the prepayment of assessments,determining the interest payable on all unpaid assessments; establishing a debt service reserve fund; providing for certain remedies upon default in the payment of assessments; establishing the effective date of this assessment ordinance;and related matters. (Q 99-11) Staff Recommendation: Adopt. b. Resolution:Authorize the issuance of bonds and approve the bond purchase agreement as well as the offering document Consider adopting a resolution finalizing the terms and conditions of the issuance and sale by the issuer of its adjustable rate demand assessment bonds, Series 2003,(Gateway Project)in the aggregate principal amount of$17,500,000;awarding and confirming the sale of said Series 2003 bonds; authorizing the execution by the issuer of a trust indenture, • reimbursement agreement,remarketing agreement and other documents required in connection therewith;ratifying the preparation,distribution and use of a preliminary official statement and authorizing and approving a fmal official statement;authorizing and approving a bond purchase contract;and authorizing the taking of all other actions necessary to the consummation of the transaction contemplated by this resolution;providing a severability clause;repealing conflicting resolutions;providing an effective date; and related matters. (Q 99-11) Staff Recommendation: Adopt. G. CONSENT: 1. Ordinance: Set date—Petition No.400-02-17,amend the Salt Lake City Code relating to the temporary use ordinance,to allow for seasonal item sales Set the date of September 2,2003 at 7:00 p.m.to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending the Salt Lake City Code relating to the temporary use ordinance,to allow for seasonal item sales. (O 03-18) Staff Recommendation: Set date. • 3 Salt Lake City Council Agenda Tuesday,August 12,2003 2. Ordinance: Set date—Petition No. 400-03-09,amend the Salt Lake City Code to allow for the • installation of outdoor television monitors in certain downtown zoning districts Set the date of September 2,2003 at 7:00 p.m.to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending the Salt Lake City Code to allow for the installation of outdoor television monitors in certain downtown zoning districts. (0 03-19) Staff Recommendation: Set date. 3. Ordinance: Set date—Petition No. 400-02-23,amend the Salt Lake City Code providing legal conforming status for the single family detached dwellings,two-family dwellings and twin homes Set the date of September 2,2003 at 7:00 p.m.to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending the Salt Lake City Code providing legal conforming status for the single family detached dwellings,two-family dwellings and twin homes. (0 03-20) Staff Recommendation: Set date. 4. Board Appointment:Nafitalai Unga Kioa,Police Civilian Review Board Consider approving the appointment of Nafitalai Unga Kioa to the Police Civilian Review Board for a term extending through September 6,2004. (I 03-15) Staff Recommendation: Approve. • 5. Board Appointment: Jennifer Annette Connole,Housing Advisory and Appeals Board Consider approving the appointment of Jennifer Annette Connole to the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board for a term extending through December 31,2004. (I 03-8) Staff Recommendation: Approve. 6. Board Appointment:Elmer Bullock,Community Development Advisory Committee Consider approving the appointment of Elmer Bullock to the Community Development Advisory Committee for a term extending through July 3,2006. (I 03-21) Staff Recommendation: Approve. 7. Board Appointment: Anne Grace Bellis Sperry,Multi-Ethnic Community Resource Board Consider approving the appointment of Anne Grace Bellis Sperry to the Multi-Ethnic Community Resource Board for a term extending through December 29,2003. (I 03-3) Staff Recommendation: Approve. • 4 • Salt Lake City Council Agenda, Tuesday,August 12,2200Q3-•'J H. ADJO NT: • Dated: A st 8,2003 By: Dep City Record` r STATE OF UTAH ) . ss. COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) On the 8th day of August 2003,I personally delivered a copy of the foregoing notice to the Mayor and City Council and posted copies of the same in conspicuous view,at the following times and locations within the City&County Building,451 South State Street S,a1t-L-ake City,Utah: 1. At 5:00 p.m.in the City Recorder's Offic , oom 415 i,and 2. At 5:00 p.m. in the Newsroom,Room 5. City Recorder • Subscribed and sworn to before me this 8th day of August 2003. A./ NOTARY PUBLIC o P lic resi in in the to of Utah STATE OF UTAH \ My Commission Expires 1 October 11,2004 SONYA K.SKYLES • • 451 South State Street,Room 415 Satt Lake City,Utah 84111 Approval: C - 9AVX/k— Executive1Director Access agendas at http://www.ci.slc.ut.us/council/agendas/default.htm .A sound system for the hearing impaired is available and headphones can be obtained for all public meetings upon four hours advance notice. Arrangements can be made for sign language interpreters;please allow 72 hours advance notice. TDD Number 535-6021. Assistive listening devices are available on Channel I. Large type and#2 Braille agendas are available upon 72 hours advance notice. *Final action may be taken and/or adopted concerning any item on this agenda. After 5:00 p.m.,please enter the City&County Building through the east entrance. Accessible route is located on the east side of the building. In accordance with State Statute,City Ordinance and Council Policy,one or more Council Members may be connected via speakerphone. 5 • MEMORANDUM DATE: August 11, 2003 TO: Council Members FROM: Council Members Jill Love and Dale Lambert SUBJECT: Open Space and Parks Initiative We would appreciate the Council's support for an Open Space and Parks Initiative requesting that the City Attorney's office prepare an ordinance to formally establish an Open Space and Parks Trust Fund and an Open Space and Parks Trust Board. This was identified as a secondary priority at the Council's retreat this year,to be addressed in addition to housing. This has been an area of great public interest especially in recent years. Many community individuals have expressed a strong interest in participating with the City to address a variety of open space issues such as funding, acquisition,trails development,educational programs and master plan implementation. The City has an opportunity to take a leadership role and establish indispensable public private partnerships, and obtain key parcels that will be considered legacies in the years to come. By way of background,the Open Space Master Plan was adopted in October 1992. Key implementation strategies in the Plan recommend providing funding sources and establishing an Open Space Trust to administer public/private lands designated as open space,promote land acquisition, generate revenue sources and monitor implementation of the Open Space Plan.The City has taken limited steps through the establishment of two small funds. In 1981 and 1994 respectively,the City established two General Fund accounts to provide funding for open space projects. (Land-Open Space Matching and Open Space Land Trust accounts.) Currently,fund amounts in the two accounts total approximately $215,000.00. In the late 1990's,a draft Open Space Land Trust/Bank ordinance was presented to the City Council for consideration. Considerable public debate focused on ensuring perpetual long-term protection of the lands placed in the Land Trust/Bank,transferring all of the City's open space lands (including watershed lands and the airport wetland mitigation area)irrevocably into the Land Trust/Bank, and requiring that proceeds from the sale of surplus property be specifically allocated for acquisition open space land.The City Attorney advised that there are statutory and judicial impediments to limiting administrative authority with respect to the management of the City's real properties. In addition,there are limitations for action regarding Airport and Public Utilities property. No final action was taken by the Council at that time. The public opinion survey recently completed relating to bonding indicated a high level of support for bonding for open space. Whether or not the open space bond is approved by the public,this is such a high priority that we recommend allocation of$lmillion from the General Fund balance to move this effort ahead. Examples of uses for funding include: a. Purchase property to protect sensitive areas,including areas in and around the foothills b. Purchase and development of small area neighborhood parks c. Increasing the amount of open space citywide d. Increasing and improving the number of trails 1 Since meeting recently with community open space advocates and in an effort to build on steps • taken in the past to establish such a land trust/bank,we recommend that the open space ordinance contain the key elements from the ordinance proposed in 1997/98. Actions to be taken to immediately to initiate implementation of the Open Space Initiative include: 1. Combine the two existing open space fund accounts. 2. Allocate one-time money to establish a trust fund. 3. Establish a board similar to the model established for the City Housing Trust Fund Board, urge the Administration to provide staff assistance from the Parks Division in the City's Public Services Department. 4. The Board's first priority would be to establish a process and criteria for identifying and funding projects. 5. Another priority would be to identify properties within the City which would provide good open space opportunities. 6. Request that the Administration use existing grant writing resources to identify potential opportunities for open space grants. 7. Fund an update of the Open Space Master Plan and expand scope to include: a. Incorporation of the Parks and Recreation Recovery Action Plan (unadopted 5/15/01) b. Open space in addition to trails The Board should actively collaborate with community organizations and private organizations to enhance or maximize funding from all potential sources. • This issue is of critical importance at this time due to the development of our city. Many opportunities will be lost if we do not take a comprehensive look at this issue now. Fortunately,we have a healthy fund balance; it would be in keeping with Council policies to allocate those one-time funds to a one-time use such as an open space trust fund. We urge your support of this initiative with the appropriation of$1 million from the City's fund balance to an Open Space Trust Fund,the appropriation of funds to update the Open Space Master Plan and your support of an ordinance to create a Board. 110 Page 1 of 6 Hardman, Ellie From: Gust-Jenson, Cindy • Sent: Tuesday,August 12, 2003 4:21 PM To: Hardman, Ellie Cc: Weaver, Lehua; Jardine, Janice; Harvey, Marge Categories: Program/Policy Ellie, please copy for Council Members places in COW Annual ULI Conference#583504 Developing Successful intown Housing September 29-30, 2003 The Fairmont Dallas Hotel Dallas,Texas Questions Content of conference program: Contact Richard Haughey at 202-624-7159 or E-mail rh .,gheyauli.a-ra. Registration or special needs: Contact ULI Customer Service at 800-321-5011,or at 410-626-7505 if calling from outside the United States. Registration Form (pdf file) Conference Overview Almost every major city is experiencing an intown housing boom. Demographic shifts, lifestyle trends,suburban traffic,and NIMBYism are driving the development of both new and revitalized intown housing development. Join your peers at this year's conference and hear why intown housing is no longer just for pioneers. The conference will focus on the best practices and innovative approaches that are being employed by both the public and private sectors in creating intown housing. And it will bring together leading land use practitioners in the field, including major developers,designers and architects, public officials,financial institutions,and consultants involved in creating successful, attractive intown housing. Whether you are currently involved in producing intown housing or are considering venturing into this market,this conference will provide you with the insight needed to succeed. Why You Should Attend • • To get connected with the most distinguished professionals, academics,and real estate development executives. • To stay ahead of the competition and get the most current information on the intown housing market. • To understand clearly what is and will be influencing this development niche. • To increase profits and reach key buyers. • To discover the latest strategies on how to find the ultimate urban sites. • And much more! Who Should Attend Developers of intown housing; developers considering venturing into the intown housing market; homebuilders; planners; architects; engineers; attorneys; real estate consultants; lenders and investors; and public officials involved with intown housing issues. Conference Chair Kenneth H. Hughes President UC Urban Dallas,Texas Since founding Kenneth H. Hughes Inc., in 1983 and UC Urban in 1996, Hughes has built developments comprising more than 1 million square feet of office and .y x' shopping center space,for his own investment portfolio as well as for third-party investors.These various developments reflect the company's focus since inception: on developing, leasing,and managing special projects—in prime locations— " particularly inner-city mixed-use developments containing loft apartments,and office,retail,and entertainment uses. Featured Speaker Roberta Brandes Gratz Journalist and Author The Living City: Thinking Small in a Big Way New York New t � York Gratz is an award-winning journalist and urban critic, lecturer, and author of The Living City: Thinking Small in a Big Way and Cities Back from the Edge: New Life for Downtown. She is an international lecturer on urban development issues and a former award-winning reporter for the New York Post. Most recently,she wrote a report for the Rockefeller Brothers Fund,A Frog,A Wooden House,A Stream and A Trail: Ten Years of Community Revitalization in Central Europe. Gratz was appointed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg to the New York City Landmarks Preservation • Commission in February 2003. 8/12/2003 Page 2 of 6 • Speakers Randall Alexander President The Alexander Company • Madison, Wisconsin Harold Barnette President Intercity Properties, LLC Atlanta, Georgia Barry Berkus President B3 Architects/Berkus Design Studios Santa Barbara, California Am Bortz Partner Towne Properties Cincinnati, Ohio Joel D.Cohn Principal Reznick, Fedder,and Silverman Baltimore, Maryland Thomas P.Cox Senior Principal Thomas P. Cox Architects,Inc. Irvine, California Greg Currens Chief Executive Officer Style Interior Design Irvine, California Robert Dunphy Senior Resident Fellow,Transportation Urban Land Institute Washington, D.C. Rochelle T.Grubb Chairman of the Board Grubb Properties, Inc, Lexington, North Carolina JohnL.Guest • Principal Beeler Guest Owens Architects, L.P. Dallas,Texas Art Lomenick Managing Director Trammell Crow Dallas,Texas Susan Mead Partner Jackson and Walker,LLP Dallas,Texas Alice Murray President Alice Murray Company Dallas,Texas Paris Rutherford Vice President RTKL Dallas,Texas Marty Stern Executive Vice President US Equities Realty, LLC Chicago, Illinois Tiffany Sweitzer Executive Director Hoyt Street Properties Portland, Oregon John Tess President Heritage Consulting Group Portland, Oregon Ron Witten President Ron Witten Advisors, LLC Dallas,Texas • Monday, September 29, 2003 8/12/2003 • Page 3 of 6 , 7:30 a.m.-8:30 a.m. Registration 8:30 a.m.-8:45 a.m. Welcome Remarks • Kenneth H. Hughes President UC Urban Dallas,Texas 8:45 a.m.-10:30 a.m. Opening Plenary Session Intown Housing Markets:What's Hot,What's Not Luxury housing is being built in intown locations in many of America's major cities.Are some markets at risk of overbuilding? Are there opportunities in cities with emerging intown housing markets?Who makes up the market and what product are they buying?Can this market trend be sustained?This session will dig beneath the hype and anecdotal evidence to look at the reality of this trend. Developing for this niche market takes special skills and a well-developed understanding of the market. Hear from experts in market analysis, development,and marketing on the importance of understanding this trend in terms of your market. 11:00 a.m.-12:15 p.m. Concurrent Sessions I.Case Study Analysis:Intown Adaptive Use Housing Follow the rehabilitation process of a historic building as it is transformed into luxury intown housing. From selecting the building to acquiring the financing,you will learn what it took to make this transformation a success. Hear how the developers navigated the entitlement process—meeting with historic review boards, planning and designing the rehab,and marketing the finished product. Discover what challenges and obstacles were overcome and what lessons were learned along the way. II.Case Study Analysis:Intown New Housing Development The development team for a new intown housing project will take you through its development process from start to finish. Learn how the team transformed underused land into new vibrant intown housing. Hear about the challenges encountered— from arranging financing,tearing down existing structures,negotiating with the city,and planning and designing the housing, to marketing the finished product. 12:15 p.m.-2:00 p.m. Luncheon and Keynote Presentation Featuring Roberta Brandes Gratz Roberta Brandes Gratz—award-winning journalist and urban critic, lecturer,and author of The Living City: Thinking Small in a Big Way and Cities Back from the Edge: New Life for Downtown—will share her views on how the real:estate community along with city leaders, community activists, business people,and regular citizens can improve the status of their communities. Hear how cities can be revitalized. Learn more about the phenomenon Gratz calls"urban husbandry."Discover how and why cities survive, thrive,and die. 2:00 p.m.-3:15 p.m. Concurrent Sessions • I. Finding Land for Intown Housing Limited land availability, high land costs,and land assembly requirements have led many developers to seek creative solutions to finding building sites.They have acquired and cleared brownfields,former public housing sites, and abandoned properties and have transformed them into new intown housing. Panelists who have found such sites will share their insights on one of the most difficult aspects of developing intown housing—where and how to find,acquire, and assemble the land needed for development. II. Finding Structures for Rehabilitation/Adaptive Use for Intown Housing What do developers look for in an existing structure when considering rehabilitation or adaptive use for intown housing?A panel of the most creative and innovative developers will share firsthand perspectives on the selection process. How do developers decide if they should rehab existing grand apartment homes; convert factories, hotels, offices, and schools; or start from scratch?What factors go into the decision-making process? 3:45 p.m.-5:00 p.m. Interactive Workshops ULI conference attendees consistently agree that Interactive programs provide incomparable take-home value and networking opportunities.The interactive workshops will provide you with a unique opportunity to meet with a wide range of practitioners who will share real-world experiences and insights, and to exchange opinions and information regarding your specific interests, questions,and problems. Choose one of the following four interactive workshops: Just Say Yes to Intown Housing How do you sell high-density intown housing to a skeptical public? How do you make risk-averse neighbors realize that sometimes change is good?These questions and others will be answered by panelists who have gotten a YES to intown housing. When Suburban Developers Go Urban With the ever-increasing demand for intown housing,suburban developers are venturing downtown to build. Is this any easy transition?In this session,you will learn what every suburban developer needs to know before building in the city. Dude,Where's My Parking Space? lust because they want to live in the city doesn't mean they want to give up their car. Hear how developers and buyers/renters have dealt with the ever-increasing problem of where to park their cars! Historic Tax Credits Made Simple Using historic tax credits often is one of the best ways to make feasible the renovation of a historic building into intown housing. However, getting through the laws, rules,and paper involved can often cause brain damage. In this session, you will learn from the experts how to simplify the process. 5:30 p.m.-6:30 p.m. Reception • Tuesday, September 30, 2003 8:30 a.m.-9:45 a.m. Plenary Session 8/12/2003 Page 4 of 6 Putting It AU Together: Financing Intown Housing So you want to develop intown housing?Where do you find the money to do so?In this session, you will learn what the short- and long-term outlooks are for intown housing finance. Developers, attorneys, and financiers of both large and small intown housing projects will tell how they put together financing for their projects. 10:00 a.m.-11:00 a.m. Concurrent Sessions I. Repositioning for an Ever-Changing Market:Strategies for Success Are low interest rates and the sluggish economy having a negative effect on the intown housing market?Are some markets overbuilt?How are developers responding to this ever-changing market?Some highly creative developers will share their strategies on how they are successfully repositioning their products for the new market realities. II.Opportunities for Intown Housing in Smaller Markets Attention-getting, creative,and profitable intown housing developments are being built in many second-tier cities throughout the country. Developers who produce small to large projects in medium-size cities will describe how they have built these projects. Learn what it takes to develop successful intown housing in smaller markets. Discover which cities present the best opportunities for this market niche. 11:15 a.m.-12:30 p.m. Closing Plenary Session Intown Housing Design Trends for the Future What are the latest trends and practices guiding the design of intown housing?Join this panel of architects and developers as they share a fast-paced review of the newest intown housing. See award-winning—and some of the most highly innovative— designs for a range of product types, uses, and sizes that address architectural image, context,density, zoning, parking, infrastructure, and market demands. 12:30 p.m. Conference Program Ends Optional Tours* - Tuesday, September 30, 2003 In conjunction with this year's conference, ULI has organized two optional tours of the area's most successful and unique intown housing projects. While touring the projects,you will meet those intimately involved with the development.They will share with you the project's history,financing, marketing plans, and much more. *An additional fee of$95 applies: see registration form.Tours are limited to 50 registrants. A box lunch is included. 12:45-5:00 p.m. Tour#1. Downtown Loft,Townhouse and Neighborhood Scale Urban Housing There was a time when you couldn't give away housing in downtown Dallas. But with traffic congestion and the revitalization of downtown Dallas, the downtown market has become a loft-,townhouse-, and condominium-friendly residential environment. During this mobile workshop,you will see the latest trends in residential loft spaces,new and renovated condominiums,and mixed-used buildings that will clearly show how downtown Dallas has become one of the hottest intown housing markets. Hear project developers and architects tell the story of downtown Dallas's intown housing renaissance.They will share their experiences and lessons learned as they contributed to the regeneration and growth of this booming market. Learn how city housing was resurrected and how the completed project is envisioned. • 12:45-5:00 p.m. Tour#2.Uptown Dallas: Hip, Happening,and Historic The intown housing development boom is not limited to the central business district. During this mobile workshop,you will tour some of Dallas's most unique residential developments found on the uptown edge. See how you can live,shop,and play all within the same area. You will tour examples of the best use of mixed-market housing—housing developed around transit, new townhomes, brownstones,and much more. Project developers and architects will share their visions for this unique housing market. Learn about the design features,and amenities that are proving most popular to consumers. Learn about today's consumer lifestyle-driven choices and how they are contributing to growth on the urban edge. Registration Information We encourage you to register by September 22,2003. After that date, an additional$100 fee will apply. Written confirmation will be sent to participants who register and pay in full by September 22, 2003. Registration Fees ULI Member: $995 Nonmember*: $1,145 Public/Nonprofit: $375 Student**: $125 Optional Tour I- Downtown Lofts: $95 Optional Tour II - Uptown Dallas: $95 *If you are interested in becoming a ULI member,call 800-321-5011 or"Join online" **Valid full-time student identification card is required. Registration Form (pdf file) You can register four ways. Registrations will be processed only when full payment is received. 1. Mail completed registration forms to ULI at Department 188, Washington, D.C. 20055-0188. 2. Fax your form with credit card information to ULI at 202-624-7147. 3. Call 800-321-5011 with credit card information. 4. Register Online. ULI uses a secure server. Cancellation Policy Registrants who send a written cancellation that is received at ULI's Meetings and Events Department(fax to 202-624-7147) by September 22,2003, will receive a refund, subject to an administrative fee of$100. Refunds will not be granted for cancellations received after this date. However, registrants may transfer their registrations to other members of their organization. A$50 transfer fee will apply. Transfer Policy You may transfer your registration to another member of your organization. A$50 fee will apply. If a registration is transferred to a ULI member,the ULI member fee applies. If registration is transferred to a nonmember,the nonmember fee applies. 8/12/2003 Page 5 of 6 ULI Membership Membership in ULI is held by individuals, not companies. Membership benefits therefore cannot be transferred to other individuals with the same company or public agency. For information on membership, call 800-321-5011 or 410-626-7500, or visit ULI's Web site at www.joinuli.org. Hotel Reservations The Fairmont Dallas 1717 North Akard Street Dallas,Texas 75201 Reservations: 800-257-7544 or 214-720-5270 Guest fax: 214-720-5269 Single/Double: $149 Reservation Deadline: September 8, 2003 When calling to reserve your room, identify yourself as a ULI Conference registrant to receive the discounted group rate.The hotel requires a one-night deposit(credit card)to confirm a reservation. Contact the hotel directly for details on its cancellation policy. Check-in time is 3:00 p.m. and checkout time is 12:00 p.m. (noon). Airline Discounts Savings of 5 to 15 percent are available on United Airlines and its code-share partner,US Airways. Call,or have your travel agent call, United Airlines Meeting Desk at 800-521-4041 and refer to ULI Meeting ID #581PT. Dedicated reservationists are on duty daily from 8:00 a.m.to 10:00 p.m. eastern standard time. Book early to take advantage of promotional fares that give you the greatest discount. Mileage Plus members receive full credit for all miles flown to this meeting. Discounts apply on United, United Express, and United code-share flights (UA*)operated by US Airways,US Airways Express, and Air Canada. ULI—the Urban Land Institute The Urban Land Institute is a nonprofit education and research institute supported by its members. Its mission is to provide responsible leadership in the use of land in order to enhance the total environment. Established in 1936,the Institute has more than 18,000 members and associates representing all aspects of land use and development disciplines. ULI sponsors education programs and forums to encourage an international exchange of ideas and sharing of experience; initiates research that anticipates emerging land use trends and issues and proposes creative solutions based on that research; provides advisory services; and publishes a wide variety of materials to disseminate information on land use and development. For more information about ULI, visit its Web site at www.uli.org or call 800-321-5011. Program Planner Richard M. Haughey Director of Multifamily Development ULI-the Urban Land Institute Washington, D.C. • ULI Corporate Partners ULI Benefactors Bank of America Deloitte&Touche Ernst&Young Real Estate Group PricewaterhouseCoopers The Wall Street Journal ULI Foundation ULI Patron GE Capital Real Estate GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation ULI Executive Sponsors Cushman&Wakefield Morgan Stanley This list of sponsors is current as of July 15, 2003. For information on sponsorship or showcase opportunities,contact Bennett Gray at 202-624-7062 or E-mail bgravhtuli.orq. Related Resources . x Developing Successful Infill Housing Diane R. Suchman Learn how to develop profitable, market-rate infill housing in urban and inner-ring suburban areas.This new book explains how to find and take advantage of opportunities and overcome obstacles. Each stage of the • t development process is covered, including assessing the market,financing,assembling land, planning, design,the regulatory process,addressing community concerns, and marketing.Twelve case studies describe the development of flourishing multifamily, mixed-use,townhouse,adaptive use, and manufactured home projects throughout the nation. Order#D105 To order,call 800-321-5011 or visit www.bookstore.uli.orq. Conference Audio Recordings 4,Audio recordings of conference sessions are now available through ULI.To order,call 800-321-5011 (outside the U.S.,call 410-626-7500) or visit the ULI Bookstore at www.bookstore.uli.orq. Conference recordings may be purchased as complete sets only. Please specify cassette tape or CD. Each set includes a free MP3 CD with • all sessions on one handy disk. $129 ULI Members/$159 Nonmembers, plus a$6 shipping charge. • Return to Tor. 8/12/2003 * UTAH ova HERITAGE. err FOUNDATION August 6, 2003 Mayor Rocky Anderson Salt Lake City Corporation 451 S. State Street Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Dear Mayor Anderson: You recently announced that your administration is interested in a November election ballot slot for a general obligation bond for the citizens of Salt Lake City. Our understanding is that if passed,the bond could fund the renovation of several cultural facilities in our city, including two that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places—Wasatch Springs Plunge and the Hansen Planetarium/Salt Lake City Public Library. We see how this could greatly benefit the city and its residents. In our capacity as a statewide historic preservation organization, we have assisted other communities in passing bond initiatives to renovate public historic buildings such as Brigham Young Academy in Provo and the Municipal Building and Egyptian Theater in Ogden. With our experience in grassroots advocacy and education, we hope that Salt Lake City would be open to discussing it's plans with us in hopes that a strong partnership could help pass such a bond. It is our experience that what makes passing a bond attractive to the voters is a fabulous and rock solid use for the building and a plan for its rehabilitation that the voters can believe in. We of course would like to consider the best options for uses in historic buildings, as well as timing for raising public awareness and getting the word out for the bond. We hope you are also considering these factors right now and would look forward to a conversation about these facilities and the potential bond election. Sincerely, Kirk Huffaker Assistant Director • Memorial House, Memory Grove Park PO Box 28 • Salt Lake City, Utah 84110-0028 Phone: 801-533-0858 • Fax: 801-537-1245 0 To: SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL From: RESIDENTS of North Bonneville Drive, Saddle Hill Drive, Northland Drive, Northcliffe Drive, Terrace Hill Drive, and Eighteenth Avenue Dear Council Members, We have reviewed the Salt Lake City Planning Commission's acceptance of Petition No. 400-03-07 which requested an amendment to the Salt Lake City Site Development Ordinance, Section 18.28.30.B.11c. We urge the Salt Lake City Council to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation and to pass the above amendment to the Site Ordinance. Please see the attached copy of the petition signed by /=,y-j")/ neighbors and citizens which was submitted to the Planning Co 8 ission. Thank yo'u for your • consideration of this request. 11101. l'k " ( A_ . . /a ,, 7 7/70/S - kel A 4fti.via) )'7/-i,,e ;cL)1 ' -'%-4iL'" , '. <;, .tt Y-64-16- 11-1 61: ' Wa fc- '',---6. ifeKW ,t-40e--e /<(- M ta \ - ___k) __ ,_3‘if-tool 5'e-, g///o j "A. 52/767/ ' 1 1 > -,' Z e-t. /74 (...."4.4i /iFbiate2 l'\>c .,i ?b'X./(4)- /3/„J.,z(.44.--,t1 e A470 _, • _, J) - ..As.e, cAi., 6 cl .....,..-7. . Aa,;64( ii4g". - 00? ''';. 4-� z( - -flaw 1.614,1 pR. p m *lealfu7� o ,- L� IA 5o,,<Q1..e %&,Q, Q-ec - 3 i G(T? /d3 J 3'"�94,E N(Jr .o ,t5 ('" CC, ) 33c) ---773 L.--7:k vi'5-1-c5p At€ at /-(-6,-- N /lam �}vewue f . 0 322-t� tt7 ()7 � ,...-- ':kAA,L, ,, 5 Ce - 5-Le_ 3.55----q0 • PETITION TO SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION After reviewing the lot information and visiting the site of 1085 East North Bonneville Drive (house under construction)we, the residents of North Bonneville Drive, Saddle Hill Drive, and Northland Drive conclude that there is no difference between the size and elevation of 1085 East and 1099 East North Bonneville Drive lots. We believe the Salt Lake City Planning Department followed the inspection rules and regulations in issuing a permit to 1085 East North Bonneville Drive to Mr. Amir Cornell. We are urging the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to allow him to finish his house. We have seen a computer image of the completed house which is attractive and in keeping with the neighborhood. NAME ADDRESS PHONE C‘i -, • C CSC— 6 13 N GAt,i,l__. i)y^vim 0 (. 0 i 7 -_\ g-cct) C . 0 Cam, icio KI . BoOhzV1 (LI bR . 3Z8 -- (n3S . . 'frcli/Ofri . / 141r0 6714/Ley .P s'r as /rU�li,l'Avr cv*AA ��rlCi .O�� 52-757 / � I L�'� a.... L-pi• 2 / A kT I e 'DVV; - , 44-'- 4 el- 1�7i2 A 1 IA )�o tiA. .3e V. 6q,, 1 67 i !l 4- � 4-et U ) iiogTo-L-- Au r1u 341 -g_ 1 `;r-''1/�a M Z,?J J (.�� loies-v es- G:�1IoiZ1'�l j �,.t.;1'✓a�1' gz1� i>f2/.)1 cb'- L`:5 -/000 / V if i N\` ; 6 e.,,a ;�, 6 2- Ai 01_ ers,' llro'V'C.i j L�r r/i`- � ' ,� (. 7-J 9'?,� �,i � .-��t.%k=-NiL7\PLL cam- -7>2 • 04Lif) nY'eG c ry .Po a larc,ct H —71 .2 Kor 1,cund -DC+ �� 3s- 9-gCOS '1) z �vl �C�i� �U U k I &7 ( Suckik i (( P`^�' � , "/ y (344-•- 't/lie /11/4 f_ . A , *464,,- */--frez& ).e.e.1.•,- - ( USG w N1^ _ � � 363- 34- 7Z p /0 Wk`, U�•,, f, M� /) ( d 2, 32 •5 % 7 ry 71 � �� vr►t�..,7)� 1 - +44(--- Z l 6ACC)8-52 A%r-h c l 5 `-72 0 - 6v7 drrt7,44ZeDv� 3SI -e6- 3 a��u; `t Name Address Phone Number a/tol rIo-0,dt-- 4 Jf/✓: /yr)0ei,- 1ie r, • c3-e--0 ief' i heAtte./.___ 7 k). /061/-61 laid L . 3(e3-h1/00 / 1(671 '6/e CW✓UdN ei// /Vozil/d/eLJ Q, i SZ!-z 30_5- c):_,_,._- _,..gy. ._ ape.....,,Li," 7),-._fba„) ) ii -1 -y , /1 J� J1•)c /J7J�- At o.,neir,Ve w.i---- P.t,, 0Ae YleI /8,-L .5(.6 cff sr/t o 3 j -I 'EA Noc2:-:-\-kv\E- - Z N,,,,,,s, r> ,----Q_ --,,ervc--z�z- si,_ '2_0 via, %N '-rw-,s -1,47..�-►•0 fy,./..,,La. Sin... 2�f1c3 �31-97•7_ Imo."', live,1 OK Al. ne,:/� f 4 ,- .:G&,a,idt -/-e- a-gu2.-- .2A-- c--&-A-4--Lo-y aryi/V,Ev,i-,7 c..41, c_ t&,... ;'a c>an.0 . art.e 6 tifrna 75 -E /t/o,--te<cves D,-- 53 3-9Q,2`-f ,/.7c-- -,5,---:-... 1. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: August 8,2003 SUBJECT: Traffic Management Program Performance Audit AFFECT W COUNCIL DISTRICTS: Citywide STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears, Budget&Policy Analyst ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. AND CONTACT PERSON: Community and Economic Development Department, Alison Weyher KEY ELEMENTS The Administration has provided responses to the Traffic Management Program performance audit and program modifications in response to the City Council request for a program review prior to expenditure of funds on the program this fiscal year. At the August 7,2003 Council Meeting,City Council Members indicated that they will likely want to hold a public hearing on traffic calming at the September 9,2003 meeting. KEY CONCEPTS The following are comments by Council Members about the traffic calming program that they would like to discuss during the briefing on August 12 and have available for public comment for the hearing on September 9,2003. • Should the City allow privately funded traffic control measures in the public way? • How might the Council encourage the Transportation Division to continue working with neighborhoods to create their own traffic calming solutions? Currently,the process begins with a neighborhood meeting where the residents are invited to participate in a neighborhood traffic calming committee(NTCC). The NTCC works closely with the Transportation Division to design a traffic calming plan for a particular street A survey is sent to street residents and property owners to establish whether there is sufficient support for the plan. If so,the Transportation Division initiates a trial or test during which residents and property owners are surveyed again to verify their support of permanent measures. • Should impacts on surrounding streets be factored into the criteria system? • Is an expanded notification process beyond the current practice (notification is made to • residents living on the street)necessary? Page 1 • • Would it be helpful to include as part of the program a presentation before the local community council on the proposed traffic calming devices before the City begins installation? • • Should the City consider the use of increased traffic enforcement to augment the traffic calming measures employed by the City?The City could increase the use of traffic patrol officers in heavily traveled areas or neighborhood areas that have a demonstrated traffic speed problem. • Should the Council enhance speeding fines? The Council could,by ordinance, establish stricter fines for speeding on neighborhood streets. Signage and a public campaign could be incorporated into the ordinance revision to allow for greater visibility of the differing fines on neighborhood streets. • Should the City pursue the use of devices such as PhotoCop (by State statute requires the presence of a peace officer)? • Should the City increase the amount of speed boards that City owns? (The Council would need to provide additional resources to enable the Administration to deploy them with greater frequency in areas requesting traffic relief.) • Could neighborhood design guidelines be implemented to encourage modifications that increase pedestrian activity and enhance features that create a neighborhood scale? These approaches sometimes have a traffic calming effect. • The Fire Department has indicated that, due to the enhanced safety provided by speed • bumps,they do not oppose their installation and they have confirmed that speed bumps do not create an unmanageable response time problem. Because this comes up so frequently,the City Council may wish to clarify whether speed bumps influence emergency response times and impact passengers in need of medical assistance. The Council may also wish to clarify whether speed bumps implemented on street slopes impact snow removal efficiency and are speed bumps subject to ice build up during the winter months. • Should the Administration be encouraged to pursue a system to track the effectiveness of a traffic calming device after it has been implemented for a specified period? • Should the Administration be asked to clarify how data is analyzed in relation to neighborhood traffic? The Council receives questions about whether traffic speed and volume are based upon the overall percentage of increased traffic on the street or based upon data comparisons from other areas of the City. ➢ AUDIT ANALYSIS The City Council contracted with Deloitte&Touche to conduct performance audits on several operating programs and functions within Salt Lake City municipal government.The audit of the Traffic Management Program was conducted with direction received from the City Council. The scope of the audit included: • • Comparing the City's traffic calming measures to best practices • Page 2 • Evaluation of policies, procedures and service performance of the program • • Evaluation of the street selection process • Determination of construction timing once the street is selected • Assessment of the City's use of creative traffic calming solutions • Evaluation of the notification procedures • Determination of program funding According to the auditors the program appeared to be innovative and no significant deficiencies were noted. It appeared to the auditors that the desired results for the program were generally being achieved and that the program was consistent with the comparison cities.The City Council has received comment about the number of cities used as comparison. Data on three comparison cities was included in the audit. The Council may want to specify the minimum number of comparison cities as further audits are contracted for and audits are performed. While including more comparison city information may increase the cost of the audits,it will very likely enhance the value of the information provided. The Administration has provided management responses to each of the observations in the audit. They are included in the final version that was printed on April 11,2003. The Administration has also supplied additional responses in the transmittal dated July 23,2003. The observations and recommendations from the auditors are summarized below. 1. Compare the City's traffic calming measure to industry best practices. • The traffic calming measures employed by Salt Lake City were predominantly the same as those employed in comparable cities and best practices.The one possible consideration for the City was the possible adoption of colored bike lanes in the Traffic Management Program toolkit. The Transportation Division notes that it is monitoring the use of special dyes in the road surfaces and also the different bicycle lane paints. Both options are expensive,but when the material price reduces and the products prove to be durable the Division is willing to add this feature to the Traffic Management Program toolkit. 2. Evaluate policies,procedures and service performance of the Traffic Management Program. The Traffic Management Program appears to be effective. The process involves the community and the service provided to the stakeholders in the program is also effective. The resources allocated to the program are fully managed and the project completion time is faster than the comparison cities. It was noted that Salt Lake City does not allow private funding for traffic calming measures. The auditors recommended that the City enable private funding for projects. The Transportation Division noted that it is following the direction of the City Council and not including privately funded projects. Concern about staff allocation and prioritizing private and publicly funded projects is expressed. • 3. Evaluate the process of how streets are selected and prioritized for inclusion in the Traffic Calming Program. Page 3 The auditors reported that minor variations existed between Salt Lake City's Eligibility Point and Ranking System Formula and the ranking systems of Portland, Seattle and Vancouver. The auditors recommended increasing the number of available points in the eligibility point and • ranking system formula by expanding the pedestrian generator category,including points for vehicles traveling at a high rate of speed, and incorporating accident information. Information regarding program effectiveness and neighborhood satisfaction was not gathered by the Salt Lake City Traffic Management Program. The auditors recommended implementing a feedback process. The Administration has responded that the impact to pedestrians have been reasonable addressed but that they will review the benefits of additional emphasis of pedestrian generators. They also note that data in the other categories is not readily available. The Council might want to review the data collection and reporting capabilities of the Police Department to see if additional resources are needed. 4. Determine how long it takes for traffic calming measures to be put in place once a street is selected. • The auditors summarized the data on construction and testing that was provided by the Administration.The auditors did not make any recommendations for this item. The Administration points out in its response that traffic calming plans are now being completed in a significantly shorter time frame than those done during the audit period. 5. Assess the City's use of creative solutions in addition to the traditional speed bumps and • humps(e.g.,what types of traffic calming measures are utilized or could be by the City). The Traffic Management Program appears to focus on speed bumps. The auditors recommended that the City consider utilizing more traffic circles. The Administration notes that the residents in the traffic calming program favor the traffic humps and tables over other program measures.The Administration indicates that the humps and tables are the most effective traffic calming solutions,but also the most"punitive" to drivers. 6. Evaluate the procedures used to identify and notify residents of proposed traffic calming measures. Notification policies and procedures were not clearly stated. The auditors recommended developing a policy and procedure to identify and notify residents,property owners and other stakeholders of future traffic calming projects. The Administration agrees that the notification portion of the process needs to be more detailed. They proposed several additional enhancements after speaking with City Council Members and amongst themselves. 7. Determine the adequacy of funding of the Traffic Management Program. The audit concluded that the program has sufficient funding for current operating methods. If • the scope of the project were to change the funding would have to change accordingly. The Page 4 Council will need to allocate funding in future fiscal years for the continued operation of the • program. The Administration agrees that the funding is adequate but that any changes to the program will require changes to the budget appropriation. PROGRAM ANALYSIS REQUESTED BY THE COUNCIL On June 24,2003 the City Council approved the fiscal year 2003-2004 budget with the condition that a full report on the traffic calming measures is provided to the Council before further funds were spent on that program. In effect this created what has been referred to as a"moratorium" on the traffic calming program.The motion included specific program criteria that the Administration was to respond to during the briefing on the performance audit. The briefing was to address the following criteria: 1. A notification plan for the proposed traffic calming measures The Administration details its notification plan and points out in the response that it is making changes to the program documentation and traffic calming signage. 2. Impacts on surrounding streets The Administration has responded that the notification process improvements will insure that potential impacts are identified and data collection will help determine how large the project area should be. 3. Implementation of a"toolbox" of traffic calming measures 11111 The Administration is in agreement with this recommendation.The transportation office may require certain measures to be included in a traffic calming plan to make it successful. 4. Review to assure ADA ramp and sidewalk assess and coordination among City departments All traffic calming projects are currently reviewed by the Engineering Division of the City.The initial review of the program involved all City departments and focused on ensuring that the proposed measures do not affect ADA ramp and sidewalk access and that additional unexpected expenses are not incurred as a result of the placement of the traffic calming measures. 5. Traffic impact determination with regard to community destinations such as universities and hospitals The Administration is working to insure that the proposed plan does not affect the larger traffic concerns of the area. It is the intent of the traffic calming program to slow down traffic, not to divert it to other streets or neighborhoods. > BUDGET RELATED FACTS • The City Council funds the operation of the Traffic Calming program in the Capital Improvement Program. Staff support for the program is budgeted for and supervised by the Community and Economic Development Department,Transportation Division. Funding for the Page 5 construction and installation of traffic control devices has been dependent on the amount of remaining funds in the traffic calming cost centers. There is currently about$300,000 in remaining appropriation. • During the fiscal year 2003-2004 budget process the Administration did not recommend funding for the program. If the moratorium on the program is lifted and construction is allowed to proceed the program will need additional funds in future fiscal years.The remaining appropriation should be sufficient to complete projects planned for fiscal year 2003-2004. If concerns still exist in the future, the Council may wish to make any appropriations to this program contingent on use of a variety of traffic calming measures and demonstrated consideration of traffic impacts on surrounding streets and on surrounding neighbor's receiving notification of the proposed traffic calming implementation. Should the Council elect to support the allowance of private funding for traffic calming,there would be a significant workload increase in the Transportation Division. This would need to be looked at from a budget standpoint,to ensure that all costs are covered by the programs that are requested with private funding and it would need to be looked at from a policy point of view to determine whether the projects funded with the general fund and the private parties.receive equal or differing priority status. > BACKGROUND The following is information on the Traffic Management Program.This information is contained in the performance audit that was prepared by Deloitte&Touche and was provided to the Council for the Capital Improvement Program briefings in May and June of 2003.This information was taken directly from the audit findings booklet and the figures and dollar • amounts are for the later calendar year 2002 period. The figures and dollar amounts have not been updated to reflect the current state of the program. "To date, the program has received $1,500,000 in CIP funds from the City Council. To date, $562,000 has been spent on construction; approximately $238,000 has been spent for such items as testing equipment, speed boards, neighborhood mailings, supplies, temporary employees, Traffic Calming seminars and the Pace Car Program. An amount of$52,300 is owed for the installation of the testing equipment. This currently leaves $647,700 in the program. Salary expenses are allocated in the Division of Transportation budget. Currently, the program is staffed with one Traffic Calming Coordinator. A graduate student intern is assisting the Traffic Management Program on a part-time basis. Part-time or other assistance is utilized on an as needed basis." "There have been approximately 285 requests for traffic calming made to the Division of Transportation. To date, the program has completed 32 traffic calming projects and 3 others are in varying stages of the plan design and implementation process. Of the 32 completed projects, 24 resulted in the construction of traffic calming devices and 8 resulted in the closure of the project without the installation of any traffic calming devices. The causes of project completion without device construction are generally the result of • neighborhoods deciding that they no longer want the devices, and/or Page 6 neighborhoods unable to reach a consensus on proposed measures. There are approximately 105 eligible streets in the project queue awaiting traffic • calming measures. Over 145 streets have been evaluated and deemed ineligible because they did not meet the threshold necessary to implement traffic calming measures. Twenty-one streets are scheduled for an initial traffic calming eligibility study. The Traffic Management Program receives approximately 20 telephone and/or email inquiries per week. Personnel respond to a variety of inquiries, ranging from general public information inquiries to information requests from other traffic calming departments. TMP receives 1-2 formal petitions each month from neighborhoods wishing to enter the Program." Contained below is a list of streets that the Traffic Management Program is currently working with. • 600 South between 900 East and 1300 East- being done in conjunction with an Engineering reconstruction project. • 1300 South, Glendale to Montgomery Street-being done in conjunction with an Engineering reconstruction project. • 11th Ave B Street to I Street- cost is estimated to be approximately $40,000 • 1500 East, 1700 South to 2100 South- cost is estimated to be approximately $70,000. • 600 West, North Temple to 600 North - cost is estimated to be approximately $80,000. IP • 1700 East, 1700 South to 2100 South- Plan is not yet developed. • 1900 East, 1700 South to 2100 South - Plan is not yet developed. • Imperial Street, 2700 South to 3000 South-Plan is not yet developed. • Bonneville Drive, between St. Mary's and Oak Hills- under review for construction. Of the four existing Traffic Calming cost centers, three contain unencumbered cash and appropriations. Traffic Calming Cost Centers with Cash and Appropriation Remaining nt ::..Appro .ariatiou:::::;.>:..::::::>::::>:::::»»:::::>>;:<:>. Traffic Calming 83-99014 $2,073 $2,073 Traffic Calming 83-00014 $45,461 $45,550 Traffic Calming 83-03014 $249,912 $249,912 Total Remainin: $297,446 $297,535 cc: Rocky Fluhart,Cindy Gust-Jenson, Alison Weyher,Chief Dinse, David Dobbins,Tim Harpst,Scott Vaterlaus, and Craig Timothy File location: Michael\Staff Reports\ 0 Page 7 ■ ■ ■ .40 Deloitte SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION ■ & Touche SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH ■ a � ■ • / F r��.i.K t` • \• v • • • • 1140 • • • PERFORMANCE AUDIT OF TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ April 11 , 2003 ■ 11111) Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu I 111 Table of Contents I. Executive Summary 2 Scope and Objectives 2 Overall Conclusion 2 . Methodology 3 IL Background and Understanding 3 Traffic Management Program 3 III. Observations and Recommendations 4 . Objective 1 Compare the City's traffic calming measures to industry best practices. 4 Objective 2 Evaluate policies,procedures and service performance of the Traffic Management Program. 6 . Objective 3 Evaluate the process of how streets are selected and prioritized. 8 Objective 4 . Determine how long it takes for traffic calming measures to be put in place once a street is selected 10 Objective 5 1111110 Assess the City's use of creative solutions in addition to the traditional speed bumps and humps. (e.g. What types of traffic calming measures are utilized by the City and what types could potentially be utilized by Salt Lake City.) 11 Objective 6 Evaluate the procedures used to identify and notify residents of proposed traffic calming measures 12 Objective 7 Determine the adequacy of funding of the Traffic Management Program. 13 IV. Appendices 14 Appendix A Comparison of Traffic Calming Measures 14 1 Appendix B Traffic Calming Program Metrics Comparison 19 Appendix C Salt Lake City Traffic Management Eligibility Point&Ranking System Formula 20 1 appendix D ' Salt Lake City Traffic Project Timelines 21 Appendix E Traffic Management Program(TMP)Application and Evaluation Process 22 I Salt Lake City Corporation Traffic Management Program I I I. Executive Summary . We have completed the Performance Audit of the Traffic Management Program for Salt Lake City Corporation. The Traffic Management Program is located within the Division of Transportation. The Performance Audit was conducted with the direction received from the City Council. The Audit was performed in accordance with the Government Auditing Standards. SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES • Our audit scope included a review of the projects, practices and procedures of the Traffic Management Program as of December 20, 2002. The Council identified seven objectives to be completed in conjunction with this audit. The objectives are: 1. Compare the City's traffic calming measures to industry best practices. 2. Evaluate policies, procedures and service performance of the Traffic Management Program. 3. Evaluate the process of how streets are selected and prioritized for inclusion in the Traffic Management Program. . 4. Determine how long it takes for traffic calming measures to be put in place once a street is selected. 5. Assess the City's use of creative solutions in addition to the traditional speed bumps and humps (e.g., what types of traffic calming measures are utilized or could be utilized by the City). 6. Evaluate the procedures used to identify and notify residents of proposed traffic calming measures. 7. Determine the adequacy of funding of the Traffic Management Program. OVERALL CONCLUSION 1 Based on our analysis, the Traffic Management Program appeared to be innovative in the development and implementation of traffic calming measures. No significant deficiencies were noted and it appeared that the desired results for the program were generally being achieved. The performance of the program was generally consistent with other traffic calming programs reviewed in connection with our study. I To assist the Traffic Management Program in their effort to continuously improve, several best practice recommendations and suggestions have been included in this report. Management's responses to these suggestions are also included with this report. I 1 Salt Lake City Corporation Traffic Management Program 2 1 N METHODOLOGY To accomplish the project objectives, we reviewed program documentation, interviewed traffic calming personnel, reviewed current practices within the industry and in place at selected cities, conducted analysis, identified opportunities for improvement and developed recommendations. Knowledge centers for traffic calming information and best practices were researched and reviewed. Comparable cities of Portland, Seattle and Vancouver, Canada were identified and researched to gain an understanding of traffic calming performance and measures utilized in those jurisdictions. . The Traffic Calming team held work sessions with Deloitte & Touche to review and validate findings and conclusions, and to jointly develop recommendations that would be appropriate to assist Salt Lake City Corporation in improving its operations and achieving its goals. II. Background and Understanding ■ TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ,111PF The Traffic Management Program, also known as the Traffic Calming Program, was created in 1998. Program founders researched other traffic calming programs both domestically and internationally to identify the most effective traffic calming measures. These measures were presented to community discussion groups to elicit community feedback and to foster a collaborative working relationship. The goal of the Traffic Management Program is to implement resources, either physical or psychological, that will reduce speeding, influence commuters to use commuter streets and affect driver behavior in such a way that safety and the travel experience of other road users, including pedestrians and bicyclists, will be improved.' Throughout the last four years of operation, the Traffic Management Program has worked to keep abreast of traffic calming innovations and trends. As a result, the Traffic Management Program has undergone four enhancements and expansions, with the most recent revision completed in 2001. The current process is documented in Appendix E. To date, the program has received $1,500,000 in CIP funds from the City Council, of which $562,000 has been spent on construction. Approximately $238,000 has been spent for items 1 1110 ' "Traffic Management Program",Salt Lake City Community&Economic Development Department, Transportation Division,June 2001,p. 1. 1 Review of Salt Lake City Corporation Traffic Calming 3 such as testing equipment, speed boards, neighborhood mailings, supplies, temporary employees; Traffic Calming seminars and the Pace Car program. Approximately $52,300 is in the process of being billed for the installation and removal of testing equipment. This leaves $647,700 in the . program for future expenditures on the above type activities. Salary expenses are allocated in the Division of Transportation budget. Currently the program is staffed with one Traffic Calming Coordinator. A graduate student intern is assisting the Traffic Management Program on a part- time basis. Part-time or other assistance is utilized on an as needed basis. • . There have been approximately 288 requests for traffic calming projects made to the Division of Transportation. There are approximately 100 eligible streets in the project queue awaiting traffic • calming measures. Over 130 streets have been evaluated and deemed ineligible because they did not meet the threshold necessary to implement traffic calming measures. Twenty-two streets are scheduled for an initial traffic calming eligibility study. The Traffic Management Program receives approximately twenty telephone and/or email inquiries per week. Personnel respond to a variety of inquiries, ranging from general public information inquiries to information requests . from other traffic calming departments. TMP receives one to two formal petitions each month from neighborhoods wishing to enter the Program. • To date, the program has completed thirty-two traffic calming projects and three others are in varying stages of the plan design and implementation process. Of the thirty-two completed projects, twenty-four resulted in the construction of traffic calming devices and eight resulted in ■ the closure of the project without the installation of any traffic calming devices. The causes of Oak project completion without device construction are generally the result of neighborhoods deciding that they no longer want the devices and/or neighborhoods unable to reach a consensus on proposed measures. Testing and construction of traffic calming measures are restricted by seasonal weather conditions and are generally limited to the milder months between April and October. Due to ■ seasonality as well as other constraints, only nine to eleven traffic calming projects are generally ■ completed within a year. ■ ■ III. Observations and Recommendations ■ OBJECTIVE 1 ■ ■ Compare the City's traffic calming measures to industry best practices. ■ METHODOLOGY ■ We reviewed Salt Lake City's "Traffic Management Program"handbook and interviewed traffic calming personnel to determine the types of measures included in Salt Lake City's traffic calming "toolkit". All data on traffic measure success and number of measures implemented were obtained from traffic calming personnel. We reviewed traffic calming knowledge centers in an attempt to determine best practices. Traffic calming staffs in Portland, Seattle and ■ Review of Salt Lake City Corporation Traffic Calming 4 N S Vancouver were interviewed to gain an understanding of best practices and traffic calming operations in each city. Salt Lake City's traffic calming toolkit was compared to the toolkits utilized in Portland, Seattle and Vancouver. To the extent that best practices could be determined, we compared Salt Lake City's toolkit to best practices. A comparison summary between the cities is included as Appendix A to this report. CONCLUSION Based on our analysis, the Traffic Management Program appeared to be innovative in the development and implementation of traffic calming measures. The Traffic Management Program had diverse options in its toolkit to address traffic calming concerns. Salt Lake City's toolkit included unique measures that were not included in the toolkits of the . other three cities examined. These measures included: adopt a crosswalk and a selection of pavement markings to psychologically narrow a street. Vancouver used colored bike lanes, as did many European cities. Portland was studying the feasibility of using colored bike lanes, whereas Seattle and Salt Lake City did not have this option in their toolkits. Salt Lake City had significantly less traffic circles than the other cities examine. All four cities made use of speed humps. The general consensus and best practice research indicated that speed humps were the most cost effective way to reduce speed and volume. As well, stop signs were considered to be a . potentially dangerous traffic calming measure. Its use should be limited. Oak 1.1 OBSERVATION • Although the traffic calming measures employed by Salt Lake City were predominantly the same as those employed in comparable cities and best practices, we did note that colored bike lanes were not included in Salt Lake City's toolkit. • CONSIDERATION I Consider the adoption of colored bike lanes in the Traffic Management Program toolkit. An analysis of best practices and comparable cities indicated that colored bicycle conflict lanes were commonly used. We recommend that the Traffic Management Program consider adding this measure to its toolkit. This will provide staff with another traffic calming option to choose from when addressing bicycle safety. MANAGEMENT RESPONSE We have done a preliminary evaluation on the use of colored bike lanes. While it appears to be a promising concept it's still experimental and very costly. We intend to continue to evaluate its use before determining if it is worth doing/offering in Salt Lake City. 1 Review of Salt Lake City Corporation Traffic Calming 5 111 OBJECTIVE 2 procedures and service performance of the Traffic Management Program. Evaluate policies, g ogra . METHODOLOGY We reviewed Salt Lake City's "Traffic Management Program" and interviewed traffic calming personnel to determine TMP policies and procedures as of November 1, 2002. Data on program staffing, funding and service performance was collected from traffic calming personnel. Project completion and timeline information was calculated from project results provided by traffic calming staff. These results included all completed projects from the program inception date of 111 January 1, 1998 to December 20, 2002. We conducted research in an attempt to determine best practices. Traffic calming staffs in Portland, Seattle and Vancouver were interviewed to gain an . understanding of their process and service performance as of November 1, 2002. Salt Lake City's policies and procedures were compared to those of Portland, Seattle and Vancouver. A summary chart of service performance information was created. Program information across all four cities was reviewed and evaluated to determine service performance for Salt Lake City. The • results are outlined in Appendix B. • CONCLUSION • Based on our analysis, policies and procedures utilized by the Traffic Management Program ■• appeared to be effective. The process involves community members and solicits affected community member feedback before proceeding through each phase. The Traffic Management • Program's service performance also appeared to be effective. Although the Traffic Management Program was staffed with one full-time employee and one half-time equivalent, the completion of nine to eleven projects per year indicated that the Program was effectively managing its . resources. While project timelines ranged from three to forty-four months, the average time from the application to the project completion was nineteen months, slightly better than the other three cities examined. The average time between the initial community letters to the project completion was sixteen months and the median was fourteen months. MANAGEMENT INPUT As a result of the extensive review and modification of the program, the number of steps and time required to develop and construct a traffic calming plan has been significantly shortened. Part of the reduction in time is due to now having a design and construction contractor on retainer to start work on projects as soon as the planning is done. Since the moratorium, 14 projects have been developed and implemented at an average of 14 months each. Pure traffic calming projects actually take less time, but traffic calming has also been incorporated in road rebuild projects. These take longer because they go with the time schedule of the road rebuild design and construction. 411 Review of Salt Lake City Corporation Traffic Calming 6 2.1 OBSERVATION Salt Lake City does not allow private funding for traffic calming measures. 1111 RECOMMENDATION Enable private funding for projects. Comparable cities of Portland, Seattle and Vancouver allowed the private purchase of approved devices, whereas Salt Lake City does not. Although the existing point system ensured equality among neighborhoods and impartiality to public funding, we recommend that the City consider enabling private funding for traffic calming projects. Private funding of lower priority projects allows communities to address their traffic . calming issues in the timeline they prefer and potentially reduces the amount of taxpayer funds used in these projects. • MANAGEMENT RESPONSE We have been requested by the City Council in the past to not include privately funded 111 projects. We are very sensitive to concerns raised by some residents that no part of the city receives higher attention from the city than any other with respect to ability to pay. Our current approach ensures that all neighborhood streets are treated equally with respect to working on the high impact areas first and not requiring any private funding • regardless of the ability of the neighborhood to pay. . If privately funding is to be allowed, a policy needs to be developed to address a significant issue: additional staffing would be needed to develop and implement traffic . calming plans for privately funded projects or existing staffing will be pulled from working on the higher priority projects. I 2.2 OBSERVATION Information regarding program effectiveness and neighborhood satisfaction was not gathered by the Salt Lake City Traffic Management Program. RECOMMENDATION Implement a feedback process. Without feedback information, the Traffic Management Program can not objectively measure its success, nor can it identify areas of improvement. TMP might consider implementing a feedback process to follow up on completed traffic calming projects. Varying amounts of post project information was collected by the other three cities examined. 1 1 Review of Salt Lake City Corporation Traffic Calming 7 I 10 MANAGEMENT RESPONSE AIWe currently have an intern assisting us in surveying a number of the neighborhood residents who live on streets where traffic calming measurements have been installed. This survey asks residents to give us their opinion on the effectiveness of and their satisfaction with the traffic calming measures on their streets as well their opinion on the professionalism of our office and any comments they may have. A report is anticipated I by the end of March. ■ . OBJECTIVE 3 IN Evaluate the process of how streets are selected and prioritized. II METHODOLOGY 1 We reviewed Salt Lake City's Eligibility Point arid Ranking System Formula to determine the . criteria for ranking City streets. A copy of the Eligibility Point& Ranking System Formula is included as Appendix C. A list of all project inquiries as of December 20, 2002 was obtained • from the Traffic Management Program. The projects were divided into City Council Districts and categorized as complete, active, eligible, ineligible or not studied. All data was tabulated ■� and analyzed to determine whether any discernible patterns existed. We reviewed the ranking . systems for Portland, Seattle and Vancouver for comparative purposes. All information was obtained via direct interviews with traffic calming personnel and/or through department . documentation. I TABLE 1 TRAFFIC CALMING PROJECTS BY COUNCIL DISTRICT IIICouncil::::.:::..::::::::: - • .:.:::........ ...+ :..:..Now; :.... Nit:::: Completed :::Active::.::.;:::Eligibly:: : . •g- • , N ....Distrt;et : :: .::: .. . :::Eli iblc.:::: Studied„. . 1 1 0 5 12 1 2 3 0 9 11 3 3 41 1 11 9 0 II 4 32 1 5 7 2 5 1 0 14 31 3 6 113 1 24 34 8 7 94 0 32 27 5 4111 Total 32 3 100 131 22 II I Review of Salt Lake City Corporation Traffic Calming 8 I 1. Two of these projects were closed without any traffic calming devices being constructed 2. Two of these projects were closed without any traffic calming devices being constructed. 3. Three of these projects were closed without any traffic calming devices being constructed 4. One project was closed without any traffic calming device being constructed CONCLUSION Based on our analysis, the process for street selection appeared to be fair and equitable. Streets were awarded points based on a pre-defined, objective formula. There appeared to be limited opportunity for subjective interference in the project ranking system. Projects are ranked according to the highest score. • . A review of the Council District information revealed that certain districts more actively petitioned the Traffic Management Program. The existence of active petitioning from a District . could not be viewed as indicative of a widespread traffic problem in a certain area. It could only be viewed that the constituents in the District were more active in pursuing traffic calming measures. A project list by Council District is detailed in Table 1. I . 3.1 OBSERVATION Minor variations existed between Salt Lake City's Eligibility Point and Ranking System Formula and the ranking systems of Portland, Seattle and Vancouver. CONSIDERATION Increase the number of available points in the Eligibility Point and Ranking System Formula. ■ Unlike Portland and Vancouver, Salt Lake City's eligibility model did not award multiple points for pedestrian generators or incorporate points for excessive speed. Seattle includes traffic accident information in its model; Salt Lake City does not. An increase in available points may enable additional consideration for these neighborhood concerns. We propose that the Traffic Management Program consider incorporating the following suggestions in its model: I 4. Expand the pedestrian generator category to include a maximum amount. . :- Include point criteria for vehicles traveling at a high or excessive rate of speed. Incorporate accident information into the point system, if possible. 'ID Review of Salt Lake City Corporation Traffic Calming 9 • I ■ MANAGEMENT RESPONSE I. We believe impact to pedestrians have been reasonably addressed in the eligibility/ranking formula which has also been reviewed and approved by the Transportation Advisory Board and by citizens who have been involved in the traffic calming process. However, we will review the benefits of additional emphasis of . pedestrian generators. • The current formula awards points for the 85th percentile speed. When motorists travel at excessive speeds, the 85th percentile speed increases. Thus, the formula accounts for • those vehicles that are traveling at excessive speeds and awards more points for higher speeds. I . Specific data for traffic accidents is limited. Residential streets typically don't have a lot of traffic accidents. Not all of the traffic accidents that occur would be correctable by II installing traffic calming measures. At this time it does not appear that the benefits of including this information is even close to the time and cost of gathering the traffic • accident data, analyzing it, and then determining whether or not the traffic accident would have been correctable by the implementation of traffic calming measures. i I kik OBJECTIVE 4 • Determine how long it takes for traffic calming measures to be put in place once a street is selected. METHODOLOGY II We interviewed traffic calming personnel and reviewed traffic calming documentation to obtain an understanding of the different stages in the implementation process. Traffic calming staff provided us with a list of all projects completed by the Traffic Management Program from the program inception date of January 1, 1998 to the audit date of December 20, 2002. Information received was in date form. Time variances between each stage of the process, from the I application to construction completion, were calculated. An analysis summary table detailing the sample size, range, average and median for each project timeline is attached as Appendix D. CONCLUSION Based on our analysis, we determined that the average length of time to complete a traffic calming project from the initial community letter to construction completion was sixteen months. 1 The median time was fourteen months and the range was two to twenty-seven months. Temporary testing measures were in place for an average of 48 days, ranging from 33 to 77 days. Construction time ranged from 16 to 61 days, with an average of 32 days. le I I Review of Salt Lake City Corporation Traffic Calming 10 1 Project timelines varied across the life of the project. Many factors influenced the length of time for project completion. For example, traffic circles, used extensively in Seattle, do not require testing and consequently significantly shorten completion schedules. Circumstances which may • negatively impact time schedules include: seasonal constraints and divergent neighborhood opinions. OBJECTIVE 5 • Assess the City's use of creative solutions in addition to the traditional speed bumps and humps. (E.g. What types of traffic calming measures are utilized or could be utilized by the City.) METHODOLOGY To achieve this objective, we reviewed the traffic calming toolkits for Salt Lake City, Portland, Seattle and Vancouver, as determined in Objective 1. We reviewed traffic calming knowledge centers in an attempt to locate effective traffic calming measures that were not used in any of the . four cities examined. Salt Lake City's traffic calming staff provided us with a list of all completed projects from the program inception date of January 1, 1998 to December 20, 2002. From the data received, we calculated the number of constructed devices for each available traffic calming measure. These results were then compared against data received from Portland, Oak Seattle and Vancouver. CONCLUSION The Traffic Management Program appeared to focus on the construction of speed humps and speed tables to address traffic calming issues. However, other creative solutions to traffic calming concerns were utilized to a lesser extent by the Program. The use of pavement markings to psychologically narrow the roadway and the use of a rubber traffic circle showed a willingness on the part of the Traffic Management Program to experiment with non-traditional measures. 5.1 OBSERVATION The Traffic Management Program appeared to focus on speed humps. CONSIDERATION Consider utilizing more traffic circles. Where appropriate, TMP might consider using traffic circles as an alternative to speed humps. The analysis of comparable cities indicates that these cities have more traffic circles than Salt Lake City. Best practice dictates that planners should use a variety of traffic calming devices and not just rely on speed humps. As there is an increased cost associated with traffic circles, the Traffic Management Program would have to review each project on a case by case basis. I 1 Review of Salt Lake City Corporation Traffic Calming 11 I MANAGEMENT RESPONSE .411 We also would like to see more traffic circles/islands used in the traffic calming p ro ram. g So far residents have wanted to be aggressive in slowing motorists on their streets. That has resulted in a high percentage use of speed humps. As we go forward, we will be promoting the use of other traffic calming devices more heavily. We also intend to require non-speed hump traffic calming devices in plans where it is clear they will have a superior benefit. • OBJECTIVE 6 Evaluate the procedures used to identify and notify residents of proposed traffic calming measures. I . METHODOLOGY We reviewed Salt Lake City's "Traffic Management Program" and interviewed traffic calming personnel to determine TMP policies and procedures for notifying residents and property owners within a project area of proposed traffic calming measures. Traffic calming staffs in Portland, Seattle and Vancouver were interviewed to gain an understanding of their notification process for comparative purposes. • CONCLUSION While notification policies and procedures were included in the Traffic Management Program, they were not detailed enough to ensure that all stakeholders were identified for notification and that all projects received equal resident notification. 6.1 OBSERVATION Notification policies and procedures were not clearly stated. RECOMMENDATION Develop a policy and procedure to identify and notify residents,property owners and other stakeholders of future traffic calming projects. We recommend that the Traffic Management Program develop a policy and procedure detailing who should be contacted at what stage of the process. Without a notification standard, the Traffic Management Program may inadvertently exclude an affected area from the process. Further, the lack of minimal notification criteria might create an environment where notifications may not be uniformly carried out. Specific minimum requirements should be outlined to ensure the consistent application of notification procedures. I 1 Review of Salt Lake City Corporation Traffic Calming 12 1 U MANAGEMENT RESPONSE We agree that this needs to be stated more clearlyin the g program. We do have a contact policy of surveying the residents who live on the affected streets. We recently expanded the notification procedures to include motorists using the street. This is done by the placement of signing on the street identifying it as having a traffic calming plan under development and displaying a telephone number to provide input. We will also include in the notification process residents of cul-de-sacs who must use the streets being . evaluated. The additional information that will be placed on the website will offer another source of public information and input. • OBJECTIVE 7 Determine the adequacy of funding of the Traffic Management Program. • METHODOLOGY A summary of the Traffic Management Program's capital improvement funding and expense information from January 1, 1998 to November 18, 2002 was provided by traffic calming personnel. We reviewed this data and conducted interviews with traffic calming staff to determine the adequacy of funding. Traffic Calming staff in Portland, Seattle and Vancouver were interviewed to gain an understanding of their level of current public funding for capital improvement expenses. Recent funding information across all four cities was reviewed for comparative purposes. CONCLUSION Salt Lake City's Traffic Management Program appeared to have adequate funding for capital expenses relative to the other cities selected for study. Our analysis of traffic calming departments in other cities indicated that annual public funding for the capital improvement budget varied across all cities examined. Vancouver received the highest level of funding with a $384,000 budget. Seattle received $325,000 for its capital expenses. Portland received no funding whatsoever. In the 2002 fiscal year, Salt Lake City received $250,000 in funding for capital expenses. I 1 Review of Salt Lake City Corporation Traffic Calming 13 1 RI II U NIP IV. Appendices ii APPENDIX A II COMPARISON OF TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES . _ " ,, : : • :: : :' :: •i" ii ::]:i Salt Lake City :: ] .i ...: ::: - . ... ,,:::.. . Other Criteria :: ]i :' :Portland OR : :i Seattle WA : Vancouver: CAA:: :.. ::,. IIUT sulerahous :: II Adopt a Crosswalk Ucrtoilsiszweadiksat numerous Not Used Not Used Not Used Flags are used in other communities such as Madison,WI, II Resident initiated Kirkland,WA and program where Berkeley,CA. the city installs II orange flags at existing II crosswalks and the residents maintain the II flags. I In-Pavement Several In-Pavement There are no future Unknown Utilized and Overhead and Overhead plans for in-pavement Crosswalk Crosswalk Lighting crosswalk. There is a II Lighting locations, shift from illuminated overhead lighting to laik For mid-block reflective lights due to EINII, locations or intersections not cost and maintenance issues. MI controlled by a traffic signal or 2 In-Pavement stop sign, Ioverhead and in- No Overhead pavement Lighting Icrosswalk lighting is used. III Bicyclist Measures IBike Lane Utilized Portland is Seattle uses the same Red colored bicycle Bike lanes in Europe conducting a test method as Salt Lake lanes,bike boxes and have colored areas to I A portion of the project using blue City,delineating lanes advanced stop lines delineate conflict roadway is colors to delineate by striping and are being used in a zones. designated for conflict zones signage. pilot project. bicycle users. It between bikes and is delineated by vehicles. I striping and signing of bicycle routes. I Traffic Calming Measures I I I lel I I Salt Lake City Corporation Traffic Management Program 14 I Il II 111 Critena SidttakeVity: : : Other : ,riirtland OR :,::Seattle WA :;i.Vancouver N:: ]:] ::: . : . . : Considerations . 111 Chicane Utilized Chicanes are in the Utilized Not Used Traffic Calming A set of bulb out toolbox,but have not 20 streets with IIor curb been utilized. Chicanes extensions that creates a II horizontal diversion of Itraffic. II Choker or Curb One set of curb Chokers Extension are in the Seattle has found that Corner bulges and extensions(2 in total) testing phase and chokers are mid block bulges are have not been used, ineffective as most utilized. IIThese measures people tend to drive narrow a street by Curb extensions are down the middle of IN widening the sidewalks or used, the street. planting strips. 184 Curb Extensions I Choker 1111 Diverter Utilized Utilized Diverters are no Utilized 1111 Diagonal longer installed due to 2 Diagonal Diverters access problems for 20 Diverters diverters are emergency vehicles. IIbarriers placed diagonally across 6-10 Diverters • an intersection Iand are used to reduce traffic Ilia volume. OW _ Entrance Way Utilized Utilized Utilized Unknown MI Created as an 3 Entrance Ways 5 Entry Treatments entryway feature to a neighborhood. IIThis device also serves as a refuge to pedestrians. It is constructed with a splitter I island in the middle of the IIstreet. Median Utilized Utilized as a traffic Unknown Unknown Idiverter,a pedestrian Raised islands are 4 Islands refuge and an island Ibuilt in the center to prevent cross of the roadway to traffic. slow traffic, Idecrease 5 Median Barriers accidents and I provide 1 Island pedestrian refuges. 60 Pedestrian Refuges I le I I Review of Salt Lake City Corporation Traffic Calming 15 I S II : :Silk a Lke City::::- ::•• :: ±: :::i: :: :: : :i:: :: ther:: ::::: — 1111111 :: : Criteria ::: ::: Portland OR ] ; :]] Seattle WA* ', Vancouver:CAN: . UT: : . • - •-• : Ginn:Iterations •• 111 Neighborhood According to the Not Utilized Utilized as part of Unknown Speed Watch TMP,this measure Phase 1 of Traffic Program was very successful in Program is dormant Calming program for IIIaddressing resident due to budget streets experiencing Residents borrow perception of speed. restrictions. Has not speeding problems. a radar gun to Residents found that been active for 5 111 record vehicle their perceptions were years. 3 Radar guns. and speed data, not validated by the 111 A notification radar gun. Will be purchasing 2 letter is sent to more. the registered 1 Radar gun. IIowners of violating vehicles. II Not installed by the Used on limited basis Utilized Unknown III One Way Street TMP. Utilized by in school zones. Traffic Engineering. 7-10 One Way Streets II 1 One Way Street According to the Not Utilized Not Utilized Not Utilized The Pace Car IIITMP,this program program is utilized in Pace Car was not successful as The Pace Car other communities III there was not enough program has been such as Palo Alto, Participants. resident interest and proposed and CA,Santa Cruz,CA pledge to dnve commitment to ensure Portland is studying and Mesa,AZ. II within the speed the effectiveness of its feasibility. the program. courteous of other roadway mlor users and minimize vehicle 400 private resident vehicles MI use. 1500 Utah Transit Authority buses, IIIschool buses and Salt Lake City vehicles 111 Parking Not installed by the Not Utilized Seattle is starting to Vancouver is starting 111 Designation TMP. Utilized by use parking as a traffic calming to use street parking Traffic Engineering, to create the effect of measure. Parking on a one way street II both sides of the street is used to narrow the street. As Iwell,parking spots are painted to create a II chicane effect with parked vehicles. III 2 Completed and 2 In Progress II Partial Closure/ Not installed by the Utilized Utilized Unknown Half Road TMP. Utilized by IClosure/Semi Traffic Engineering. 22 Semi-Diverters 20 Partial Street Diverter Closures I I III I I Review of Salt Lake City Corporation Traffic Calming 16 I III 111 dill ----''-:--..---.---:- :::Salt Lake:Lit . .•. ...!Other:::. ::Criteria :.- :: .... Portland:OR .... ..Seattle:WA : Vancouver:CAl - .. •. UT � Considerations: . Pavement Three streets were Utilized as guide for Utilized as guide for Utilized as a guide for Marking narrowed with pedestrians,bicyclists pedestrians,bicyclists pedestrians,bicyclists pavement markings. and motorists. and motorists. and motorists. . Markings are According to TMP, used to narrow feedback indicates Painting to reduce the the roadway, that this was not size of the roadway is IIguide motorists effective. not used. and indicate . pedestrian crossings. • Raised Five raised Raised crosswalks are Unknown Utilized Crosswalk Crosswalks in the toolkit,but . have not been Raised constructed by the crosswalks are Traffic Calming ' IIIsimilar in department. construction to . speed tables,but Raised Crosswalks have the added element of being . a designated . pedestrian . crossing. . _ Not Utilized Not Utilized Utilized Not Utilized Cost between In erseci on $12,5002 and 1 Raised Intersection $70,000 •1.• Not installed by the Not utilized as part of Not Utilized Utilized II Restricted Turn TMP. Utilized by traffic calming. May Sign Traffic Engineering. be utilized for operational safety. Road closures are an Utilized Utilized Utilized and often A large majority of III extreme measure that turned into mini- cities in the US are Road Closure are usually utilized 13 Cul de Sacs 10 Closures parks. discouraging street when all else fails. closures." Il 2 Dead Ends Speed Display Utilized Police department is Utilized as Phase 2 of Unknown Trailer solely responsible for Traffic Calming this measure and it is Process. I Provided by the not part of the toolkit. Police I Department. Shows vehicular speed. I I 2 Fehr&Peers Associates, Inc.,www.trafficcalming.org. 3"Selecting Pedestrian Safety Improvements",FHWA,Department of Transportation, 11110 http://safety.lhwa.dot.gov/saferjourney/Library/matrix.htm. 4"Traffic Calming:State of the Practice"ITE/FHWA, August 1999,p. 21. I I - Review of Salt Lake City Corporation Traffic Calming 17 I II III 1111 : '''I: •*li:::: :: :A ::] Cr]it]e k:ia : i-f] -6 ie ] P':Qk:t:ja*#]4:] O]::R Seattle W: AH Via n'cou'yi:e'r 6 UT Considerati.Oi n:.N Not installed by the Stop signs are Not utilized due to Utilized according to II TMP. Requests for installed by the low compliance, strict guidelines. Stop Sign stop signs are referred Traffic Operations increased speeds and III to Traffic Engineering. Division. better results obtained from traffic circles. IIISpeed Hump Speed humps and Utilized. Considered effective Speed humps are Speed humps are and Table tables are used to depending on the utilized as a first considered one of the Illreduce vehicular In 1991 there was an installation location, defense for a speed most effective ways speed. Humps are increased focus on Speed humps are used problem. to combat speeding. raised paved mounds, installing speed as a last resort. I whereas tables are humps. 80 blocks of Speed raised mounds that 12-15 Streets with Humps totaling II have a flattop. 13 12ft Speed Bumps Speed Humps totaling approximately 160 40-50 humps humps. 82 Speed Humps 605 14ft Speed 111 Bumps 9 Speed Tables II 183 22 ft Speed Tables Il Street Utilized Not Utilized Utilized through the Utilized in toolkit and Narrowing creation of on-street through the use of on- parking and the street parking The pavement addition of curbs, solutions. width along the gutters and sidewalks. Iroadway is reduced to IIIAft narrow the travel Egg, lanes. MI Textured Numerous locations Utilized Utilized Unknown Crosswalk 111 3 Textured Textured Crosswalks crosswalks are Iused to alert motorists of a 111 high pedestrian activity area and to indicate a 111 preferred crossing location to IIpedestrians. Traffic Circles One Traffic Circle Utilized Seattle has found Utilized Itraffic circles to be Traffic circles are 71 Traffic Circles the most successful 200 Traffic Circles I used to slow traffic speed by and most commonly implemented traffic requiring the calming tool. Ivehicle to maneuver around 1 000Traffic Circles a circle located in I an intersection. I I Ile I I Review of Salt Lake City Corporation Traffic Calming 18 I II NI II OD APPENDIX B II TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM METRICS COMPARISON :.metric : alt:Lake City UT Portland OR SeatikWA Vancouver.CAN.:: . Mid 1980s. Decreased 1970s.Increased Program Inception Date 1998 emphasis in the last 5 1978 emphasis in last 5 years. IIyears. 1 Full Time 15 Full Time ■ Number of Staff 6 Full Time 8 Full Time 1 Half Time Equivalent 1 Half Time' II Yearly Capital Improvement $250,000 $02 $325,000 $384,0003 Budget II IIINumber of Projects 4 1 Neighborhood Plan Completed in a Year 9—11 6—10 44-45 30 Speed Humps III 3 months to 44 months from application to . completion. Average time from application to 13 months for completion is 19 months. preliminary process if no Average time from initial testing. 22 months if 5 months for speed letter to completion is 16 testing involved. 6 months to 2 years projects . months. • Project Timeline depending upon petition After City Council dates 3 years for diversionary . Construction time approval,6 to 8 months por diver ranges from 16 to 61 for Speed Bump Purchase ectss days,with an average of Program and 1 year for . 32 days. other engineering devices See Appendix D for more IIinformation. II 300 local streets IIProject Queue 100 streets 200 neighborhood collectors 15 streets 900 streets9 I30 school safety 1. Department is functionally oriented and staff manages other issues beyond traffic calming. When there was a Traffic Calming Department, IIthere were 3 Full Time Project Managers,2—3 Full Time Engineers with a Section Manager and 1 Part Time Project Manager. 2. All projects privately funded. Public funding limited to staff time and peripherals. I3. $600,000 Canadian dollars converted to U.S.dollars at an exchange rate of 0.637,effective December 16,2002. 4. These are privately funded. Portland estimates an additional 10 projects per year could be completed,if there were no funding issues. 5. Petitions are reviewed and prioritized on a yearly basis. 6. From the beginning of the process to the end. t7. Portland limits the list to 300 projects at any one time. 8. Seattle only tracks those projects slated for immediate construction. Projects waiting in the queue are not tracked. 9. Vancouver does not categorize streets as eligible or non-eligible. Consequently,all are listed. I Ile I I Salt Lake City Corporation Traffic Management Program 19 1 N • APPENDIX C • SALT LAKE CITY TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT • ELIGIBILITY POINT & RANKING SYSTEM FORMULA • Volume 1 point for every 100 vehicles in one direction 85%tile Speed 10 points for every mile that the 85th%tile speed is over the posted speed Pedestrian Generator • 5 points if there is some kind of pedestrian generator(i.e. school,park, church, etc.) • Sidewalk • 5 points if there are no sidewalks adjacent to the street Bus Route • 5 points if there is a designated bus route I Bicycle Route I 5 points if there is a designated bike route p A minimum of 80 points is required to be eligible for the Traffic Management program. (see the Traffic I Management Program page#20) Example street: 2902 vehicles per day, 85th%tile speed of 34 mph,there is an elementary school on this street. It is a designated bus route and bike route. There is no sidewalk on either side of the street. I Points are assigned in the following manner. Volume points: (2902/100)*1 = 29 points Speed points: (34—25)*10= 90 points • Pedestrian Generator points: 5 points Sidewalk points: 5 points Bus Route: 5 points Bicycle Route: 5 points Total 139pts So this street would receive a ranking of 139 points Review of Salt Lake City Corporation Traffic Calming 20 a a a Id I APPENDIX D III SALT LAKE CITY TRAFFIC PROJECT TIMELINES IN Effective January 1, 1998 to December 20, 2002 III : ,:: : : ,: :,: : ;::: i: „ :! : ; : :: :: : : :::: :: : !: :!!::: Time Between ti*fillijt4:StA0i :Project:$tages ] Sample Size Range; : ; :] Average; :]; Mqatan; II Application to Initial Community Letter—Month 20 0-19 5 3 III Initial Community Letter to Neighborhood Meeting—Day 21 4-29 10 8 II Neighborhood Meeting to First Survey Mailing—Day 23 15-456 148 141 1111 First Survey Mailing Date to Due Date—Day 24 5-32 14 13 IIII First Survey Due Date to Beginning of Testing—Day 21 15-376 95 60 II Beginning to End of Testing—Day 16 33-77 48 50 II Beginning of Testing to Second Survey Mailing Date—Day 18 16-114 44 41 MA I , Second Survey Mailing to Due Date—Day 21 10-23 14 14 le • Second Survey Due Date to Beginning of Construction—Day 6 16-81 47 46 II Beginning to End of Construction—Day 6 16-61 32 31 II _ Application to Completion—Month 21 3-44 19 20 III Initial Letter to Completion—Month 18 2-27 16 14 III _ II II III R a II III 1/111 I 1111 III Review of Salt Lake City Corporation Traffic Calming 21 a • Once the project has been approved and slated for implementation, it progresses to Funding, Design and Construction. • 1. Funding— The Traffic Management Program currently has capital funding available. To date, all completed and active projects have been funded through Traffic Management Plan funds. In the event that the TMP does not have dedicated traffic management funds, . neighborhoods may pursue other alternative funding sources such as the Capital Improvement Program, Neighborhood Matching Grant Fund, Community Development . Block Grant, or Full Neighborhood Funding. • 2. Design— Specifications are formalized in this stage. This includes structural designs (concrete thickness, strength, etc.) and aesthetic designs (tree types, landscaping, etc.). Depending on the device complexity, the Engineering design staff availability, and any non-standard elements, this stage can take anywhere from one hours to four weeks to complete. Construction— TMP contracts with a local contractor to build the traffic calming measures. This contractor is on retainer for the next three years, with an option to extend services to five years. The construction time can range from one to five weeks, depending on the complexity of the traffic calming measures, the schedule of the contractor and the weather conditions. 110 Review of Salt Lake City Corporation Traffic Calving 24 p r 1110 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: August 8,2003 SUBJECT: General Obligation Bond Proposed Projects and Debt Ratios AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: Citywide STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears, Budget&Policy Analyst ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. AND CONTACT PERSON: Management Services Department, Rocky Fluhart KEY ELEMENTS: The Administration is proposing that the City Council call and hold an election for the approval of general obligation bonds. The bonds would be used for City projects such as renovation of existing City buildings and construction of new recreation facilities. The Administration recently commissioned a survey of City residents to gauge the potential support of the 40 proposed general obligation bond election. The survey and responses are attached. The Council will discuss the specifics of each of the proposed projects during the August 12 and September 2,2003 Council work sessions. The Council has the authority to call a special bond election.This report summarizes the proposed projects. The Administration has also provided a transmittal that details all of the debt that the City carries and the current debt ratios of the residents of Salt Lake City.The transmittal is attached for review and inclusion into the discussion on the proposed bond projects. The Council will need to consider a several resolutions relating to the issuance of general obligation bonds.The Council may wish to direct the Administration to prepare the required resolutions for review during the September 2,2003 meeting. > GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PROPOSED PROJECTS The Leonardo-The Administration is recommending that the old main library be renovated and leased to The Leonardo at Library Square.The facility would house a science,cultural and educational facility. Several different groups are anticipated to have a presence at the facility. The requested bond amount is$10 million dollars.Approximately$4.5 million will be used for remodeling and interior improvements,$4.5 million for seismic,electrical, plumbing,heating and air conditioning, and$.05 million for joint space functions such as shops,ticketing and security. The total cost of this project is anticipated to be$25 million. Page 1 � r I Salt Lake City branch libraries-The Administration is recommending that the Salt Lake City Library system be enlarged to include two new branch libraries, one in the Glendale and one in the Capitol Hill area. • The requested bond amount is$5.25 million dollars.Approximately$5.0 million will be used for construction of the facilities and$250 thousand dollars for property acquisition. The total cost of this project is anticipated to be$5.25 million. Open Space-The Administration is recommending that the City create an Open Space Trust Fund to help purchase,receive and manage open space lands in Salt Lake City. The requested bond amount is not noted in the transmittal from the Administration but the survey that was conducted on behalf of the City listed$3 million dollars as a potential amount. The Council would set the bond amounts for each of the proposed projects. Regional Sports Field Complex-The Administration is recommending that the City construct a multi-purpose regional sports complex on 212 acres at 2000 North and 2000 West. The facility could be used by several different entities and be constructed and managed in partnership with several municipalities and local government entities. The requested bond amount is$17.5 million dollars. If the City chooses to construct an indoor structure the cost would be$22.5 million. Pioneer Park-The Administration is recommending that the City renovate Pioneer Park by introducing new design elements and making the park a destination for City residents. The requested bond amount is$4.1 million dollars. Approximately$3.1 million will be used for design and construction costs and$1 million for contingency and fees. Hansen Planetarium-The Administration is recommending that the City renovate and preserve the historic Hansen Planetarium building. The requested bond amount is$6.1 million dollars. Bond proceeds will be used to renovate the building to pre-tenant condition. Hogle Zoo-The Administration is recommending that the City contribute$10 million towards the renovation of animal exhibits at the Hogle Zoo. The requested bond amount is$10 million dollars. Bond proceeds will be used to renovate the large animal and cat enclosures to current zoo standards. > POLICY CONSIDERATIONS AND ANALYSIS The Administration has proposed several projects for funding and has conducted a survey of City residents to gauge the potential support for these projects were they to be voted upon during a special bond election.The survey included the Wasatch Plunge building which in not being recommended for inclusion in the bond election. The Administration is recommending that all of the proposed projects be included in a single, combined General Obligation Bond issue. The City Council may wish to consider if all of the projects should be combined into a single issue or if each project should be listed separately. The City Council may wish to consider other projects in addition to the recommended projects. The City Council may wish to consider the effect that the proposed projects will have on the debt ratios of the City and the burden to future fiscal year budgets. Page 2 V ' The City Council may also wish to consider the following policy questions that were asked on the written briefing report for the August 7, 2003 Council work session: • Will the issuance of general obligation bonds for the proposed projects affect the bond rating of the City? Is it good public policy to use bond financing for recreation related? What is the acceptable debt per capita of the residents and businesses of the City and what is the current debt per capita ratio? Will this bond issuance inhibit new construction or population growth in the City? Will companies choose to locate outside of the City because of this additional tax obligation? Will the proposed projects fulfill Master Plan objectives and recommendations? Would the City Council be fulfilling it fiduciary responsibilities by supporting or not supporting a special bond election and general obligation bond issuance? How will the City finance the operations and maintenance of any new facilities or expanded programs? Are the programs and facilities being suggested by the bond the Council's top policy priorities for which the Council wishes to exercise taxing authority? Are there other projects that the City Council considers funding priorities, for example projects that have been identified on the City's CIP list? How do the proposed projects compare to the other projects? Would bonding for the proposed projects be consistent with the City's current focus and policy direction, or would bonding move the City into programs beyond the City's traditional scope? > BUDGET RELATED FACTS The proposed projects will be funded by the general obligation bonds. The bonds will cover only the construction and installation costs associated with the project. Project operating and maintenance costs will not be funded with general obligation bond revenue and will need to be appropriated in future year budgets. Some of the operating costs associated with the proposed project may be covered by contributions from Salt Lake County,the Hogle Zoo and other municipalities or private groups. When the City Council authorized the City Library general obligation bonds they also decided to identify the potential operating and maintenance costs of the new facility and implement a property tax increase to cover the costs. The goal was to give the public a complete understanding of the financial impact of the project and to ensure that operating funds were available once the project was built.The Council may wish to carefully identify any of the proposed projects that may have on-going expenses and identify the funding mechanisms for those costs prior to the bond election. cc: Rocky Fluhart, Cindy Gust-Jenson, Dan Mule,Steve Fawcett,Gordon Hoskins, Rick Graham, Alison Weyher, Kevin Bergstrom, David Dobbins, David Nimkin and DJ Baxter File location: Michael\Staff Reports\ • Page 3 SALT r t 1 IT TORPo10N ROES C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DANIEL A. MULE' -� — s ��- -� ,� _ CITY TREASURER DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES MAYOR TREASURER TO: Rocky J. Fluhart DATE: August 7, 2003 Chief Administrative Officer FROM: Daniel A. Mule, City Treasurer SUBJECT: Debt Structure for General Fund Supported Debt Attached to this memo is a list of outstanding bond issues in which the source for funding debt service payments comes from contributions transferred out of the General Fund through the CIP Fund and into the appropriate debt service fund. The Series 1999 and 2002 General Obligation Bonds imposed a General Fund property tax levy for this purpose. The Series 2001 General Obligation Bonds did not. Directly below is an excerpt that appears in a number of the City's official documents. It describes the debt incurring capacity of the City to issue general obligation bonds. The figures have been updated to reflect current conditions. Clearly, the City is well below its legal limit. Legal Debt Limit of the City The general obligation indebtedness of the City for general purposes is limited by Utah law to 4% of the Adjusted Fair Market Value of taxable property. An additional 4% may be borrowed for water, sewer or lighting purposes, or up to the full 8% may be used for water, sewer or lighting purposes, provided that then no general obligation bonds may be issued in excess of 8% for any purpose. The legal general obligation debt limit and additional debt incurring capacity of the City are based on Adjusted Fair Market Value for 2002, and are calculated as follows: 2002 Adjusted Fair Market Value for Salt Lake City: $18,739,545.933 4% 4%Water General Sewer & 8% Purposes Lighting Total General Obligation Debt Limit $749,581,837 $749,581,837 $1,499,163,674 Less Amount of Debt Applicable to General Obligation Debt Limits (91,455,000) - (91,455,000) Additional Debt Incurring Capacity $658.126,837 $749,581,837 $1,407.708,674 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 22S, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: SO 1-535-7948 FAX: SO1-535-6082 RecrcEo PnPER -2- As is evident by the following table which compares the City's current General Fund supported debt obligations against industry established debt ratio benchmarks, the City continues to remain • within the preferred "low" target range. Debt Ratio Benchmarks General All General Fund Obligation Supported Debt Ratio Low Moderate High Debt Ratios* Debt Ratios** Debt Per Capita <than $1,000 $1,000-$2,500 >than $2,500 $499.60 $663.19 Debt as a Percent of Market <than 3% 3-6% >than 6% 0.5% 0.7% Value Debt as a Percent of Personal <than 3% 3-6% >than 6% 1.3% 1.7% Income Debt Service as a Percent of <than 5% 10% >than 15% 3.1% 4.8% . General Fund Expenditures *General Obligation Debt: $91,455,000 **All General Fund supported debt, including: General Obligation, Lease Revenue and Motor Fuel Excise Tax: $121,401,560 DAM/Ic Attachment I General Fund Supported Debt • Outstanding Debt Issues (as of June 30, 2003) Amount of Final Principal Original Issue Maturity Date Outstanding GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS Series 1999 Library(Authorized $84,000,000) $81,000,000 6/15/2019 24,075,000 Series 2001 Refunding Bonds City/County Building 22,650,000 6/15/2011 19,130,000 Series 2002 Building and Refunding Bonds Library(Remaining Authorized Portion) 3,000,000 6/15/2019 3,000,000 Library(Refund portion of Series 1999) 45,855,000 6/15/2019 45,250,000 48,250,000 Total General Oblibation Debt 91,455,000 MBA LEASE REVENUE BONDS •eries 1993A Revenue and Refunding Bonds $29,610,000 Baseball Stadium 10/15/2005 3,464,000 Fire Station No. 13 10/15/2011 950,000 Fire Station No. 6 10/15/2011 346,000 Other New Projects 10/15/2011 7,385,000 Refund Portion of Series 1988 10/15/2014 5,765,000 Less: Portion Funded By RDA SARR (13,408,440) 4,501,560 Series 1999A Revenue and Refunding Bonds Plaza 349 8,780,000 10/15/2019 8,780,000 Series 1999B** Fire Training Tower 1,115,000 10/15/2019 1,115,000 Series 2001 Justice Court 6,735,000 10/15/2020 6,735,000 Police Precinct 5,120,000 10/15/2020 5,120,000 11,855,000 Total MBA Lease Revenue Debt 26,251,560 ** RDA will use SARR money to pay debt service on the •way and Ice Arena bonds through FY 2015. 1 General Fund Supported Debt a Outstanding Debt Issues (as of June 30, 2003) 411) Amount of Final Principal Original Issue Maturity Date Outstanding MOTOR FUEL EXCISE TAX REVENUE BONDS Series 1999 $5,155,000 2/1/2009 3,695,000 Grand Total Outstanding General Fund Supported Debt 121,401,560 • • 2 MEMORANDUM • To: Members of the City Council CC: Cindy Gust-Jensen From: Mayor Rocky Anderson Date: Thursday,August 7,2003 Re: Importance of packaging projects for potential November bond election As you are tentatively scheduled to receive a briefing Tuesday regarding our administration's proposal to have a general obligation bond election, I write to urge your support for packaging the projects together on the November ballot. Some have discussed a"cafeteria style"ballot, where each project would be voted on individually. Not only would such a ballot be confusing to voters,but it would be a recipe for division in our community. Imagine the divisiveness that could be created if the "east side"zoo were approved,but the "west side"sports complex were defeated. Another scenario, possible under a cafeteria-style ballot, would involve one branch library being approved while another is defeated, again pitting two neighborhoods against each other. A cafeteria style ballot creates a scenario where neighborhoods are competing against each other for projects and votes. This morning,we held a regular meeting with the chairs of the City's Community Councils. • While discussing the bond issue,the broad consensus of the chairs was that we should avoid pitting neighborhoods against each other and place the projects on the ballot in a package form. Not all projects that can and should be funded with bond revenues are city-wide projects. Placing neighborhood projects individually on the ballot gives them less chance of success, simply by the fact that not all residents will use them. However,we can all agree that stronger neighborhoods make a stronger city. A packaged bond, if passed,would strengthen the entire City. Some Council members have also expressed concern about on-going operations and maintenance costs for some of the proposed projects. Please remember that approval of a ballot initiative does not mean that the City is in any way obligated to sell all the bonds. If the economy does not improve and revenues do not increase, or if operating partners cannot be solidified,we can wait to sell the bonds or not sell them at all. Furthermore,before the bonds are sold, detailed plans, included on-going maintenance costs,would need to be approved by the City Council. If projects are left off of the ballot or if they are placed on the ballot cafeteria-style in order to make their chances of passage less likely, we are deprived of major opportunities in the future. As evidenced by the history of the Main Library project,bond initiatives can often be as much about vision and planning for the future as they are about funding projects that have all the details resolved. Even if the council determines that it is uncomfortable placing projects with on-going maintenance issues on the ballot, a packaged ballot is still preferable. Such a ballot provides the entire community an opportunity to take pride in the results of the bond, as opposed to creating the possibility for division based on competing projects. In order to ensure that the public will have sufficient time to learn about the different projects and make an informed decision about the bond proposal,we urge you to move quickly in making a decision about placing the bond proposal on the November ballot. If we can be of any assistance in • answering your questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. We look forward to discussing these and other issues related to the bond with you in the upcoming weeks. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: August 8,2003 SUBJECT: Petition No.400-01-07-Mountair Annexation Proposal 3000 South to 3300 South and 1100 East to 1700 East(Imperial Street) AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: District 7,Citywide STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears and Janice Jardine ADMINISTRATIVE DEYI. Community and Economic Development Department AND CONTACT PERSON: Everett Joyce and Cheri Coffey The petition to annex the Mountair neighborhood has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and has been advanced by the Administration to the Council for briefing. There are several steps to the annexation process. The final step is a vote by the Council once it is determined whether there is adequate interest on the part of property owners. . In order to apply Salt Lake City zoning and master plans to annexed areas, the Council is briefed on the applicable master plans and proposed zoning at the time annexation is considered. Land-use actions recommended to the Council by the Planning Commission include amending the Sugar House Community Master Plan's Future Land Use Map and the Sugar House Community Zoning map. Both maps are included in the Administration's transmittal. The transmittal also includes the Planning Division staff report for the Planning Commission,Commission meeting minutes,information on community and neighborhood meetings, an economic analysis of the proposed annexation and the necessary ordinance to annex the Mountair neighborhood. The Administration's transmittal cover sheet highlights several of the issues concerning this annexation,specifically analysis of the proposed master plan amendment and zoning amendment. Additional information is noted in the Key Elements section of this report. Council staff has included an Options and Motions section to show what courses of action the Council may take with regards to this annexation proposal. The Council is scheduled to set the date for a September 16 hearing on September 2. If additional information is desired on zoning or other issues,staff can provide it for a follow-up briefing on September 2. In order to allow for adequate advertising time, the hearing advertising would need to actually begin on September 2. Staff will need direction from the Council at the conclusion of the Tuesday, August 12 briefing on whether to move ahead with the advertising for the September 16 hearing. Page 1 OPTIONS AND MOTIONS: • After the briefing on the proposed annexation,the Council may wish to set a date for a public hearing.After the public hearing,the Administration will confirm that the annexation petition still meets the requirements of State Annexation Law (determined by the percentage of property owners who support the annexation proposal). The petition has been signed by a majority of private property owners representing over 1/3 of the assessed valuation listed on current County Assessment rolls. Property owners have until the annexation vote by the City Council to decide if they support the petition to annex into Salt Lake City. If over 50 percent of the private property owners support annexation,in accordance with state law,the Council could vote to annex the area. The Council could also opt to take action at a later date or to vote against annexation. If the Council votes against the annexation this area cannot be annexed by Salt Lake City and would instead be included in the Millcreek Township. The proposed annexation area is inside the boundaries of the Millcreek Township but because the annexation petition was filed prior to the creation of the township,the ordinance that established the township did not include the pending annexation. If annexation does not occur,the area becomes part of the Millcreek Township. The following are motions that the City Council may elect to use at the conclusion of the public hearing. 1. ["I move that the Council"] Adopt an ordinance extending the corporate limits of Salt Lake City to include the Mountair area,consisting of approximately 155 acres of • property located generally between 3000 South and 3300 South and between 1100 East and 1700 East,pursuant to Petition No.400-01-07;amending the Sugarhouse Master Plan;and amending the Salt Lake City Zoning map to zone and designate the properties within that area upon annexation to the City. 2. ["I move that the Council'] Not adopt an ordinance extending the corporate limits of Salt Lake City to include the Mountair area,consisting of approximately 155 acres of property located generally between 3000 South and 3300 South and between 1100 East and 1700 East,pursuant to Petition No.400-01-07;amending the Sugarhouse master Plan;and amending the Salt Lake City Zoning map to zone and designate the properties within that area upon annexation to the City. 3. ["I move that the Council"] Defer action on this item to the next City Council meeting, and request additional information from the Administration relating to zoning issues. KEY ELEMENTS: 1. The Administration's transmittal,Planning Commission minutes and Planning Division staff report provide a detailed discussion of the annexation request. Major points are summarized below: a. The property is adjacent to and East of the Brickyard Plaza (please refer to the map, • Exhibit A,in the transmittal from the Administration for clarification). Page 2 b. The property is within the boundaries of the area identified in the City's Future Annexation Policy Declaration area and reaffirmed by formal Council action in 2000 0 and 2001. c. The annexation area includes 528 residential lots with 563 dwelling units and 43 commercial lots with 29 commercial structures. d. The proposal does not include the commercial properties between Woodland Avenue(approximately 3175 South)and 3300 South and 1300 East and Highland Drive because the applicants did not include the area in the proposal. The Administration notes that this area is not included as part of the annexation proposal because State annexation law precludes municipalities from actively garnering support for annexation. e. The petition appears to comply with annexation criteria established by State Code: • The property is contiguous to the current City boundary. • The area is included in the City's annexation policy declaration. 2. The Administration notes that"overall,the proposed zoning classifications are similar to the existing Salt Lake County zoning for the area". Please refer to the attached map, Proposed Salt Lake City Zoning,for details. The proposed City zoning classifications include: a. Single-family residential R-1/7,000-to be applied to a majority of the low-density residential properties within annexation. b. Special Residential SR-1-to be applied to the properties along Elgin Avenue between 1100 East and Richmond Street. The area contains a mix of single-family and duplex residential uses. c. The proposed SR-1 zoning will also be applied to a parcel located at 3025 South 1100 East directly north of the Brickyard Plaza with a single-family residential structure III without public street frontage. The property is currently zoned Industrial M-1. Access to the property is provided by a private lane. d. Multi-family RMF-35-to be applied to properties along Richmond Street and Elgin Avenue. The area mainly consists of three and four-family units and the Aspen View 16-unit residential development(1230 East Elgin Ave.). e. Commercial Business CB-to be applied to the majority of commercial properties along Highland Drive,3300 South, Elgin Avenue and Gunn Avenue. The area consists mainly of retail goods and services with some restaurants and offices. There are also several automotive repair businesses. Two automobile service centers,two self-storage units and one vacant property will become non-conforming uses. f. Residential Business RB-to be applied to the area along 3300 South east of 1575 East to 1700 East excluding the Libbie Edwards Elementary school property. g. Public Lands FL-to be applied to the Libbie Edwards school property located at 1655 East 3300 South. The school is owned by Granite School district and is currently leased by the State for use as the Tooele/Salt Lake Applied Technology School. The facility serves mainly high school age students. 3. The proposed annexation was protested by Salt Lake County on June 7,2003 and after review of the protest the Salt Lake County Boundary Commission selected a consultant to develop a feasibility study on the proposed annexation. The Commission ruled in favor of the City on January 21,2003 and the annexation process was resumed by the City. 4. The Planning Commission voted to forward to the City Council a recommendation to: a. Amend the Sugar House Master Plan b. Amend the City zoning map to zone the properties within the annexation area as • recommended by the Planning staff c. Upgrade the circulation and drainage infrastructure Page 3 d. Allocate funds for clean-up services e. Allocate funds to address public safety needs 5. A formal recommendation from the Planning Commission is included with the • Administration's transmittal and a formal public hearing before the City Council will be scheduled at a future date to receive comments,consider information from the Administration and make a final decision to approve or deny the annexation request and zone the property consistent with City zoning classifications and recommendation from the Planning Commission MATTERS AT ISSUE /POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION: Council Members may wish to discuss with the Administration in further detail the following issues identified through this process: 1. Creation of non-conforming uses and/or non-complying structures-Council Members have asked in other circumstances about the creation of non-conforming or non- complying issues through zoning action. The proposed Commercial Business District zoning will non-conform four existing businesses(two self-storage businesses and two major auto repair businesses)and one vacant business. 2. This recommendation carries with it many of the principles from the Sugarhouse Master Plan . Since the adoption of the plan,some Council Members have expressed a desire to discuss principles further,prior to adopting the zoning that implements the zoning in the Sugarhouse Business District. Council staff did not have a chance to fully analyze this annexation in comparison with concerns raised previously by Council Members on • the Sugarhouse rezoning,but this review could be completed for a September 2 follow- up briefing. MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The Sugar House Master Plan reiterates the City's annexation policy in relation to areas contiguous to Sugar House. The Plan notes that annexation would produce long-term benefits for County residents annexed into the City through improved levels of municipal services and a net reduction in the cost of water service. The following policy statements are included in the master plan: a. Encourage the annexation of designated areas as a whole rather than in small pieces to provide coordinate land use development policies and comprehensive municipal services. b. Establish new community planning districts for areas annexed into the City south of the existing Sugar House community planning boundary. 2. State Code 10-2-403 regarding annexation requires that boundaries for annexation be drawn in the following manner: a. To eliminate islands and peninsulas of territory that is not receiving municipal-type services; b. To facilitate the consolidation of overlapping functions of local government; c. To promote the efficient delivery of services;and • d. To encourage the equitable distribution of community resources and obligations. Page 4 3. The Council's adopted growth policy states: It is the policy of the Salt Lake City Council • that growth in Salt Lake City will be deemed the most desirable if it meets the following criteria: a. Is aesthetically pleasing; b. Contributes to a livable community environment; c. Yields no negative net fiscal impact unless an overriding public purpose is served; and d. Forestalls negative impacts associated with inactivity. 4. Council staff has attached a synopsis of City annexation policies prepared for the Council's Annexation Subcommittee. The Synopsis includes a summary of: a. The City's 1979 Annexation Policy Declaration b. City Resolution No. 34 of 2000-Reaffirmation of 1979 Master Annexation Policy Declaration, and Declaration of Intent to annex areas served by the City's water system in the unincorporated Salt Lake County c. Resolution 20 of 1982-Water Service provided outside the City limits d. Existing Community Master Plans Annexation Policies e. The 1999 Salt Lake County Feasibility Scenarios Reports f. 1999 Salt Lake City Wall to Wall Cities Study g. 2000 Salt Lake City Wall to Wall Cities Annexation Study BUDGET RELATED FACTS: • The proposed annexation of the Mountair neighborhood will be revenue neutral. The anticipated costs to service the approximately 157 acres will be$703,047 each year. The revenue that this area is anticipated to generate is$698,295.The revenue and expenditure estimates are from the Mountair Annexation feasibility Study that was prepared by Wikstrom Economic& Planning Consultants on behalf of the Salt Lake County Boundary Commission.The City may have to adjust staffing levels and purchase additional equipment to service this area. Adjustments to City departments can be made during budget openings or during the budget adoption process in May and June of each fiscal year. If the proposed annexation is accepted by the City, the City Council may wish to receive an update from the Administration on the revenues and costs associated with this area. CHRONOLOGY: A complete chronology of events associated with the petition to annex the Mountair neighborhood is included in the Administration's transmittal from the.The following chronological events are those that relate to public process or City Council action. • 2/16/01: Petition received from Jim Barnett and Madelyn Meier. • 5/7/02: City Council adopted a resolution accepting the petition for review. • 6/7/02: Salt Lake County requests that the proposed annexation be reviewed by the Salt Lake Boundary Commission. • 1/21/03: Salt Lake County Boundary Commission reviews the case and finds in favor • of the City. The annexation process can proceed. Page 5 • 4/2/03: Sugar House Community Council received a briefing on the petition and voted to support it. • 4/23/03: Following a public hearing,the Planning Commission recommended that the • City Council adopt proposed amendments to the future land use map of the Sugar House Community Master Plan and the Sugar House Community Zoning map as recommended by staff. • 8/12/03: Briefing to the City Council regarding proposed annexation. cc: Rocky Fluhart,David Nimkin,DJ Baxter, Ed Rutan, LeRoy Hooton, Rick Graham,Alison Weyher, David Dobbins, Louis Zunguze,Lynn Pace,Jeff Niermeyer, Kevin Bergstrom,Max Peterson, Tim Harpst,Brent Wilde, Doug Wheelwright,Cheri Coffey, Everett Joyce, Janice Jardine, Lehua Weaver,Annette Daley File Location: Community and Economic Development Dept.,Planning Division,Mountair Annexation -3000 South to 3300 South and 1100 East to 1700 East(Imperial Street) • Page 6 Proposed Salt Lake City Zoning Petition 400-01-07 Exhibit C " R a ak -,- ar - r , , L 1:Current S alt---L- e y �- _.. , - _ ACit ound y "_'I a +, i.•y -°'� '.J rn Vi 1._,_..r_ I .1.....1..'_"-____.. ��' )- ,y.— _" ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitYPA L- , , - - , �: � o_ r1tirl�v.�tc�, , w�r3F+7 %r.a� ' 1 I \••� 11111111111111111,► ��., ! rya 4 Q .,M. J.; �, 1 .. _ id 1111111111111111�■ iAi.yp,+.fit.,� %fih h Sn Fr '' r' '— � a iii, �'r 4;4 y�"��;`}` �� "r��"' �1111111111! 11111111111111111� '� �� ' , 4° ,+ ♦ rr• _ i1111111111 �1111111111111111in 1 ____ r�;�, or3iMal �i� if_t.Wi�'l4!i!i r\''''' '� 11}-111,►Y•T1101i M �r : � 11111111E.11111111111111111��~i L a`II 311 1111111114111111A111111111111"� -- �/ 41 �" I_i-ter • I Not-- .-, �� _ _ �� ♦ M11111111111 11111111111111111�. : 'T_ 7-----T----1,-- 111111111111 1111111111111111` ""r , 'r _ if1IIUIIIUII1vIav111I1v1aI:L1 Eirrck Yard Piaa - - 1111W�� —r—r I I 111111111 __ J_J. ._L._a. ..�.. ._L _._1 _irk _' : . i' ' 1 �_.�- -- -------- ,, �.1��k—__ _I ; , L , ��FEN!' I —s---{, -- ---- - Tj�t'E■ —4/111111 • co 1 . OA -r--. ,,- , -Yr- .�- `, 7- _.. -._._.T_,._ --.-t-__ _r 1 -t- ri -r--- -r F 1 \ ! 1-1 I ' f -i 1 i ' Y _ - - L�- �,: , Proposed Salt Lake dftyBóundary___L; �I ! fiTM\ 1{ ' - [TiN '> �� . • 1 :...____ \ '�.-.�_.__9_1 1 ! ILL _. 1 i #I9__s .._!. '_..�__,-,, I N Existing Land Use Pattern (Generalized) 4 CB-Community Business ,' ,1,: PL-Public Lands RMF-35-Moderate Density Multifamily Residential �,;w, °,< RB- Residential/Business R-1-7000-sal Family Residential „''. SR-1 -Special Development Pattern Resi ial Synopsis- 1979 Salt Lake City Master Annexation Policy Declaration • 1979 State Legislature House Bill No. 61 required municipalities anticipating annexation to II adopt an annexation policy declaration • Master Annexation Policy Declaration o Citywide master annexation policy declaration and proposed future boundaries map o Study areas: • West Airport • North Redwood Road • Magna • Emigration Canyon • Brickyard Area • Parley's • East Millcreek • Holladay—Olympus • Holladay—Cottonwood • West Valley o Individual study area sections include: • Geographical boundary description for each study area • Land use and socio-economic characteristics • Estimate of assessed property values III • Comparison of costs of government services • Water, sewer, fire, and police • Planning and zoning • Refuse and garbage collection and disposal • Streets and highways Synopsis- City Resolution No. 34 of 2000 • Reaffirmation of 1979 Master Annexation Policy Declaration, and • Declaration of Intent to annex the areas served by the City's water system in the unincorporated Salt Lake County • City's Public Utilities Department since the 1920's has provided culinary water service to the eastern unincorporated portion of Salt Lake County • Service is provided to approximately 30,500 water accounts • Salt Lake County's tax base has been reduced through annexations and incorporations, including Taylorsville and Holladay, requiring an increase in County taxes • In 1979, Salt Lake City prepared a Master Annexation Policy Declaration that included the intent to annex the portion of Salt Lake County served by the City's water system • In 2000, the Salt Lake City Council commissioned an independent study that concluded: o Annexation would produce long-term benefits for County residents if annexed into the City through: • Improved levels of water service • A net reduction in the cost of water service o Annexation would not significantly increase water rates currently paid by City S residents • Annexation would provide Salt Lake City with benefits including: o Relieve of potential conflicts between jurisdictions relating to: • Service levels • Water rates • Watershed protection • Planning and zoning issues • Expressed the City's interest and willingness to: o Enter into discussions with Salt Lake County and State of Utah representatives, residents, property owners, and other elected representatives o Explore the feasibility, desirability and potential for annexation implementation Water Service provide outside the City limits • Resolution 20 of 1982 (adopted February 2, 1982) o Formalized policy for providing water service to development outside the City limits • Requires annexation in order to receive City water services or • Provide an agreement to annex when annexation becomes possible Annexation Policy— Existing Community Master Plans • Sugar House • o Salt Lake City encourages the annexation of areas between its boundary and 3900 South Street as a whole rather than in small pieces, to provide coordinated land use development policies and comprehensive municipal services. • East Bench o Preserve the present unique beauty, environmental habitat, recreational use, and accessibility of the Wasatch foothills, and ensure city control over foothill development in the East Bench Community. o To maintain control over foothill development, the city should: • Amend its Annexation Policy Declaration to encompass the privately owned East Bench foothills as the means to having control over future development proposals. • Restrict urban development beyond the one-half-mile area, to encompass all of the privately owned foothill property. This could be accomplished through an interlocal agreement, under the State Interlocal Cooperation Act. • Seek an official agreement of resolution with the county to ensure that smaller residential developments will also be referred to the city for annexation and development approval. Annexation should even be required for a single-family home. The city should refuse to provide water or sewer services to accommodate development outside city boundaries. • Arcadia Heights, Benchmark, & H Rock Small Area Plan o It should continue to be the City's policy that municipal water and sewer service will • not be provided to new developments unless they are located within the City limits. 2 • Jordan River—Airport Area Small Area Plan (short range) Ill o Facilitate Salt Lake City's Annexation of County land area west and north to the Great Salt Lake. o Annex lands west of and north toward the Great Salt Lake from Salt Lake County, and zone appropriately according to land uses identified in the Plan Synopsis- 1999 Salt Lake County Feasibility Scenarios Report • Nesbitt Planning and Management, Inc. presented to the Salt Lake County Council of Governments on December 8, 1999 "A Reconnaissance of Potential Annexations and Incorporations Facing Salt Lake County, Salt Lake County Feasibility Scenarios". This study attempted to define the cumulative impact on revenues and service delivery across Salt Lake County. • The study considered 28 scenarios for 10 unincorporated communities. The study presents the information gathered in three main areas; Base Fiscal Parameters, Revenues and Costs, and Remainders Analysis. • For whatever reason, when the study projected the cumulative impacts upon the tax bases and revenues of the County and the annexing Cities and discussed the challenges of potential overhead increases for the County with declining service delivery demand, it failed to address the impact to Salt Lake City. • It was for this reason that the Administration of Salt Lake City at the time of the study, III asked City staff to review the study and using the same methodology present to the Administration the impact of the various annexation and incorporation scenarios that are outlined in the Council of Governments commissioned study. • The resulting study was titled "Wall to Wall Cities" Synopsis- 1999 Salt Lake City Wall to Wall Cities Study • Salt Lake City Budget and Policy staff prepared a "Wall to Wall Cities" study at the same time the City was supplying information for Council of Governments commissioned Feasibility Scenario or Wall-to-Wall Annexation Study. The City staff reviewed the history of annexation issues within the City and provided the following information in the Original Study section of the report. "Holladay, Salt Lake Commissioner Callaghan's efforts to have the State implement legislation to facilitate wall to wall cities], some of the cities surrounding the unincorporated area are beginning to propose extending their boundaries, potentially, into Salt Lake City's annexation declaration boundaries. In 1979, Salt Lake City created its' Master Annexation Policy Declaration which states that Salt Lake City would annex the area containing its water distribution system. The attached map highlights in yellow Salt Lake City's water distribution • area. As you can see from the map, the proposed annexation area for Salt Lake 3 City would extend Salt Lake City's current southern boundary out to Creek Road • and would go as far west as 1300 East. In 1982, the City Council passed a resolution reaffirming the City's Master Annexation Policy Declaration. The wall-to-wall city initiative will have a significant impact on Salt Lake City. Salt Lake City has several concerns regarding this initiative. One major concern revolves around Salt Lake City's water, and its'water distribution network." • The report goes on to state what the different components of the study are and what will be the impact of any annexation plans on the City. The staff chose 4 logical boundaries to divide the potential annexation areas. The only areas discussed in this plan are along the east bench of the Salt Lake Valley. The western potential annexation areas were not dealt with in this report. • City staff used Property Tax, Sales Tax, Sales Tax Distribution, and Franchise Tax, to figure Revenue in this area. Services that are contained in Enterprise Funds were not included into the calculation of revenue as it is expected that the services would pay for themselves. The staff then attempted to quantify costs in each of the four service areas as best possible. • The Administration presented to the City Council in 1999 the results of their study. At that time the Council thought it best to bring in an outside consultant to review the work of the staff and help guide them as they reviewed what course the City should take. City staff lent their expertise to the consultant and assisted in gathering and reviewing information as • needed. The resulting consultant study presented essentially the same findings as that of the City staff. Synopsis-2000 Salt Lake City Wall to Wall Cities Annexation Study • The consulting firm of Rick Giardina &Associates, Inc. in association with BBC Research & Consulting submitted a final report to the Salt Lake City Council in June of 2000. The study incorporated the efforts and expertise of many City staff. The study kept the same annexation study areas as the City staff report. The consultant did not review those areas on the west side of the Salt Lake Valley. • The study reviewed all potential sources of revenue and expenses. The study took into account what would be needed within the different areas to conform to current service levels, both public safety and physical infrastructure. The consultant reviewed what capital needs each of the areas had and what the cost of each area would be if the City were to purchase existing County assets, purchase new assets, or rely on current equipment in the City to provide services. • The end result of the study indicated that even with the massive capital needs of the area the City would be economically ahead if Salt Lake City were to annex all or part of the area to City Creek Road. • 4 • As follow-up to this study the Council adopted a resolution in year 2000 that reaffirmed the City's intent to annex those communities served by the City's water and water distribution • area. Additional Information • Other Cities such as Murray, Midvale, West Valley City and Holladay have completed consultant and in house studies that identify potential areas of annexation. Some encroach on the boundaries listed in the 1979 Master Annexation Policy Declaration. Of particular note is the annexation studies of Murray and Sandy which advocated annexation to the east of their present boundaries, and the incorporation of Holladay that incorporated a significant portion of the unincorporated area along the east bench of the Salt Lake Valley. Of particular note is that the boundaries of Holladay City do not correspond with their water district boundaries. • • 5 AUG O 6.2003 •OSS C. "ROCKY"ANDERSON SALT I�vY ORPO i' l tl; MAYOR SALT LAKE 2002 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR .+*+7 COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky J. Fluhart DATE: August 1, 2003 Chief Administrative Officer FROM: D.J. Baxter Mayor's Senior Advisor Steve Fawcett Deputy Director, Management Services Department SUBJECT: G.O. Bond projects fact sheets STAFF CONTACT: D.J. Baxter, Mayor's Senior Advisor, 535-7735 Kay Christensen, Administrative Analyst, 535-7677 Laurie Dillon, Senior Administrative Analyst, 535-7766 Susi Kontgis, Senior Administrative Analyst, 535-6414 DOCUMENT TYPE: Information fact sheets for each project identified to possibly be included in a General Obligation Bond issue. These fact sheets are to be transmitted to the City Council for their information and consideration in setting a bond election date on November 4, 2003. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receives the fact sheets,holds a discussion, and sets the date of November 4, 2003 for a single, combined General Obligation Bond issue. The potential projects to be funded with such an issue are: The Leonardo at Library Square, two branch libraries, one in the Southwest/Glendale area and one in the West Capitol Hill area, Open Space land purchases in various City locations, a Sports field complex in the Northwest area, Pioneer Park, Hansen Planetarium, and Hogle Zoo. BUDGET IMPACT: If the voters approve a bond election property tax rates will be set to repay the loan value. Each budget year a separate GO Bond tax rate is set to pay the annual debt service payment as set forth in the bond documents repayment schedule. The City Council would include in the budget each year the amount necessary to service this debt issue. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Individuals involved in preliminary planning and engineering of the projects identified have supplied information to the Administrative Analysts of Management Services, who have prepared informational fact sheets to brief the City Council. The specific information requested to be presented includes a brief • project description; a purpose and scope, including the benefit that the community can 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE:801-535-7704 FAX:801-535-6331 Zr� ¢ECYCLfD PAPER expect to receive if the project is funded and constructed; the preliminary cost estimate to construct and equip each project; the preliminary operating and maintenance cost • estimates and the potential sources for those costs; and if any potential partners are available to assist in the project construction costs or operating and maintenance costs. If the City Council approves of the bond election an infoiiiiation brochure will be completed by September 1 and a public education process will begin. Bond Counsel has been selected and preliminary legal work, including a reimbursement resolution, is being completed and will go before the City Council for their approval as well. PUBLIC PROCESS: A telephone survey of Salt Lake City residents conducted in July 2003 revealed that 64% of those surveyed were favorable toward funding these projects with a property tax increase through a general obligation bond. • I • 9 • BOND PROJECT FACT SHEET PROPOSED PROJECT: The Leonardo Project Description Salt Lake City wants to renovate the old main library building to house a science, cultural and educational facility called The Leonardo at Library Square. The project will feature Utah's first interactive science and technology center, an arts education program for youth, and a documentary arts center that honors Utah's heritage and diverse cultures. Purpose and Scope The Library Square Foundation for Art, Culture and Science (The Leonardo Foundation) was established January 10, 2002. It is a not for profit 501(c)(3) organization whose board includes representatives of three partner organizations: The Center for Documentary Arts, the Utah Science Center, and the City's Global Artways program. These three partners believed that their goals could best be achieved by creation of the "umbrella" foundation to manage the building, coordinate programs and activities, and build on 41111 their individual strengths to create "a whole greater than its parts." The Leonard Foundation will hold a long-term lease on the building and the Leonardo Board will be the governing body. The exact teiiiis of the lease are not finalized, but it is anticipated that the fee will be a token amount, such as $1 a month. Global Artways will not be a signatory to the lease because the City cannot lease to itself. The Leonardo facility will offer nearly 30,000 square feet of exhibit space, a gift shop, a workshop, a café, a children's story zone, a mother's place, performance theatres, media studios, science labs, visual art studios, a darkroom, and reception and conference areas. Global Artways will share space with the Salt Lake Arts Academy, a charter school for 5t"-8t" grade students in the SLC School District. The Academy will rent space from Global Artways. Global Artways will offer art education to people of all ages, a high-tech media studio which will allow the study of video editing, animation, web page design, and multimedia presentations. A Youth Arts Corps will provide peer mentoring, and project design and implementation. Global Artways will utilize the black box theatre and other perfoiiiiance facilities. The Center for Documentary Arts (CDA) will combine a museum, a center . for the study of documentary work, and research facilities in one location. One permanent and two rotating galleries will form the center's museum component. A library, an in-house screening area, classrooms, a darkroom, a digital imaging center, and a curatorial workroom will form the bulk of CDA's fabrication and educational spaces. These spaces will jointly serve CDA's daily needs and its year-round course offerings to the public on all facets of documentary work. CDA also plans activities that will utilize the black box theater, the dance studio, and the storytelling space. The Utah Science Center will focus on energy (from fusion reactions of the sun, to photosynthesis and fossil fuels to alternative energy technologies and bioenergetics), physiology, chemistry and pathology, as well as the environment, focusing on biodiversity, resources and climate. The Center will sponsor technology and science exhibits, events, issue forums, and classroom study. Architectural work and testing are now underway. Conceptual plans and preliminary estimates have been completed and engineering drawings will be available in the fall of 2003. Contractor work could begin in early 2004 with an opening of the Leonardo scheduled for early 2005. • Capital Cost Estimates A $25 million Capital Campaign is now under way with the following components: Approximately $10 million from the City bond proposal would be used for the Leonardo project. It is estimated that $4.5 million would be used for remodeling and interior improvements, $4.5 million for seismic, electrical, plumbing, heating and air conditioning, and $0.5 million for creating joint use spaces such as shops, ticketing and security. This will include all improvements necessary for each partner and will prepare the building for occupancy. Private donations of$10 million in matching funds will be obtained by the prospective tenants before issuance of the City bonds. These funds may be comprised of Federal, State and County funds, as well as private, corporate and foundation contributions. Operating Cost Estimates • • A preliminary business plan for the Leonardo has been prepared and is circulating for comment. Business plans for each of the three partners are in the final stages of development. The Leonardo umbrella organization expects an operating budget of approximately $1 million per year, of which about half is for the operation and maintenance of the building and the remainder is for services to the pal tiler organizations. The Utah Science Center's operating budget will be approximately'$5 million per year. The Center for Documentary Arts will have operating costs of less than $1 million per year. Potential Sources of Funding for Operations & Maintenance Approximately half of the $ 1 million operating budget of the umbrella Leonardo operation will be generated through space assessment fees to the pai tilers; the other half will come from event revenues, gift shop revenues, 0 and philanthropic and grant support. The Leonardo will operate a gift shop, provide simple food service, and centralized ticketing and related services for the pai tilers and for the general programs and activities. Global Artways is a component of the City's Youth City programs, which will expand into the Leonardo site. Operating and maintenance costs will be part of Global Artways' budget and will be at least partially offset by the rent received from the Salt Lake Arts Academy. Approximately half of the Utah Science Center's $ 5 million operating and maintenance budget will come from ticket and membership revenues. The operating budget of the Center for Documentary Arts will be generated from grants, corporate contributions, ticket sales, exhibit rentals, and student fees. Staff Contact: Kay Christensen 535-7677 BOND PROJECT FACT SHEET • PROPOSED PROJECT: Branch Libraries Project Description: This project would fund the construction of two new branch libraries, one in the Glendale area and one in the Capital Hill area. The construction costs are estimated to be $5 million, and property acquisition costs are estimated at about $250,000, for a total bond amount of$5,250,000. Purpose and Scope: The Library's Strategic Plan for 2002-2005 includes planning for a future Glendale Branch. The Capitol Hill Branch is being considered at the request of the RDA. The two branch libraries would serve Salt Lake City's west side in Glendale and in the West Capitol Hill neighborhood near 300 West and 500 North.- Construction costs for the two facilities would be at least$5,000,000. The Glendale Branch is planned at 12,000 square feet and the West Capitol Hill Branch at 8,000 square feet. The RDA has informed the Library Board that property may be available for the West Capitol Hill Branch at the desired location without cost to the Library. Property for the Glendale location would need to be acquired. Cost Estimates: Capital Improvements: With a total of 20,000 square feet and an assumption of III $185.00 per square foot in hard construction costs for the buildings and $30.00 per square foot for FF&E (furniture, fixtures and equipment), fees at approximately 10%, and an inflationary safety net of 5% annually, the total construction budget would approach $5,000,000. The cost for land acquisition for the Glendale branch is estimated at $250,000. It is expected that bond funds would cover the land purchase and construction. Start-up Costs An initial collection for each branch would be needed. Start-up costs for a collection of 40,000 items would be approximately$600,000 for each branch and may not be appropriate as a bond expenditure. These costs would have to be covered by the Library System's budget. Operations and Maintenance The projected annual costs to operate each of the new branch libraries would mirror the costs to operate the Day-Riverside Library at approximately: $300,000 for staff 100,000 for materials 30,000 for utilities and phone service 60,000 for maintenance/landscaping 50,000 for services and supplies $550,000 approximately per branch annually • • Potential Sources of Funds for Operations & Maintenance: Before proceeding with plans to consider a bond initiative for these projects, the Library Board requests that the City Council commit to a tax increase for the operating costs necessary to support these new branches. In light of the recent reductions already absorbed by the Library, restoration of necessary operating funds would also be a priority for the Library Board and Staff That amount could be at least$600,000 or more annually depending upon revenues received in April of 2004. It should be remembered that this year's reduction of $400,000 came on the heels of a similar reduction in 2001-2002, and the Library's resources have been stretched very thin. Assuming that the,previous budget losses for the Library were restored and that the costs for operating two new branches were added, it can be estimated that a tax increase would need to total in the vicinity of$1.7 million annually($550,000 for each branch and $600,000 to restore current year reduction).This amount represents an ongoing increase to the library's tax revenues/rate of about 16%, which would be an increase of$10 per year for a home valued at $150,000. One-time costs for start-up collections for both branches would require about $1.2 million. There are a couple of ways this amount could be funded. A one-time tax rate increase of 11% (about $7 for a$150,000 house) would cover this expense. The rate could be lowered the next year. Alternatively, if the tax increase for operating expenses (the 16%mentioned above) were to be implemented at least a year in advance of the • completion of the two branch libraries, the increase could be used to fund the start-up collections. The tax rate increase would need to be in place prior to the time the bonds were issued, and the construction schedule would have to be such that the operating funds would not be needed for the first year of the rate increase. A similar process was used in funding the increase in the collection for the new Main Library, in which a tax increase was implemented while the construction was on-going. Because the actual construction of the Main Library took a couple of years, the increase was used to purchase additional materials during those construction years, and then applied to the increased operating and maintenance costs of a larger facility when it was completed. The primary concern with using this approach for the branch libraries is that the construction time would be much shorter. The tax increase would need to be in place for the year prior to opening the new branches in order to use those funds for the start-up collection costs. One additional source of funding is $700,000 in capital reserves that the library will likely have available to put toward any of the costs related to new branch libraries, e.g., land purchase, construction, or new collections. Staff Contact Laurie Dillon 535-7766 Library Contact Nancy Tessman Director, The City Library 210 East 400 South Salt Lake City, UT 84111 • (801) 524-8250 BOND PROJECT FACT SHEET • PROPOSED PROJECT: Open Space Project Description The City is considering the creation of an Open Space Trust Fund to help purchase, receive and manage open space lands in Salt Lake City. This proposal is driven by the desire to protect the eastern foothills from any further encroachment. Creating a dedicated funding source, such as a trust fund, would allow the City to be proactive in preserving the City's open space. Purpose and Scope The Open Space Master Plan adopted in 1992 called for the establishment of an Open Space Trust to "receive ownership of publicly and privately owned open space lands and to consolidate the public ownership, promote • acquisition, generate revenue, and monitor the plan." The Plan suggests several funding options for land acquisition, including a general obligation bond. A general obligation bond issue offers the best opportunity to finance land conservation in Salt Lake City. A trust fund created by proceeds from a general obligation bond could potentially provide up-front funds for the immediate purchase of land while it is still available and would provide a reliable revenue source for any maintenance costs. Cost Estimates The cost of land acquisition varies greatly depending on the location and potential for development. For example, an acre of open space amenity land (land which cannot be developed because of degree of slope) costs approximately $1,500 an acre. On the other hand, land which has some potential for development might sell in the range of$150,000 per acre as was the case with a recently donated parcel west of Carrigan Canyon). Obviously, acquisitions would depend on available funds. • In addition to acquisition, costs associated with open space fall into two categories: stabilization and routine maintenance. Stabilization includes those measures that must be undertaken to prepare the land for its intended use, including fences, gates, revegetation, signs, and other improvements or demolition. One foiiiiula some cities have used for estimating stabilization costs is six percent of the land's purchase price. Maintenance costs vary greatly depending on the land's use and how much access the public has to the land. For example, several years ago, Portland' estimated the cost of trail maintenance at $8,000 per trail mile per year. Other cities listed open space maintenance costs ranging from $20 to $500 per acre. Potential Sources of O&M Operations and maintenance would be the responsibility of the City, but the burden could be offset by private donations of time and money. There are numerous groups such the KOPE Kids, Save our Canyons and other citizen IIIgroups who are concerned with conserving the natural environment, whose efforts could contribute to the City's maintenance program. Staff Contact: Kay Christensen 535-7677 BOND PROJECT FACT SHEET . PROPOSED PROJECT: Regional Sports Field Complex Project Description Salt Lake City wants to construct a multi-purpose regional sports complex on 212 acres at 2000 North and 2000 West. Currently, that property houses a model-airplane airport, which would have to be relocated, and borders an off-road-vehicle playground. If this project is undertaken, the City would need to acquire 212 acres of State owned property in North Salt Lake, between Redwood Road and I-215 at approximately 1800 North. The, Citywould construct eight baseball/softball diamonds, an indoor soccer/baseball complex and 30 outdoor soccer fields that could also be used for lacrosse, rugby, and football. Purpose and Scope According to industry-developed national standards, Salt Lake City is deficient in its amount of park green space available for public use. Notably lacking are large regional and community park spaces that can be used for organized events. Specifically, there is a need to accommodate the growing youth and adult participation in organized sports such as soccer, lacrosse, rugby, and baseball. As a consequence, every available large green space found in the City's community and neighborhood parks is heavily programmed for use by the public who participate in these activities. In many instances, fields are shared and used for multiple events. The continuous, high- intensity multi-use of park space has created impacts to park users and the community in which the park is located. The charm,peacefulness and basic use of the park by local residents is diminished due to over use by organized sports activities. Creating a regional multi-purpose sports complex away from the residential neighborhoods, but still in an easily accessible area of the City will relieve the pressure and impacts currently felt in neighborhood and community parks. The sports complex would look like and function as a public park, though its public use features would specifically target youth and adult athletic field activities. The Jordan River, which runs along the east border of the complex, will also be developed for public access and use, but only at a level that is sensitive to the unique natural beauty and value of this river corridor. Great lengths will be taken to preserve the natural habitat for both plants and wildlife. The sports field complex will have approximately 30 soccer fields (open spaces), eight baseball/softball diamonds, playgrounds, restrooms and concession areas. The complex will have sufficient on-site parking,pathways, landscaping and irrigation systems to support the use, and minimize the cost of on-going maintenance. Although the complex will have the shape and design of a soccer facility, the activity space will be designed to • support youth football, lacrosse, rugby and other field activities by moving goals and . adjusting space. This design should easily accommodate organized leagues and clubs, as well as high school athletic events and/or tournament play. The complex could also include an indoor structure that would support the same types of outdoor activities provided by the complex. This would allow for the sports complex to operate 12 months a year. Cost Estimates The City anticipates needing approximately$17.5 million to design and construct the project. The estimated cost,would break down into the following categories: — Indoor structure $5.0 million — Design fees and Administration $3.0 million — Road improvements and parking $2.3 million — Sports field improvements $7.5 million — Baseball/softball improvements $2.0 million — Building/support facilities $2.1 million — Jordan River Trail improvements $0.6 million TOTAL (with indoor structure) $22.5 million Not included in this cost estimate are funds for land acquisition from the State of Utah. It . is assumed the City would need to have the land donated by the State of Utah, or work out some type of land or service trade due to the high acquisition cost of the land. If the project were undertaken, we estimate the on-going operating and maintenance cost for the complex would be approximately$5,000 per acre, or$1.06 million annually. As stated previously, use of the complex will be fee—based, so a portion of the operation/maintenance cost will be offset by user fees. The remainder of the cost will be shared proportionately by the partners who share the complex. Potential Sources of Funds for Operations &Maintenance Potential funding sources for operating and maintenance costs include user fees, ZAP tax revenue,private donations and naming opportunities. Salt Lake City will own the facility, but on-going maintenance and programming support will be provided by partners, such as participating counties, government institutions, school districts, high school athletic associations and/or private businesses that use the complex. The complex will be used for a variety of purposes and will be fee-based. Due to its size and location, this facility could accommodate regional, state and national tournaments and events. We believe scheduled events will bring new economic opportunities to the City and generate revenues that will offset a significant portion of annual operating costs. Based on economic models standard to the industry, the Salt Lake City Sports Complex 1111 has the potential to offset operation/maintenance expense through league play and tournament play. Industry standard models indicate the following revenue may be • generated: Seasonal League Use: Baseball/Softball $25,000 Soccer(or other field sports) $180,000 Tournament Play: Baseball/Softball $120,000-$175,000 (based on 5 per year) Soccer(or other field sports) $150,000-$175,000 (based on 5 per year) Total Potential Use Fees $475,000-$555,000 The complex will also act as the engine for other economic benefits such as sales taxes, lodging, food and other travel-related economic activities. Preliminary research, using a US Soccer Foundation model, indicates that four tournaments will generate $5,790,000 of new economic activity annually. Staff Contact: Susi Kontgis 535-6414 • BOND PROJECT FACT SHEET Proposed Project Pioneer Park Project Description This project would renovate Pioneer Park by introducing new design elements to activate the park and make it a destination place for all of Salt Lake City's residents. New design elements will set the park apart as an inviting, safe, and usable urban park space. It will include improvements to the landscape and physical facilities of the park, and will create activity areas that will open the door to new programming opportunities. Purpose and Scope Pioneer Park is an under-utilized urban open space that is located in an area of the downtown community that is currently in transition. In its early life,the park functioned adequately as a neighborhood park supporting the needs of the local residents. Over time, the character of the community changed. Residential properties changed to commercial and industrial uses. The park became an oasis with no formal activity base. Today's park users are typically homeless individuals and others who use and benefit from the social service agencies that support them and surround the park. Aside from the very successful Farmer's Market, the park space offers little in programming opportunity even though it is a mature green space. There exists a perception that the park is unsafe and unkempt. • Because of its size and location, and because the community around the park is in transition, there is reason to believe that the park space can become the central public area for the community, and that it can serve as a strong link between the Central Business District and the Gateway and Depot Districts. Grant funding and City matching funds have provided for consultants who are working with City staff to develop the final use plan for the park. The goal of the project will be to build features that activate and bring life to the park and the surrounding area. The improvements will be designed to stimulate economic growth opportunities near and around the park; stimulate use by the families who reside near the park; support and give balance between those who currently use the park and other city-wide visitors; create a safe environment; preserve open space; interpret the historical and archeological aspect of the park's history; create a space that welcomes diversity of people and cultures; and enhance the Farmer's Market. Key to the park's renovation will be the introduction of facilities or design elements that are unique and creative, and that stimulate broad-based public interest. The final design proposal is not yet complete, but it may very well include elements such as interactive playgrounds, staging for events, gardens, a café or food facility, gathering spaces and an activity space such as a water feature or ice rink. The process for determining what features should be included in the park is currently underway. Focus groups of the various stakeholders—residents, businesses, homeless advocates, historic preservation groups, and arts and culture organizations—have met to develop ideas for uses of the • park. The discussions have also included what is needed for a successful park, and what barriers currently exist that must be addressed. This information provides the basis for • the improvements that will be recommended. Cost Estimates The City is anticipating needing $4.1 million to renovate Pioneer Park from its current condition to a more lively and active urban park. Based on their experience with similar projects and the proposed uses, the consultants currently working on the design have estimated the design and construction costs at $3.1 million, and the contingency and fees at $1 million. Additional activities and elements in the park will add to the on-going operating and maintenance costs. The new design elements and the desired increase in activities will result in an increased cost for operating the renovated park estimated at $5,000 per acre per year, or$50,000 annually. This cost would be in addition to the funds currently budgeted for the park (approximately$4000 per acre per year). The estimate for the increase is based on typical costs for comparable activities in City park environments. Potential Sources of Funding for Operations & Maintenance The General Fund is likely to be the source for the increased operating and maintenance costs. Costs for some of the activities may be offset by fees, but the City will need to subsidize the overall increased cost of having more features and facilities in the park. Staff Contact Laurie Dillon 535-7766 S • BOND PROJECT FACT SHEET • PROPOSED PROJECT: Hansen Planetarium Project Description The City is considering a project to renovate and preserve the historic Hansen Planetarium building. The building is listedon the National Register of Historic Places and could be used as a gallery, a museum, or for other educational or business purposes (if tax-exempt bonds are used to fund the project there would be significant restrictions on any for-profit business use). Purpose and Scope Completed in 1905, the original Salt Lake City Public Library building, which more recently housed the Hansen Planetarium, is an historic structure and should be protected and preserved The dome constructed for the use of the planetarium is not part of the historic structure and can be removed. The • project would remove all planetarium related equipment, fixtures, fuiiiishings and walls and remove asbestos fibers. New floors will be installed where the dome was removed, restrooms and the elevator will be remodeled to comply with ADA requirements. The building will be brought to current code requirements for all seismic and building systems The work will be done to the standards necessary to achieve the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification in compliance with the City's green building initiative. All construction will be appropriate to the historic nature of the structure. The building will be prepared for tenant build out. The cost to build out to meet a future tenant's specific needs is not known and is not part of this proposal. Cost Estimates If the building is restored to apre-tenant build out condition, it is estimated to cost approximately $6,100,000. This estimate includes the cost of demolition, new construction, LEED certification, asbestos removal, dome • removal, design and construction administration fees. Leaving the building empty in its present condition could result in overall deterioration requiring the Cityto appropriate funds to repair the damage. • The building could act as a revenue source for the City if an appropriate tenant were found. However, if a non-profit or government agency moved in, the rent charged might not cover all operating and maintenance costs. Tenants would be required to cover utility and related costs. The annual operating and maintenance costs for the physical plant, if occupied, are estimated to be: (assuming 28,073 square feet) Labor $16,689 Utilities Electric $26,000 Gas $ 7,000 Water $ 1,000 Materials/Supplies $11,000 Janitorial .$32,400 Charges/Services....$12,000 Total $106,089 • Operations and maintenance would be approximately $10,000 a year if the building were remodeled, but remained vacant. Potential Sources of O&M The City will bear the burden of operating and maintenance costs for the building until a tenant is found, and may continue to bear some of the burden if the occupant is a non-profit. Staff Contact: Kay Christensen 535-7677 • BOND PROJECT FACT SHEET Proposed Project Utah's Hogle Zoo Capital Improvement Projects Project Description Utah's Hogle Zoo recommends that capital improvement projects for the Zoo be included in the proposed bond issue for Salt Lake City. Potential projects include: "Elephant Encounters", an expansion of the exhibit for African elephants; renovation of the outdated feline building; and expansion of the Zoo on This is the Place Monument property. Each will address significant and urgent needs for improved animal care, safety, public education and recreation. These projects will solidify the Zoo's role as a dynamic and progressive cultural and recreational facility at its current site at the mouth of Emigration Canyon. Potential Improvement Projects "Elephant Encounters" Elephant Encounters expands the 30-year old"Animal Giants" exhibit area for African elephants by 400 percent, and will improve the care, management, safety, and exhibit value for the world's largest land animals. Project elements include an expansive new habitat area to represent an"African watering hole"; an extensive outdoor training area where zoo visitors can observe the unique abilities and intelligence of elephants as well • as the training techniques used to ensure their health and care; and an interpretive center to educate visitors about these unique animals and their plight in the wild. The "Elephant Encounters"project was conceived and designed in 2000, and introduced to the public and media as a priority project to follow the construction of the Zoo's new entry plaza. Construction documents are in place and would require only minor modification. Contracts could be awarded and construction started in Spring 2004. The project replaces an old and outdated waterfowl pond with a state-of-the-art exhibit that would become a"flagship" attraction for the Zoo. The interpretive center will also serve as a rental and catering facility for special events. Feline Building Improvements This 35-year-old facility is outdated. While incremental improvements have been made over the past three years, a more aggressive renovation is needed to bring the exhibits up to modern standards. The schematic concept would remove bars, some walls, and other rigid elements, replacing them with more natural spaces. Natural light would be introduced through skylights and concrete floors would be replaced with more natural substrate. In addition, two new outdoor habitat exhibits would be built on a nearby hillside to provide very natural and spacious surroundings for Siberian tigers and Snow leopards. The Feline Building at Utah's Hogle Zoo, while functional, does little to demonstrate and • highlight the majesty, diversity, and unique behaviors of the cat family. Improvements are needed to address the evolving standards of modern zoos, and the needs and interests of zoo visitors. The proposed improvements would change the character and impact of • the building from that of concrete and steel"boxes"to a more open, natural, and aesthetic home for these wonderful animals. Expansion onto This is the Place Monument Property Expansion onto This is the Place Monument property west of existing facilities may improve exhibits, accommodate new features, and enhance visitor experience. Combined Impact The proposed projects will dramatically improve the Zoo's ability to care for the animals and serve its guests. In order for guests to enjoy and appreciate animals in a zoo setting, it is essential to display them in a manner that is respectful of the animals' physical and behavioral needs. It is also important to provide opportunities to both educate and entertain people. These improvements will address those needs. Utah's Hogle Zoo serves nearly 700,000 visitors annually, and most of our guests are local. These improvements, particularly"Elephant Encounters,"have the potential to improve attendance by 15-20%, and will elevate the Zoo's status in the community and in the zoo profession. The Zoo's Master Plan, adopted in 1999, provides a roadmap for sustained improvements to transform Utah's Hogle Zoo into a more modern and attractive facility that will serve the citizens of Salt Lake City, surrounding counties, and the entire state for generations, as it has for the past 72 years. The two proposed projects, funded through a successful bond issue, will contribute greatly to the realization of that vision, and will ensure that • Utah's Hogle Zoo remains at its current location in Salt Lake City. Project 1: "Elephant Encounters" The Elephant Encounters project has a 2000 cost estimate of$7 million. It is not anticipated that this amount would increase substantially. Project 2: Feline Building Improvements Design and construction documents for this project would be developed in 2004 for project implementation in 2005. Estimated costs are $4-6 million, depending on final scope. Funding Sources and Partners Operations and Maintenance Operating and maintenance costs for both the "Elephant Encounters" and Feline Building Improvements will be managed through the Zoo's earned revenues and established public operating support. Funds provided through the state legislature's annual appropriations and the Zoo, Arts, and Parks (ZAP) sales tax fund in Salt Lake County provide operating support to many of the Zoo's ongoing programs. Since the improvements are for existing facilities and programs, operational increases could be offset by increased efficiencies of the improved facilities. Both facilities will have increased revenue earning potential through increased attendance and rental and catering opportunities for special events. • t R 0 Capital Improvements Eighty per cent (80%) of the funding needed for the proposed improvements would come from the bond issue. Additional funds could come from a combination of the Zoo's earned revenues,private contributions, and ZAP funds. If the bond issue passes, Utah's Hogle Zoo will develop and implement a sustained capital campaign to help fund these and additional improvements through a public-private partnership approach that has proven successful for other zoos and non-profits. hi addition, it is hoped that renewal of the Salt Lake County ZAP tax in 2004 will aid in sustaining both capital improvements and program growth throughout the decade. Staff Contact Laurie Dillon 535-7766 Hogle Zoo Contact Craig Dinsmore, Executive Director 2600 East Sunnyside Avenue Salt Lake City, UT 84108 (801) 582-1636 dinsmore(ii xmission.com III 0 JUL 2 9 2003 SALT \ Q 'WIT f_ 1R�P@ l,9 RO55 C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON • COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer DATE: July 23, 2003 FROM: Alison Weyher Ca. RE: Traffic Calming Program Update STAFF CONTACT: Tim Harpst, Transportation Director 535-6630 Scott Vaterlaus, Transportation Division 535-7129 Craig Timothy, Transportation Division 535-6569 RECOMMENDATIONS: That the City Council hold a briefing on the Administration's responses to the Council's audit of the program and questions posed related to the Council's moratorium of the program, and that the City Council lift the moratorium following concurrence in proposed program modifications contained herein. DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing • BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: City Council recently received the results of a City Council- sponsored audit of the Traffic Calming Program. City Council also placed a moratorium on the program subject to a management response to the audit and to specific questions posed by City Council. Analysis: The accompanying documents provide responses to the program audit and City Council questions as well as recommendations for modifications to the program to address the issues raised. The recommendations in the accompanying documents will be drafted into the program description document prior to the City Council briefing in anticipation of concurrence and lifting of the moratorium by City Council. Any delay in lifting the moratorium places in jeopardy the ability to complete the projects intended to be done this year. Public Process: The program process has been created and periodically refined using comments and feedback from citizens who have been in the program, community councils and the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB). The proposed change to the program will be discussed with the TAB on August 4. Relevant Ordinance: There is no existing ordinance covering the traffic calming program. • 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1 TELEPHONE: SO1-535-6230 FAX: SO1-535-6005 • Moratorium Issues On June 14, 2003, City Council placed a moratorium on traffic calming with the following motion: " ...Council enact a moratorium on the Traffic Calming Program until the Council receives a briefing from the Administration on the findings in the Traffic Calming Program audit. In addition to the audit findings, the briefing from the Administration should address the following program criteria:" 1. "A plan will be prepared to notify residents and property owners on adjacent streets and neighborhoods to the proposed traffic calming locations and a simple signage and notification system to solicit formal comment on the proposed project will be developed. " 2. "Impacts on surrounding streets will be factored into the criteria system. " 3. "A variety or "toolbox"of traffic calming measures and options will be considered for each proposed project location and factored into the criteria system. " 4. "Proposed traffic calming projects will be reviewed by all participating departments to ensure that the proposed measures do not affect ADA ramp and sidewalk access and that additional expenses are not incurred due to the placement of the traffic calming measures. 5. "Proposed traffic calming projects will be reviewed to determine their impact on traffic • patterns supporting community destinations such as universities and hospitals. The following are management responses to the bullet statements contained in the City Council motion imposing the moratorium. 1. "A plan will be prepared to notify residents and property owners on adjacent streets and neighborhoods to the proposed traffic calming locations and a simple signage and notification system to solicit formal comment on the proposed project will be developed. " Management Response. Several steps have been taken to broaden and improve the notification process. Previous practice has been to work with the residents of the street to be calmed to identify a plan, test it and then implement it if it proved to work. Since last year, we have included the posting of signage to notify street users that a plan was being either developed or tested and provide a phone number to record comments. From this point forward, we will continue to work with the residents of a street to be calmed to develop a plan. However, we will expand the notification mailings area to include residents of cul-de-sacs or other areas who by virtue of the street network must use the street as well as residents in a one-block circumference of the street to be calmed. This will include the parallel street on either side of the subject street plus cross streets. We will also conduct an administrative public meeting during or in lieu of the testing phase of the process to allow public input. Notifications of the meeting will be mailed to the • broadened area, sent to the community council chairperson and City Councilmember, and recorded on the greeting of the phone number posted on the street to record comments. Holding 1 the meeting at this point in the process allows residents to provide informed comment having • driven on and lived with the plan during the test phase or, should the plan receive sufficient support to skip testing, allows public comment before the plan is finalized for construction. We are redesigning the signage used to more clearly notify drivers and display how street users can provide input. These actions should provide improved notification and input for consideration in plan development. These changes will lengthen the time needed for a neighborhood to work through the process and are being written into to the program document. They increase the amount of notification and input opportunity. The increased input will be used to refine the plans before construction; however, we will still be seeking support of the final plans from the residents on the streets to be calmed before construction can proceed. 2. "Impacts on surrounding streets will be factored into the criteria system. " Management Response. Impacts to surrounding streets are considered in the data collection, plan development, testing and follow-up phases. Calming plans are designed to minimize impacts, such as diversion of traffic to other local streets. If it is believed that unintended impacts may occur, data is collected on other streets prior to and during the test in order to verify whether such impacts have actually occurred. If they have, the plan is reconfigured or impacted streets included in the plan. It must be noted that traffic patterns and volumes,by their very nature, fluctuate day to day. This will happen with or without traffic calming. It will be the • more unusual and significant impacts that will be looked for and treated accordingly. If there are several streets in close proximity to each other that have requested calming and are eligible, traffic calming plans are developed for all of them at one time to help insure a holistic solution for the broader neighborhood and to minimize the possibility of unintended impacts on nearby streets. The broader notification process that will now be used should help insure that potential impacts to nearby streets are identified. 3. "A variety or "toolbox"of traffic calming measures and options will be considered for each proposed project location and factored into the criteria system. " Management Response. We agree. The audit found that we have as many if not more measures in our toolbox than other cities and we present examples of these measures during the initial meetings with neighborhood groups when kicking off the plan development process. Up until recently, most neighborhoods have vociferously favored the use of speed humps because they are the most effective, albeit the most punitive. We have recently included in our initial presentation the caveat that our office may require certain measures to be included in a plan that we believe is critical to making it successful. An example of this is that bulbouts may be required to be included at a school crosswalk to provide the dual benefit of traffic calming and a reduction in the distance students • walk in the street exposed to vehicular traffic. We are also making a more conscious effort to 2 include a variety of calming measures in plans. Three examples are the plan for 1900 East which • includes five(5) different calming measures,the plan for 1700 East which includes three (3) different calming measures and the plan for 600 West which consists solely of traffic circles. Both are awaiting testing following lifting of the moratorium. We are adding measures to the toolbox. We are working on the creation of traffic calming banners similar to the lawn signs made by elementary school children in the Avenues. We propose making them available to neighborhoods to hang on street light poles as well as allowing neighborhoods to create their own and encourage trading them with other neighborhoods. We are also going to promote these and our other"self help"measures more than in the past, particularly with neighborhoods that are lower on the priority list of impacted areas awaiting formal calming plans. The above requirements,practices and new calming measures are being added to the program document and toolbox. 4. "Proposed traffic calming projects will be reviewed by all participating departments to ensure that the proposed measures do not affect ADA ramp and sidewalk access and that additional expenses are not incurred due to the placement of the traffic calming measures. Management Response. This is being done. Transportation and City Engineering staff collaborate in the design and construction phases of traffic calming because City Engineering manages these phases of the work. If it appears there may be design or feasibility issues, this collaboration occurs earlier during the plan development phase prior to testing. Designs are periodically altered to deal with drainage, ADA or other constructability issues. It is always our intent to minimize costs as well as insure safe, effective designs including meeting ADA requirements. It is unusual to create ADA issues associated with traffic calming. There will be instances,however, when some existing curb and gutter will need to be replaced with the construction of calming measures, such as when bulbouts are built. A meeting was held between City Engineering and Transportation staff in July to discuss these points and emphasize City Engineering review of potential and proposed plans for constructability issues as early in the process as possible. On a related matter, the Fire Department and Public Services Department were included in review and testing of speed humps, speed tables and other traffic calming measures prior to their use on City streets in order to determine potential conflicts with emergency response and snow plowing/trash collection,respectively. Public Services can safely plow these devices and we inform them of new installations for their records. We keep an ongoing relationship with both departments as new neighborhoods are brought into the program and as calming measure designs are modified or new ones added to the calming toolbox. We involve the Fire Department in the planning and testing phases of each plan development. We have worked with the Fire Department and our contractor to refine the cross-section of speed tables and speed humps and improve the quality of construction which has resulted in more consistent devices that moderate travel speed without causing significant interference with the Fire Department's response time. The result of these ongoing efforts is concurrence to use speed tables in lieu of • speed humps when calming streets that are also Fire Department response routes. The Fire Department's testing of speed tables indicates their apparatus can travel over them at the speed 3 • limit. They have also indicated properly sized traffic circles do not cause them concern. Again, • regardless of the types of calming measures proposed,the Fire Department has an opportunity to comment on them before a plan is finalized. Both Fire Chief Chuck Querry and Battalion Chief/Fire Marshall Dan Andrus have consistently informed us that the traffic calming measures that have been implemented thus far, although sometimes uncomfortable for responding staff, do not cause a problem in providing emergency response. We have incorporated their recommendation that speed humps no longer be used on primary response routes. Although the general preference of Fire Department rank and file is to not have traffic calming measures of any kind on any streets, we have incorporated the Fire Department management's official preferences into the calming program. Another reason the Fire Department administration is supportive of the calming program is they see it as helpful in reducing car crashes and severity of crashes citywide which constitutes a large portion of their service calls. S. "Proposed traffic calming projects will be reviewed to determine their impact on traffic patterns supporting community destinations such as universities and hospitals. Management Response. Most traffic calming plans are intended to reduce speeding. Traffic calming projects intended to divert non-local traffic, as opposed to solely slowing traffic, are designed keeping in mind the locations and access points of collector and arterial streets intended for the non-local traffic. As discussed in the response in item 2 above, steps are taken in the planning phase to not cause diversion of traffic to unintended streets. Should it occur, the plan • will be reviewed for revision and possible inclusion of the newly impacted street into the calming plan. Area master plans are consulted in the plan development phase to help insure compatibility of the plan and consideration of the larger area traffic picture. • 4 • Audit Deloitte &Touche completed a performance audit of the Traffic Management Program in Spring 2003. The audit's conclusion was "...the Traffic Management Program appeared to be innovative in the development and implementation of traffic calming measures. No significant deficiencies were noted and it appeared that the desired results for the program were generally being achieved. The performance of the program was generally consistent with-other traffic calming programs reviewed... " Some of the attributes of the program reported in the audit include: • Program created in 1998 • Developed using research domestic and international and with input from the community • To keep abreast of innovations and trends, the program has been updated four times since inception • Staffed with one full-time Traffic Calming Coordinator • As of late 2002, there have been 288 requests to participate in the program, 100 areas qualified and waiting in queue, 130 streets evaluated but not meeting eligibility for the program • The program receives 20 inquiries weekly and two petitions to participate monthly, on average • • As of late 2002, 32 neighborhoods completed the program process with 24 proceeding to construction • Testing and some construction restricted to warmer weather months • Due to seasonality and other constraints, 9 to 11 projects have been completed annually. The audit provided conclusions, considerations and recommendations for the seven objectives it investigated. They are shown below along with the City's management response. Objective 1. "Compare the City's traffic calming measures to industry best practices." Audit Conclusion. The audit determined Salt Lake City's program to be innovative in the development and implementation of traffic calming measures. The program contains diverse options in its toolkit and they include predominantly the same traffic calming measures as those of comparable cities and best practices. Management Response. We continually discuss traffic calming measures, ideas and experiments in-house and with counterparts in other cities. We experiment with ideas that we or others generate. Several cities have adopted measures from our program and consider it to be progressive. We strive to insure the toolkit contains a wide range of measures deemed safe and appropriate for our climate and street conditions. Audit Consideration. "Consider the adoption of colored bike lanes in the Traffic Management Program toolkit." Management Response. Colored bike lanes are bike lanes that are either painted blue with a special paint or bike lanes that have a blue dye impregnated into the asphalt or concrete used to pave the street. Our review of colored bike lanes indicates that it is promising, experimental and 1 very expensive. Where they are used, they have received positive reception from bicyclists and • the general public. Both methods are expensive. It is not yet known how long the paint will last. The use of dye must be done when the street is being resurfaced. We intend to continue monitoring its use. If the material price reduces and the durability of the paint is deemed successful where it is currently being tested, it can and should be added to the toolkit. Objective 2. "Evaluate policies,procedures and service performance of the Traffic Management Program." Audit Conclusion. The audit concluded that the policies and procedures of the program appeared to be effective. It also concluded that the service performance, or time from start to finish, was slightly better than the comparable cities examined. Management Response. Because we are constantly looking for ways to improve the program, it has been refined four times since inception. Around the time of the audit, we placed a construction contractor on retainer for traffic calming to further shorten the time to work through the process. Now, when a traffic calming plan reaches approval phase, it immediately goes to in- house design and then construction without needing to take the extra time to bid either phase. Calming plans are now being completed in significantly shorter time frames than those done during the period covered by the audit. Audit Observation 2.1. "Salt Lake City does not allow private funding for traffic calming measures. " Audit Recommendation 2.1. "Enable private funding for projects. " Management Response. This was a significant issue with prior City Councils. They felt quite • strongly about no area of the City receiving greater attention from the City than another with respect to ability to pay for traffic calming implementation. A significant amount of funding has been provided to date to provide 100% funding to implement approved calming plans. Management has no preference to whether full, partial or no subsidy should be provided to implement traffic calming. Calming programs throughout the country show a varied percentage of local government funding ranging from full to none. There is a significant issue associated with private funding that will require direction from City Council and development of a policy if private funding is accepted. Currently,plans are developed on a priority basis of degree of negative impact to the neighborhood and not by ability to pay, chronological receipt of request to participate in the program or geographic location. Should a neighborhood experiencing a legitimate traffic impact be allowed to jump in priority based on ability and willingness to pay, it would delay the ability to work on the highest priority neighborhoods. Thus, there are really two issues here. First, considering the above, should this program allow private funding? Second, if private funding is allowed, is it satisfactory for those areas to jump ahead of higher priority areas? There is currently one full-time traffic calming staff person assisted periodically by a part-time intern and technician. A potential solution might be to approve a second full-time staff person to specifically work on private funded plans. If approved, that person could assist on the high priority plans when private funding wasn't available. Another consideration is that there will be additional work in the development of each plan from this point forward, as described in the other parts of this report, due to the additional notification and public input steps proposed to be added to the process. Adding a second staff • person will also necessitate purchasing additional testing equipment. The table in Appendix B of 2 , ‘ . • the audit indicates the current disparity in staffing levels between Salt Lake City's program and those of the three comparable cities. Audit Observation 2.2. "Information regarding program effectiveness and neighborhood satisfaction was not gathered by the Salt Lake City Traffic Management Program." Audit Recommendation 2.2. "Implement a feedback process. " Management Response. Agreed. Prior to the audit, the feedback process primarily consisted of the results of the second survey providing information to residents as to the effectiveness of the testing and requesting their comments and desire to permanently implement the tested plan. During the audit, we asked a Masters degree intern to conduct a post-project survey of 480 residents of seven streets where plans had been implemented long enough to become a part of the residents' daily routine. The seven calming plans consisted primarily of speed humps, although some other measures were also implemented. 480 residents were polled. 184 returned the survey. Three of the questions asked were: 1. Since the speed humps have been installed, there is less speeding in the area. Rate from 1 (Strongly Disagree)to 10 (Strongly Agree) Rating: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Response: 8% 6% 4% 4% 7% 13% 17% 18% 11% 12% Our post-implementation studies have shown the desired reduction in speeding has been achieved. The percentage agreement in residents' perception of reduced speeding correlates closely with or slightly more than the percentage support expressed by the residents to implement the plans. 2. Overall, the humps have improved livability in the area. Rate from 1 (Strongly Disagree)to 10 (Strongly Agree) Rating: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Response: 10% 3% 6% 4% 11% 12% 13% 17% 10% 14% The perception of improved livability of the area is comparable to the perception of reduced speeding. 3. Overall City officials have worked on the project professionally. Rate from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 10 (Strongly Agree) Rating: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Response: 5% 3% 1% 3% 7% 12% 11% 20% 16% 22% There appears to be strong agreement that City officials were professional in conduct of the process. Since the audit and for all of the plan developments conducted this year, we have included the posting of signs on the streets advertising the development of a calming plan and providing a telephone number for street users to provide comments. Comments are taken from the beginning of plan development through testing. These comments are used to refine the plans. Based on more recent discussions internally and with City Councilmembers, we propose several additional enhancements. 1. We are redesigning the signs to more clearly announce a plan is underdevelopment and that comments can be provided. 2. We are expanding the notification area for comments on the proposed plan to include residents on parallel and intersecting streets one-block in all directions of the street to • be calmed. 3 3. We will host an administrative public meeting for area residents during or shortly • after the testing phase or in lieu of testing to receive input. 4. We will send a postcard survey to residents six-month after a plan has been installed to receive input on the process and the effectiveness of the plan that was implemented. Objective 3. "Evaluate the process of how streets are selected and prioritized for inclusion in the Traffic Calming Program." Audit Conclusion. The audit concluded the eligibility and ranking process appears to be fair and equitable. It was viewed that the number of projects and/or requests in each City Council District was directly related to the level of activity in residents petitioning traffic calming program participation as opposed to there being more traffic problems in one district compared to another. Audit Observation 3.1. "Minor variations existed between Salt Lake City's Eligibility Point and Ranking System Formula and the ranking systems of Portland, Seattle and Vancouver. " Audit Consideration 3.1. "Increase the number of available points in the Eligibility Point and Ranking System Formula. • Expand the pedestrian generator category to include a maximum amount. • Include point criteria for vehicles traveling at a high or excessive rate of speed. • Incorporate accident information into the point system, if possible." Management Response. The current formula adds 5 points to the total if one or more pedestrian generators are in the area. We have refined it to now provide points commensurate with the number of pedestrian generators in the area. One pedestrian generator will add 5 points to the • total, two generators will add 8 points and three or more generators will add 10 points. The formula already accounts for excessive speeding. It awards more points for higher speeds. This is done via the use of the 85th percentile which increases as speeding increases. As the 85th percentile increases, so do the number of points awarded by the formula. Unfortunately, it is not practical to include crash(accident) data into the point system. Residential streets typically do not exhibit high crash histories. Crash data is not reported for all crashes or minor incidents. Not all crashes are correctable by traffic control changes or implantation of traffic calming measures. For these reasons, it is not practical or cost effective to incorporate crash information into the formula. Objective 4. "Determine how long it takes for traffic calming measures to be put in place once a street is selected." Audit Conclusion. The audit analyzed all projects from the beginning of the traffic calming program through the end of 2002 and found the average time length from start to finish was 16 months. Management Response. Since last year, as earlier reported, a construction contractor for traffic calming has been placed on retainer to further shorten the time to work through the process. Now, when a traffic calming plan reaches approval phase, it immediately goes to in-house design and then construction without needing to spend time bidding the construction. Calming plans are now being completed in significantly shorter time frames than those done during the period covered by the audit. • 4 Y a • • Appendix B of the audit shows that Salt Lake City's program is completing many more projects annually per staff person than any of the other cities' programs used in the comparison. The Salt Lake City's program is clearly efficient in this regard. The answer to inquiries pertaining to completing more projects annually is a factor of staff size as discussed in the management response to Audit Recommendation 2.1 above. Objective 5. "Assess the City's use of creative solutions in addition to the traditional speed bumps and humps (e.g., what types of traffic calming measures are utilized or could be by the City)." Audit Conclusion. The audit concluded that speed humps and tables are the most prevalent calming measure used although other measures have been used. Audit Observation 5.1. "The Traffic Management Program appeared to focus on speed humps. " Audit Consideration 5.1. "Consider utilizing more traffic circles." Management Response. Residents in the program have heavily favored traffic humps and tables over the many other measures offered in the program. These measures are the most effective, but unfortunately, are also the most"punitive"to drivers. Two actions have been taken since the audit in this regard. First, a mix of options is now promoted with the neighborhood committees as the joint effort of creating a plan goes forward. This is now evident in the 1900 East plan proposal which uses five different measures and the 600 West plan which uses only traffic circles. Second, neighborhoods are now advised in the beginning of the process that traffic calming measures deemed beneficial by the Transportation Division to be of high value to the overall plan and/or traveler safety,but which might not have high level support of the • neighborhood, will be required as part of the overall calming plan. An example is the addition of bulbouts at school crosswalks to reduce student walking distances in the street. These add to the safety of pedestrians, but sometimes have not been favorably supported by residents because of the implications they have on making right turns when driving. Objective 6. "Evaluate the procedures used to identify and notify residents of proposed traffic calming measures." Audit Conclusion. The audit concluded that the notification policies and procedures should be more detailed to insure that all stakeholders are identified and that all projects receive comparable resident notification. Audit Observation 6.1. "Notification policies and procedures were not clearly stated." Audit Recommendation 6.1. "Develop a policy and procedure to identify and notify residents, property owners and other stakeholders of future traffic calming projects. " Management Response. It is agreed that the notification portion'of the process needs to be more detailed in the program. As stated in the management response to Audit Recommendation 2.2. "Implement a feedback process"above and based on more recent discussions internally and with City Councilmembers,we propose the following additional enhancements. 1. We are redesigning the signs to more clearly announce a plan is underdevelopment and that comments can be provided. 2. We are expanding the notification area for comments on the proposed plan to include residents on parallel and intersecting streets one-block in all directions of the street to IIIbe calmed. 5 3. We will host an administrative public meeting for area residents during or shortly IIIafter the testing phase or in lieu of testing to receive input. 4. We will send a postcard survey to residents six-month after a plan has been installed to receive input on the process and the effectiveness of the plan that was implemented. This broadened notification process is being written into the program document to clarify the procedure. Objective 7. "Determine the adequacy of funding of the Traffic Management Program." Audit Conclusion. The audit concluded the program appears to have adequate funding. Management Response. The program is adequately funded as currently operated. If the program is expanded to include more staff to perform an increased amount of calming or if more expensive calming measures are implemented, such as those that require landscaping or significant curb, gutter and drainage work; the cost of traffic calming will increase. Either way, it appears that there is sufficient funding in FY 03/04 for traffic calming. • S III 6 014411'001/ 9OvI • STATEMENT OF HOMELESS SERVICE PROVIDERS IN THE RIO GRANDE COMMUNITY AREA As providers of services for people experiencing poverty and homelessness, we intend to maintain our current co-location of human services in the Rio Grande community area. We believe that a human service presence in the downtown area is vital to serve those in need in Salt Lake City, especially people experiencing homelessness. Furthermore, the current mix of supportive and outreach services in the area complement each other by allowing people to receive food, shelter, clothing, child care and medical, mental health, and dental assistance in the same neighborhood without having to travel throughout the Salt Lake Valley. This allows people to focus on seeking work and engaging in other activities that lead toward self-sufficiency and permanent housing. In considering relocation of any service currently operating in the Rio Grande neighborhood, it is necessary that the services remain close to the downtown area and in close proximity to other services. The likelihood of finding another viable downtown location for our services to operate in close proximity seems unlikely. A collaborative professional social service community already exists in our neighborhood and it should be preserved. Salt Lake City stands at a crossroads in deciding whether or not to embrace this unique approach to human services. It stands largely alone among major cities in that this system presently functions very successfully. Homeless service providers have a proven track record of making a quantitative difference in people's lives. We also have a strong reputation for being good and supportive neighbors with residents and businesses in our neighborhood. We welcome all people to our community. As the Rio Grande neighborhood continues to diversify and attract additional investment in the form of businesses and housing, a unique opportunity exists for Salt Lake City to do something dramatically different in urban redevelopment. A new kind of neighborhood is beginning to flourish where rich, poor, and moderate income people can live and work together. This will not continue to happen unless intentional planning and development efforts are designed and implemented, seeking to integrate new investment and activity into the community without forcing out homeless people and those who ser e the 9...a.:.;z Ctom,e/. Allan Ainsworth aggie St.Claim M•,j•� Wa ne ro.er.e W.,=-. eless ealt care Catholic Community Services 4/Salvation • my 4111114110 att e inkevitch Glenn Bailey Mi.4 e. . t The Road Home Crossroads Urban Center Valley Ment.r ealth Storefront Jeff St. Romain Volunteers of America • SALT LAKE CITY DECLARATION OF INTENT Salt Lake City is committed to helping homeless people determine the course of their own lives by supporting the comprehensive mix of social services in the Rio Grande community. Since the mid-198o's, Salt Lake City and many of its leaders and citizens have worked selflessly to establish a network of shelter, food, medical, mental health and dental care, clothing and childcare for the men, Salt Lake City is grateful for the coordinated and substantial benefit offered by homeless service providers in the Rio Grande community. This neighborhood is a remarkable, diverse and unique area. The City declares its intention to support the collaborative professional social service community that exists in this area as new investment in business, housing and public infrastructure continues to transform the neighborhood. It is the intention of this Administration that we will 0 make decisions that strive to support and enhance the sustained diversity of this community. Ross C."Rocky"Anderson Salt Lake City Mayor • • • MEMORANDUM DATE: August 8, 2003 TO: Council Members FROM: Marge Harvey SUBJECT: Proposed City Council Resolution CC: Rocky Fluhart, Dave Nimkin, DJ Baxter, Ed Rutan,Stephen Allred, Chief Rick Dinse, Rick Graham, Kevin Bergstom,Alison Weyher, David Dobbins, Louis Zunguze, Luann Clark, David Oka,Valda Tarbett, Janice Jardine, Russell Weeks, Sylvia Jones,Gwen Springmeyer Earlier this year, the Mayor signed a Declaration of Intent in conjunction with a statement by homeless service providers as part of a Common Ground Initiative. The intent of this initiative is to ensure that the homeless service providers and facilities will remain undisturbed in the Rio Grande neighborhood. A draft of a City Council Resolution for your consideration is attached. It supports and expands on the statements made in the Common Ground initiative. Below are summaries of the • elements in the Common Ground Initiative and also the proposed City Council Resolution. Common Ground Initiative: Statement of Homeless Service Providers: a) Maintain the current co-location of human services in the Rio Grande area. b) A human service presence in the downtown area is vital to serve those in need in Salt Lake City. c) People should be able to receive food, shelter, clothing, child care, medical, dental and mental health assistance in one neighborhood without having to travel throughout the valley. d) Homeless service providers have a proven track record of being good neighbors to residents and businesses. e) The Rio Grande neighborhood has shown that upper, moderate and low income residents can live and work together. f) Intentional planning and development efforts should be designed and implemented to integrate new investment and activity into the community without forcing out the homeless and those who serve them. Declaration of Intent: a) Salt Lake City is committed to support the comprehensive mix of social services in the Rio Grande Community. b) The City declares its intention to support the collaborative, professional social service community that exists in this area as new investments in business, housing and public infrastructure continue. c) It is the intention of this Administration to make decisions that strive to support and enhance the sustained diversity of this community. 1 Draft City Council Resolution: • a) Endorses the Common Ground statement and principles. b) Urges an integrated planning process that looks at the area as a whole and not separate parts. c) Supports development in the area that is beneficial to all and does not harm one in favor of another. d) Seeks solutions based on the traditional character and use of the area without replacing it with something different or unrelated. e) Encourages those engaged in discussions of the future of the area to do so in a fair, equitable and open-minded manner. f) Encourages the development of permanent, affordable housing for low income and very low income people in the area to reduce the demand on existing services for the homeless. g) Advocates the hiring of homeless residents of the neighborhood by businesses in the area and establishing supportive programs to facilitate these opportunities. h) Encourages the Salt Lake City Police Department to act to maintain the safety of all residents and visitors without denying the basic rights of the homeless. Other: The draft resolution provided by the advocacy group contains language in opposition to using private security firms. This language has been italicized in your copy. The Council may wish to exclude this language because it is such a specific operational issue. • 2 • Draft City Council Resolution Whereas,Salt Lake City is currently involved in extensive discussions about the future of the near west side downtown area, and Whereas,those discussions include possible new development at the Gateway,in the Rio Grande neighborhood and Pioneer Park, and Whereas,Salt Lake City, as represented by the City Council and the Mayor,will be asked to contribute substantial funding and other resources toward any potential development in the area, and Whereas,the Salt Lake City Council is striving to respond equitably to the many needs, priorities and positions expressed in the current discussions, and Whereas,any decision the City Council makes will consider how best to make the area a community where rich, poor and moderate income people can live,work and flourish together, and Whereas,the potential change in this remarkably diverse and unique area represents a challenging opportunity to do what is right for all people who frequent the area, and Whereas,a balance must be maintained between the safety of the neighborhood and the rights of the people who live there,whether homeless or not, and Whereas,this same pursuit of uniqueness,diversity and inclusiveness is well expressed in the Common Ground agreement signed earlier this year by area homeless service providers and the Mayor, Therefore be it resolved that the Salt Lake City Council: 1) Endorses the Common Ground statement and the principles represented therein; 2) Urges an integrated planning process that looks at the area as a whole and not in separate parts; 3) Supports development in the area that is beneficial to all persons and interests and not harmful to one in favor of another; 4) Supports solutions based on working with the traditional character and use in the area rather than replacing it with something entirely different or unrelated; • 5) Encourages all of those persons engaged in further discussions on the area to do so in an open, equitable and fair-minded manner; • 6) Will actively pursue the creation of permanently affordable housing for low income and very low income people in the area to reduce the demand on existing services for the homeless; 7) Advocates the hiring of homeless residents of the Rio Grande community area by businesses in the area and the establishment of supportive programs to facilitate such opportunities; 8) Encourages the Salt Lake City Police Department to act to maintain the safety of those who live,work,and visit the area without denying the basic rights of the homeless or resorting to the use of private security firms in Pioneer Park. 4111 • MEMORANDUM DATE: August 8,2003 TO: Council Members FROM: Janice Jardine and Marge Harvey SUBJECT: Housing Policy Discussion CC: Rocky Fluhart,Dave Nimkin,DJ Baxter,Alison Weyher,David Dobbins,LuAnn Clark, Louis Zunguze, Sandi Maier The City Council selected Housing as its key policy priority for 2003,and has held initial meetings to gather public input. Information and recommendations continue to be forwarded to;the Council Office and all indications are that housing is a critical issue. The Housing Authority recently pointed out that they currently have a waiting list of 7,000 and this grows by 300 every month. They have only 60 vacancies to fill each month, so obviously the need for low income housing is outstripping the availability. This report summarizes ideas raised to date through the April 3 housing fact finding meeting,the May 3 housing public hearing,written comments and items raised by Council Members. Below are potential process options for Council consideration and a summary of key housing policy categories based on information received from the following sources. Attachments A,B,C,and D are a more detailed summary • of comments received to date. POTENTIAL OPTIONS: 1. Initiate an update of the Council's current policies and the City's Community Housing Plan. 2. Schedule a Council briefing to receive information from the City's Boards and Commissions Chairs and Vice Chairs as a follow-up to the Council's letter requesting input or recommendations. (The Council recently approved a letter to the City's Boards and Commissions requesting input and recommendations regarding the City's housing policy direction. This briefing could be scheduled after the Council receives the written responses.) 3. Create a forum in which the Chairs of City Boards and Commissions with a housing component would meet quarterly with leaders of key community housing organizations along with City legislative and administrative representatives. The central purpose would be to discuss policy issues and topics that arise out of this policy issue identification process and identify steps that may be taken by either government or private entities to implement key policy concepts. 4. Another option would be to consider evaluating opportunities to co-host an educational session or policy development session with the non-profit community and other interested parties. 5. Create a Council subcommittee to review the issues and make a recommendation to the full Council. 6. Request that the Administration provide a briefing relating to housing policy in general and the status of the implementation of the City's housing plan and for feedback that has been generated in this public process to date. 7. Request that the Redevelopment Agency staff provide an update on the housing-related efforts and approaches the agency has undertaken in recent years. 8. Any combination of the above. • 9. Other options as identified by Council Members. 1 POLICY CATEGORIES: • > Affordable Housing Suggestions include: o Make housing a top priority in the City o Establish a leadership role in: • Policy planning • Priority setting • Resource allocation • Facilitating better coordination and communication among the wide variety of groups involved in housing > Zoning and other regulatory requirements Suggestions include: o Reevaluate current zoning classifications and requirements specifically address density and parking o Consider rezoning areas identified for potential or future housing development o Streamline process procedures and timeframes > Funding Suggestions include: o Identify and establish a permanent funding source for the Housing Trust Fund o Increase efficiency in leveraging available funds o Provide better coordination: • Within City departments • • With service providers,for-profit and non-profit developers • With the various levels of city,county, state and federal agencies • 2 8/8/03 Attachment A Housing Fact Finding Meeting Policy Issues—April 3,2003 ID + Presentation by James Wood,Bureau of Economic and Business Research,University of Utah: A. Affordable housing needs to be increased 1. Currently participating in a statewide affordable housing study—report will be available in May a. Participants include:Fannie Mae, Olene Walker Housing Trust Fund,Utah Housing Corporation and Envision Utah b. Purpose of the study is to: i. Examine the construction of new affordable housing in Utah in cities with a population of 5,000+(approximately 55 cities) ii. Includes a full range of housing types—single-family,multi-family,twin homes, condominiums,mobile home,manufactured housing,etc. iii. Assess the compliance of individual cities with House Bill 295 regarding Moderate Income Housing 1. Bill defines affordable housing as housing that is affordable to households making 80%of an area's median income 2. In Salt Lake County the median income is$52,000 3. 80%of median income would equal$40,000/yr or$900 to$1,000/mo that could be used for housing needs 2. Affordability varies due to interest rates and the income levels of people living in an area a. Example: Utah County level is lower due to large student population,Davls'County level is higher. 3. Salt Lake City evaluation: a. 1997-2003 new housing construction=2300 units b. 1,000 units would meet affordability threshold c. Apartments drive the affordability in Salt Lake City due to unique housing inventory in the City— 49%of all occupied housing units in the City are rental units d. Ideally the City would have more single-family e. Market has moved away from affordability for single-family housing due to land prices f. Salt Lake City performs in the top 7-10 cities for providing affordable housing g. Other examples of cities providing affordable housing include West Jordan,Provo, Clearfield 4. State House Bill 295 does not differentiate between new affordable housing or existing affordable housing; this is a point of contention 5. There are opportunities for affordable housing in Salt Lake City in the existing housing stock a. Condominiums and single-family b. Still need to have an increase in supply of new affordable housing units c. Can't rely on existing units unless you assume that that segment of the population is not growing 6. In the evaluation of all price ranges and income groups in Salt Lake City,the City performs better than most cities: a. Median home price in the City is approximately$200,000—average just over$200,000 b. 27%of new housing construction by price was under$150,000(1997-2003) c. 1997 average price for affordable housing was$102,000(upper threshold) d. 2002 average price for affordable housing was approximately$133,000 e. There is a fair representation of housing across all price groups and can infer the same for income groups 7. Impact fees a. Surveyed approximately 55 cities b. Vary across the State • c. Salt Lake City=approximately$2,400 d. Ranks 47 out of the 55 cities surveyed 1 8/8/03 Attachment A e. 1.3%of the cost of a median home £ Payson was 7% • 8. Summary of Salt Lake City efforts in providing affordable housing a. 5%of all affordable housing b. 3%of all new construction c. Others are not doing their fair share 9. What can local governments do? a. Address zoning b. Property tax relief c. City fee relief 10. Primary component in increasing disparity between the cost of housing and meeting affordability needs is the increase in land costs a. Housing prices in Utah increased faster than anywhere in the country over a period of 5 years b. Utah is now at the bottom end of all states-ranked 50—prices increased 2.3%last year statewide c. Housing prices have moderated-drop in interest rates has added to that decrease 11. Other options to address affordable housing market: a. Condominium conversion b. Twin home c. Manufactured housing d. Need to partner and leverage funding ❖ Presentation by Chris Gamvroulas,Ivory Homes,Inc. A. Definition of full range of housing should include new home construction both single-family and multi- family B. New construction is needed to establish a healthy housing stock • C. Need to develop diverse,traditional neighborhoods: i. Single-family detached housing is as important as other housing types(twin homes, duplexes,apartments) ii. Include parks and schools iii. Should not include architectural design dictated by government D. Westpointe development—have develop upwards of 1700 homes E. Riverpark development is an example of redevelopment on infill property—provided single family homes on smaller lots F. Currently running out of inventory(land available to develop new homes) G. Opportunities for local government action: 1. Solve the inventory problem(provide more available land for housing development) a. Look for ways to expand the opportunity for more density/smaller single-family lot development b. Rezone undeveloped areas of the City to provide for more housing to be build per acre (increase density) c. Rezone areas of the City to provide more opportunities for redevelopment and infill housing d. Reexamine densities 2. Prioritize the City's zoning policies a. Reevaluate areas zoned for large lot development,agriculture,etc. b. Reevaluate economic development policies—may be more appropriate to reduce the areas zoned for commercial development 3. Financing/funding a. Target areas for the Utah Housing Financing program b. Grant programs IDc. Example--currently Ivory is participating with Lehi City in an affordable housing program. 2 8/8/03 Attachment A i. City is providing down payment assistance for people to purchase homes(through a consortium of cities and HUD funding) ii. Providing up to$7,000 in down payment funds iii. Use revolving loan funding model iv. Program provides"forgivable loan program"-grant funding in that if a person stays in their home for 5 years the money does not have to be paid back. v. Required to meet Federal guidelines,income restrictions and price ranges 4. Address physical constraints: a. Access to utilities and transportation systems b. Environmental constraints such as in the northwest quadrant c. Infill properties with challenging physical characteristics ❖ Presentation by Russ Watts,Watts Corporation A. Private sector is the best resource and vehicle to use to provide housing B. Tools to create incentives for developers and the private sector to provide more infill housing in the downtown area and government opportunities to off-set increasing land prices through non-monetary incentives: 1. Increase density or offer unit density bonuses-developer would contribute to providing amenities such as parks,public facilities or other types of enhancements 2. Adjust parking requirements a. Contribute to and create common parking areas on-site or off-site b. Accommodate more creative types of parking options such as tandem parking(one car behind the other)-used in Denver and Seattle c. Allow a reduction or greater flexibility in the required amount of parking to be provided per • unit d. Encourage an increase in the use of mass transit by not providing parking 3. Parking is a key factor in the cost to develop. Required parking controls the ability to provide affordable housing and the ability to create projects-Example-Trolley Regent Condominiums(800 East 150 South): a. Infill-remove old YMCA structure b. Received approval to provide 1.67 parking stalls per unit for their 2-3 bedroom units instead of the required 2 spaces for 2-3 bedroom units c. Increased the number of units from 74 to 89 d. Provided the ability to keep prices to between$95,000 to$115,000 4. Density restrictions are also a barrier. Suggestion to provide balance between preserving historical low-density neighborhoods while still allowing higher-density infill housing a. Research Denver's infill housing program b. Using traditional and architecturally sensitive details that work 5. Process-conditional use,design review a. Need to focus on the big picture and ways to maintain vitality of the City b. Currently,they option properties with the stipulation that they won't purchase the property until they have received City approval. c. Can't afford to have property sit idle for a year to a year and a half while they complete the City approval process. ❖ Presentation by Nancy Taufer,Wood Realtors, Inc. A. Zoning changes in 1995 have prohibited(severely limited)duplex,three-plex and four-plex development • potential. Potential buyers or investors(people wishing to occupy one unit and rent the other units)have to look outside the City for areas for these types of units. Zoning should be adjusted to accommodate this 3 8/8/03 Attachment A kind of development. Many areas of the City were zoned in 1995 specifically for single-family detached dwellings. 1111 B. Land cost or having the right purchase price is key to providing affordable housing and maintaining existing residential neighborhoods. C. There are vacant lots throughout the City that do not meet the requirements necessary for construction. Variances are often required and are severely limited to what may be approved.Need to reexamine. D. Financing is difficult to obtain in areas where commercial/industrial zoning have encroached into residential areas and include residential housing. Subsequently as the residential properties become available for sale it is hard to maintain or finance as owner/tenant occupied residential properties. E. There are many programs available to encourage home ownership. Some of the programs require seller participation that has resulted in over inflated prices. If the economy is depressed and people buying in this price range lose their job,they have no equity and foreclosures increase. F. For families with stable jobs and incomes there is a wide range of financing available and even with the increase of the price of homes in the Salt Lake Valley,the interest rates have kept housing affordable. G. The Salt Lake Board of Realtors can provide statistics and additional information. ❖ Presentation by Tim Funk, Crossroads Urban Center A. Need to update and activate the City's Community Housing Plan-Major bather is how the Plan is used 1. Include all housing entities in the City—HAND,RDA,Housing Authority,other non-profit/private providers—Provide better coordination and involvement 2. Set clear definable goals 3. Do more to actively implement the Plan B. Proved better,more efficient coordination for Council policy planning,priority setting and resource allocation through the Housing Trust Fund Board as an advisory group to the Council or some other entity. C. Housing Trust Fund • 1. Can provide great innovation with the fund 2. Provide a permanent funding source 3. Earmark a definite amount of RDA funding for affordable housing on an annual basis (Salt Lake City has the largest amount of funding from tax increment financing. More should be used for housing.) D. Some trust funds in other cities are used to administer and coordinate all affordable housing funds 1. Establish an informal coordinating program where all groups are brought together to share what they are doing and how they can work together. 2. Have separate categorical funds under the major trust fund that are used in a unified way to address the affordable housing needs 3. They address how the funds all fit together to serve that segment better in a more efficient manner E. Include inclusionary zoning recommendations F. Be careful about home ownership. There is a real need for rental housing for people who have a marginal capacity to own. G. Implement the Housing Initiative—land banking for housing and economic development(City Administration initiative) H. Increase the leveraging of existing funds I. Double the City rehab program in areas of the City with the greatest need. Target approximately 200 homes annually. Example-$50,000 give$2,000 loans to 25 people for rehab try providing"forgivable loans"where the loan doesn't need to be repaid until the home is sold or forgive 10%of the loan amount or interest amount. J. Implement a type of temporary rent subsidy for transitional housing needs • 4 • 8/8/03 Attachment A • ❖ Presentation by Jeff Bennion and Marcie Milligan,Fannie Mae Utah Partnership Office. A. Fannie Mae's focus is on: a. Buying single-family and multi-family mortgages b. Creating lending programs and products for underserved communities,ethnic groups, professions and special needs populations c. Packaging mortgages for sale as mortgage-backed securities in debt markets d. Working with may community partners to expand the availability of affordable housing B. Recent investment in the City includes: a. $31 million in the Northgate Apartments at the Gateway—330 units b. $3.4 million in the Jefferson School Apartments—84 units c. From 2000 to March 2003 have financed or refinanced approximately 1,742 units in 13 different projects at a total investment of approximately$67 million C. Barriers 1. Land costs a. Available land b. Available buildings 2. Construction costs a. New b. Rehab 3. To cover the full range of housing-housing monies are income restricted. 4. There is a gap from$80,000 to$100,000 and a gap at the very lowest end of the spectrum. 5. 80 to 120 percent of area median income is an underserved market 6. Leveraging resources . a. RDA has historically been separate from HAND b. RDA has historically been focused on commercial redevelopment c. Housing development/redevelopment should be at least as important and commercial retail development/redevelopment d. Need for additional resources and ability to leverage those resources efficiently D. Innovative opportunities include: 1. Main Street housing 2. Housing in the core of the City 3. Gateway redevelopment 4. Evaluating the City's Housing Plan E. Methods to encourage home ownership: 1. Make housing a top priority 2. Leveraging local lender relationships 3. Marketing downtown living 4. Cultivate a proactive housing development agenda 5. Establish a community land trust(land banking) F. Example—Charlotte,North Carolina 1. Focused on two or three key areas of existing housing in the city 2. Implemented a very aggressive rehabilitation program 3. Used land banking,land trust,acquisition/teardown redevelopment G. Application to Salt Lake City would be focusing on land banking and density issues H. Create proactive partnership with lenders—Fannie Mae,Freddie Mac,expand first time home buyer program,use new rehab product developed by Fannie Mae to leverage City monies I. Example-City could develop a proactive partnership with Fannie Mae—Ogden is the first municipality in . the country to be a certified Fannie Mae seller service provide. Allows the City to originate loans and sell them to Fannie Mae. 5 8/8/03 Attachment A ❖ Presentation by Rosemary Kappas, Salt Lake City Housing Authority. III A. There is a real need to address resources for affordable housing 1. 2003/2004 HUD budget did not contain appropriations for Section 8 rental assistance 2. Other housing programs involving HUD funding are slowly dissipating 3. Need to provide for the working poor 4. Need is growing for homeless and special needs 5. Cautions focusing on home ownership—City is running out of land and needs to maximize housing options B. Other opportunities of tools that could be used: 1. Appropriate more money for the Housing Trust Fund a. The Trust Fund provides the most flexibility for funding options b. Increase the amount of housing funds coming from the RDA to the fund 2. Expand funding for programs that provide for down payment assistance 3. Refocus on City land acquisition or land banking 4. Density bonuses 5. Zero lot line setbacks 6. Mixed-income and mixed-use developments 7. Guaranteeing bonds—has not been used by the City since 1985 8. Absentee landlord enforcement and incentive for absentee landlords to sell their properties to the City or other non-profit organizations 9. Crime control 10. Neighborhood retail services such as grocery stores C. Major barriers include land costs and density ❖ Presentation by Matt Minkevitch,The Road Home • A. Major need for affordable housing B. Barriers 1. Increased demand for homeless services is a symptom of the barriers to affordable housing 2. Great need for affordable rental units in the range of$300.00 or less 3. Lack of affordable housing in the downtown area for families,single men and women 4. Many are working but income levels do not meet the need for housing options currently available C. Options 1. Implement a tenant based rental assistance program 2. Use federal HOME funds 3. Have implemented rental assistance program through West Valley and Salt Lake County Housing Authorities 4. Provides temporary subsidy for people in a case management program with source employment 5. Helps families and people who would have to wait a year or more to get into other programs 6. Three years ago The Road Home placed approximately 85 households in housing. In 2003,The Road Home will place approximately 200 households,due in part,to the newly implemented rental assistance programs. D. Significant support for programs comes from State and County sources. Municipalities in the County participate in funding but not facilities. Would not be cost effective to locate shelters in other municipalities. Other cities are providing several hundred set-aside housing units. E. Which would be more effective providing actual housing or funding? Will check with resources and report back. Probably would be more effective to place people in housing rather than construct more shelters. 1111 6 8/8/03 Attachment A • + Presentation by Maria Garciaz,Neighborhood Housing Services A. Revitalization strategies used by NHS 1. Non-traditional lending 2. Mixed-income housing 3. Economic development and commercial revitalization 4. Resident leadership 5. Community development a. Paint Your Heart Out b. YouthWorks program B. Bathers 1. Negative perception of neighborhoods 2. High loan denials,credit problems 3. City requirements and process time 4. Lack of incentives to build low and very low income housing 5. Concentration of low income developments versus scattered sites 6. Not in my back yard NTh IBY attitudes C. Opportunities for innovation 1. Create mixed-income incentives and funding opportunities 2. Encourage more mixed-income/mixed-use developments(single&multi) 3. Encourage more live/work developments 4. Negotiate employer incentives(Westside Police Precinct,KUTV,WalMart) D. Methods to encourage/enable home ownership 1. Down payment assistance 111 2. Flexible financing 3. Individual development accounts(match an individual's savings) 4. Credit education and counseling 5. Pre and post home buyer education E. Methods to enable family housing for all income levels 1. Current market conditions indicate that families at 100%of area median income and above can obtain housing 2. Families at 80 to 100%of area median income can obtain housing with flexible lending 3. Families at 80%of area median income and below can obtain housing with subsidies,ideally within mixed-income developments F. NHS is experiencing more foreclosures and delinquencies over the past two yeas than anytime in the previous 26 years,due to predatory lending and new products that superficially inflate the cost of housing. G. Opportunities for restructuring or revising current City housing programs 1. Rather than identifying reasons why a project could not be done entities should work together to identify what needs to be done and how to make a project happen 2. Identify what resources are available to applicants 3. Land bank without government dollars(with restrictions)and create a pool of funds that are not restricted by HUD and other federal regulations 4. Work with developers to address community needs 5. Identify City and developer resources 6. Identify restrictions 7. Correct inconsistencies within different City departments 8. Need to know what is needed up front 9. Need to reduce the amount of time for City approval 10. Example-a project that should have taken 3 months for approval took 18 months • 7 8/8/03 Attachment B • Housing Public Hearing Policy Issues—May 2,2003 1. Support development of mixed income housing in revitalizing areas of the City. 2. Support"Living Wage" 3. Encourage the development of more SRO's and studio apartments for single men and women who are transitioning from homeless shelters. 4. Position mixed income developments near mass transit 5. Encourage public/private partnerships to develop low income housing 6. Promote home ownership programs. 7. Develop tenant based rental assistance using federal HOME funds for people who are on waiting lists for subsidized housing. 8. Support development of truly affordable housing for"very low income" families and singles who cannot afford `affordable housing.". 9. Help very low income, elderly and disabled people maintain their homes so they can remain in them. 10. Promote `visit ability" in new home construction. 11. Ensure that Section 8 housing developments remain Section 8. 12. Freeze the value of Central City homes for tax assessment purposes for 10 years to give homeowners an incentive to re-habilitate their homes. 13. Support affordable and designated housing for people with AIDS. S 14. Support the concept that urban neighborhoods can be healthy and stable if renters outnumber homeowners. 15.Land that the City owns or controls should be used to provide housing opportunities—not just retail development. 16. Increase accessible housing 17. Support zoning for live/work housing and increase this type of housing stock 18.Ensure that curb cuts are installed near housing projects and mass transit drop off points 19.Expand the study of infill lots so they can be utilized for housing initiatives, community land trusts, sweat equity programs, etc. 20. Work with City employers to encourage their employees to live in the City. • 8/8/03 Attachment C • Housing Policy Issues—Written Comments • 1. In order to protect at risk neighborhoods, we need to reduce the number of multiple families living in single family homes. 2. Home ownership should be encouraged on the Westside to stabilize neighborhoods— offer incentives. 3. One of the downtown malls should be torn down and housing should be built in its place. (Merchants who are displaced should be compensated to move into the other mall or onto Main Street.) 4. Allocate monies to a commission who will oversee a project to assist homeowners who have fallen on hard times and are in danger of losing their homes. 5. Short term transitional affordable housing should be developed as well as long term affordable transitional housing. 6. The Westside needs larger lot sizes, larger homes and more home ownership. 7. Encourage an increase of studio apartments. 8. Increase housing desirability and stability in the downtown area. 9. Assist families in saving for home ownership. 10. The RDA should create"smart growth"housing opportunities particularly in outdated • commercial and light industrial buildings that could become higher density housing developments. 11.Develop more shared housing and implement zoning laws to reflect this. 12. More housing for disabled. 13. Help low income residents with housing rehabilitation. S 14. Allow mixed retail/apartment units in the downtown area. 15. Develop a new downtown on the Westside with new housing. 16. Offer incentives to build housing that will attract more affluent residents to Westside to help maintain property values. 17. Implement live-near-your-work programs 18. Ensure long term funding of the Housing Trust Fund 19. Develop infill housing 20. Districts 4 and 5 should be preserved as mainly housing areas 21. Enforce zoning requirements to help maintain housing stock 22. Allow housing that is not"quality"to keep people off the streets • 8/8/03 Attachment D Housing Policy Potential Tonics List • The following topics were identified by four or more Council Members as a very high or high priority for a briefing or hearing. 1. Encouraging home ownership 2. Increasing owner occupancy to improve neighborhood livability 3. Increasing code enforcement to improve neighborhood livability 4. Housing trust fund—how do other cities arrive at a sustainable fund level? (Review of Administration's study) 5. City ordinances that impact neighborhood livability a. Parking in neighborhoods(problems currently occurring in Planned Unit Developments with small driveways and very limited on-street parking) b. Shared driveways(new developments as well as older—neighborhood disputes) c. Narrow streets(Planned Unit Developments) d. Smaller yards, reduced setbacks e. Access of emergency vehicles in Planned Unit Developments and/or in areas with narrow streets 6. Number of individuals in housing units(City's ordinance allows three unrelated adults, Provo is changing to no more than two unrelated adults). Complaints have been received re: large extended families with multiple vehicles. 7. Homelessness • 8. Homeless shelters 9. Strategies to ensure that no single area is overwhelmed with a single type of housing. 10. Increasing owner occupancy to provide homeownership opportunities to low income families. 11. Downtown housing 12. Identify housing challenges being faced by the City 13. Expedited development/permit process for projects that include housing 14. Inclusionary zoning concepts such as: a. On site inclusionary units b. Land dedication in lieu of construction c. Housing dedication d. Fees in lieu of inclusionary construction e. Density bonus f. Construction incentives for developers g. Financial incentives h. Accessibility agreements i. Eligibility j. Enforcement k. Annual Reporting 15. Evaluate success of recent homeowner's association common green space and determine approaches to help ensure follow-through. • 40 CITY COUNCIL HOUSING POLICY DISCUSSION-POTENTIAL TOPICS X=Written Z=VERY high • Y—High priority for Information would priority for Topic Carlton Van Eric Nancy Jill Dave Dale briefing/hearing be adequate briefing/hearing X Total Y Total Z Total Encouraging home ownership _ Z Y Z _ Z Y Z Z 0 2 5 Increasing owner occupancy to improve neighborhood livability. Z Y Z Z Y Z Z 0 2 5 Strategies to ensure that no single area is overwhelmed with a single type of housing. Z X Z Z Z Y Y Y I 3 4 Increasing owner occupancy to provide homeownership opportunities to low income families. Z Y Z Z Y Y Z 0 3 4 Strategies to deal with absentee landlords. X Y Z Z Y Z 1 2 3 Affordable homeownership. X Y Z Z Y Z I 2 3 Partnerships among community organizations to maximize resource effectiveness. Z X Z Z Y I I 3 Downtown housing Y X Z Y Y Y Z 1 4 2 Identify housing challenges being faced by the City Z X Y Y Z Y Y 1 4 2 Accessibility of transportation. X X Z Z Y Y 2 2 2 Best practices or options to provide a balanced mix of affordable and market rate housing. Y X Y Z X Z 2 2 2 • Identify key housing issues being addressed by the Administration Z X Y X Z Y 2 2 2 Examine City codes,ordinances,development criteria and processes to identify unintended impacts or barriers. Identify possible options to L X Z Y Y increase housing opportunities such as flexible zoning criteria or other creative solutions. Identify pros and cons. 1 2 2 Census information/demographics(income,age,household size, language,ethnic make-up,etc.) Note: household income as related to Z X X Z X Y X household size is not yet available. 4 _ 1 2 Increasing code enforcement to improve neighborhood livability. Y Y Y Z X Y Y 1 5 1 Housing trust fund—how do other cities arrive at a sustainable fund level? (Review of Administration's study) Y X Z Y Y Y Y 1 5 1 City ordinances that impact neighborhood livability: a) Parking in neighborhoods(problems currently occurring in Planned Unit Developments with small driveways and very limited on-street parking) b) Shared driveways(new developments as well as older— Z Y Y Y Y Y X neighborhood disputes) c) Narrow streets(Planned Unit Developments) d) Smaller yards,reduced setbacks e) Access of emergency vehicles in Planned Unit Developments and/or in areas with 1 5 Number of individuals in housing units(City's ordinance allows three unrelated adults,Provo is changing to no more than two unrelated adults). Z Y Y Y Y Y X • Complaints have been received re:large extended families with multiple vehicles. 1 5 1 X=Written Y_High priority for Z=VERY high Information would priority for • Topic Carlton Van Eric Nancy Jill Dave Dale be adequate briefing/hearing briefing/hearing X Total Y Total Z Total Meth labs(notification of potential future occupants,City/Health Department role,testing and management) Y Y X Z X Y X 3 3 1 Affordable rental units X X Z Y Y Y 2 3 1 Support residential amenities,i.e.useable open space. X Y Y Y Z 1 3 1 Update on status of the implementation of the adopted housing policy statements x X X Z X Y Y 4 2 1 Proposal to eliminate exemption from impact fees on low income housing Y X Z Y X X 3 2 1 Provide proper/appropriate infrastructure to encourage development and enhancement of housing opportunities. L X X Y Y X 3 2 1 Issues relating to preservation of federally funded Section 8 and low- income housing tax credit developments X X Y X Y Z 3 2 1 Create incentive programs that assist development of rental and owner- occupied affordable housing,residential rehabilitation and neighborhood Z X Y X Y improvement programs. 2 2 I - Housing loss mitigation X X X Z Y X 4 1 1 Boarded housing(upgrading,limiting time period if possible,assessing • cost of fire,police and enforcement calls.) x Y X Z X X 4 1 1 Moderate income housing Z 0 0 1 Homelessness Y X Y Y Y Y 1 5 0 Expedited development/permit process for projects that include housing Y X Y Y X Y X 3 4 0 Inclusionary zoning concepts such as: a) On site inclusionary units b) Land dedication in lieu of constructior c) Housing dedication d) Fees in lieu of inclusionary construction e) Density bonus 0Construction incentives for developers Y X Y X Y Y g) Financial incentives h) Accessibility agreements i) Eligibility j) Enforcement k) Annual Reporting 2 4 0 - - Evaluate success of recent homeowner's association common green space and determine approaches to help ensure follow-through. Y Y Y X Y X 2 4 0 Homeless shelters Y X Y Y Y 1 4 0 Clarify definitions(low income housing,moderate income housing, market rate housing,etc.) Y X Y X X Y X 4 3 0 Comprehensive summary of the programs/resources currently allocated to housing by the City&RDA. x Y X Y X X Y 4 3 0 Success of projects in other cities,such as Denver. X X Y Y X Y 3 3 0 Define and coordinate the roles of City Boards and Commissions such as the Planning Commission,Housing Advisory and Appeals Board,etc., in X X X Y Y Y • housing related issues 3 3 0 i X=Written y, High priority for Z=VERY high Information would priority for • Topic Carlton Van Eric Nancy _ Jill Dave Dale be adequate briefing/hearing briefing hearing X Total Y Total Z Total Best practices for funding,enabling and administering City housing programs. Y X Y X Y 2 3 0 Transitional housing Y X Y Y I 3 0 Low-income housing Y X Y Y 1 3 0 Moderate-income housing Y X Y Y 1 3 0 Market-rate housing Y X Y Y 1 3 0 Summary of federal resources allocated through Salt Lake City to housing (staff and programs). Y X X Y X X 4 2 0 The role of(SRO)Single Room Occupancy uses(draft ordinance) Y X Y X X X 4 2 0 Building capacity within non-profit groups to manage properties as well as develop them(this could ultimately provide a cash flow). X X Y Y X 3 2 0 Density Issues Y X Y X _ X 3 2 0 Ensuring the optimum mix of private and public funding. X _X Y Y 2 2 0 Adequate supply of housing of all types 0 0 0 • • S SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL TENTATIVE BUDGET ADOPTION FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 DATE: August 8, 2003 SUBJECT: Truth-in-Taxation Hearing Motions STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears, Gary Mumford cc: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rocky Fluhart, Steven Allred, Lynn Pace,Steve Fawcett and Laurie Dillon The Council received the Mayor's Recommended Budget Amendment on May 6, 2003 and held budget briefings with each of the City's departments at subsequent meetings. The Council adopted the budget, tax levies, compensation plans, legislative intents and all additional budget related material on June 24, 2003 and subsequently amended the Council adopted tentative budget on August 7, 2003. Because the State Law requires a Truth-in-Taxation public hearing to be held if a Judgment Levy is to be assessed, the Council has advertised and set a date for August 12, 2003 for the required hearing. The Truth-in-Taxation public hearing will satisfy all legal requirements for the adoption of a final budget for fiscal year 2003- • 2004. The Attorney's Office has prepared three ordinances for adoption after the close of the Truth-in-Taxation hearing. The three ordinances adopt and ratify the decisions of the Council at the June 24, 2003 and August 7, 2003 Council meetings. The ordinances ratify and adopt the final budget of the City, including the employment staffing document and the tax levy of the City and the final budget of the Library Fund and employment staffing document as contained in the Library Fund budget. The following motions will allow for the adoption of these three ordinances and complete the adoption of all budget related items for fiscal year 2003-2004. • ["I move that the Council"] Adopt an ordinance adopting and ratifying the final rate of tax levy upon all real and personal property within Salt Lake City made taxable by law for fiscal year 2003-2004. • ["I move that the Council"] Adopt an ordinance adopting and ratifying the final budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the employment staffing document, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2003 and ending June 30, 2004 as tentatively adopted on June 24, 2003 and amended on August 7, 2003. • ["I move that the Council"] Adopt an ordinance adopting and ratifying the • final budget for the Library Fund of Salt Lake City, Utah for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2003 and ending June 30, 2004 as tentatively adopted on June 24, 2003. JUL 5 Z003 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2003 w (Adopting the final budget, excluding the budget for the Library Fund which is separately adopted, and the employment staffing document of Salt Lake City,Utah for fiscal year 2003-2004) AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE FINAL BUDGET,EXCLUDING THE BUDGET FOR THE LIBRARY FUND WHICH IS SEPARATELY ADOPTED,AND THE EMPLOYMENT STAFFING DOCUMENT OF SALT LAKE CITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004. PREAMBLE Pursuant to the provisions of Section 10-6-111 of the Utah Code Annotated,the City Budget Officer prepared and filed with the City Council a tentative budget in proper form for all funds for which budgets are required by said law, including budgets for the • general fund,the library fund, special revenue funds, debt service funds and the capital improvements funds for fiscal year 2003-2004. The tentative budget was accompanied by a budget message as required by law. That tentative budget was adopted by the City Council,in Resolution No. 17 of 2003, on May 6,2003. A revised tentative budget was adopted by the City Council,in Ordinance No. 33 of 2003, on June 24, 2003. Section 10-6-118 of the Utah Code Annotated requires that before the 22nd day of June of each fiscal year or, August 17, in case of a property tax increase under Sections 59-2-919 through 59-2-923 of the Utah Code Annotated,the governing body shall,by resolution or ordinance, adopt a budget for the ensuing fiscal year for each fund for which • a budget is required. The Utah State Tax Commission granted the City an extension of the June 22 deadline,through June 25, 2003. The City budget officer has now prepared a final budget, in proper form, for all funds for which budgets are required by law. Section 2.52.020 of the Salt Lake City Code states in part that employment - staffing documents shall be adopted as an element of the City's budget, or otherwise, as the City Council may require. Three copies of such documents have been filed for use and examination of the public in the Office of the City Recorder. NOW,THEREFORE,be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City: SECTION 1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this ordinance is to adopt the fmal budget, except the budget for the Library Fund which is separately adopted, for fiscal year 2003-2004, and to adopt the employment staffing documents. All conditions precedent to the adoption of the final budget,which includes the employment staffing documents, • have been accomplished. SECTION 2. ADOPTION OF FINAL BUDGET. The budget attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance, shall be, and the same hereby is adopted as the final budget of the City, excluding the budget for the Library Fund which is separately adopted,for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2003 and ending June 30,2004,in accordance with the requirements of Sections 10-6-105, 10-6-118 and 59-2-923 of the Utah Code Annotated. The fmal budget is subject to the approval of the Mayor and reconsideration of the City Council pursuant to Section 10-3-1214 of the Utah Code Annotated. SECTION 3. EMPLOYMENT STAFFING. The employment staffing documents,three copies of which are filed for use and examination in the Office of the 2 • City Recorder, are hereby adopted as an element of the budget,pursuant to Section • 2.52.020 of the Salt Lake City Code. SECTION 4. FILING OF BUDGET. The City Budget Officer is hereby authorized and directed to certify and file copies of said final budget with the State Auditor as required by Section 10-6-118 of the Utah Code Annotated. SECTION 5. PUBLIC INSPECTION. The City Budget Officer is hereby authorized and directed to certify and file copies of said final budget in the office of said Budget Officer and in the Office of the City Recorder,which budget shall be available for public inspection during regular business hours as required by Section 10-6-119 of the Utah Code Annotated. SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect upon • publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,this day of ,2003. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER • 3 Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. • MAYOR ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorneys Office Date 7-2 (SEAL) BY ,�� '1►' Bill No. of 2003. Published: G:1Ordinance 03\Budget\Adopt final budget 7-23.03.doc • • 4 JUL 2 5 2003 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE • No. of 2003 (Adopting the final budget for the Library Fund of Salt Lake City,Utah for fiscal year 2003-2004) AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE FINAL BUDGET FOR THE LIBRARY FUND OF SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004. PREAMBLE Pursuant to the provisions of Section 10-6-111 of the Utah Code Annotated,the City Budget Officer prepared and filed with the City Council a tentative budget in proper form for all funds for which budgets are required by said law,including the budget for the Library Fund, for fiscal year 2003-2004. The tentative budget was accompanied by a budget message as required by law. • The tentative budget,including the budget for the Library Fund,was adopted by the City Council in Resolution No. 17 of 2003, on May 6,2003. A revised tentative budget for the Library Fund was adopted by the City Council in Ordinance No. 44 of 2003,on June 24,2003. Section 10-6-118 of the Utah Code Annotated requires that before the 22°a day of June of each fiscal year or,August 17,in case of a property tax increase under Sections 59-2-919 through 59-2-923 of the Utah Code Annotated,the governing body shall,by resolution or ordinance, adopt a budget for the ensuing fiscal year for each fund for which a budget is required. The Utah State Tax Commission granted the City an extension of the June 22 deadline, through June 25, 2003. • 1 The City budget officer,based upon input received from the City Council, has now prepared a final budget for the Library Fund, in proper form. • NOW,THEREFORE,be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City: SECTION 1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this ordinance is to adopt the final budget for the Library Fund, for fiscal year 2003-2004. All conditions precedent to the adoption of the final budget for the Library Fund have been accomplished. SECTION 2. ADOPTION OF BUDGET. The budget attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance, shall be, and the same hereby is adopted as the final budget for the Library Fund of the City for the fiscal year beginning July 1,2003 and ending June 30, 2004, in accordance with the requirements of Sections 10-6-105, 10-6-118 and 59-2-923 of the Utah Code Annotated. The final budget for the Library Fund is subject to the approval of the Mayor and reconsideration of the City Council pursuant to Section 10-3- 1214 of the Utah Code Annotated. SECTION 3. FILING OF BUDGET. The City Budget Officer is hereby authorized and directed to certify and file copies of said final budget with the State Auditor as required by Section 10-6-118 of the Utah Code Annotated. SECTION 4. PUBLIC INSPECTION. The City Budget Officer is hereby authorized and directed to certify and file copies of said final budget in the office of said Budget Officer and in the Office of the City Recorder,which budget shall be available for public inspection during regular business hours as required by Section 10-6-119 of the Utah Code Annotated. SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. 2 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,this day of • , 2003. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER • Transmitted to the Mayor on . Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. . MAYOR ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM - Salt Lake City Attorney's Office Date 7-Zr-`� i. (SEAL) Bill No. of 2003. Published: . G:\Ordinance 03\Budget\Adopt final library budget 7-23-03.doc 11111 JUL 2 5 2003 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2003 (Adopting the final rate of tax levy upon all real and personal property within Salt Lake City, made taxable by law for fiscal year 2003-2004) AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE FINAL RATE OF TAX LEVY UPON ALL REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY WITHIN SALT LAKE CITY MADE TAXABLE BY LAW FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City: PREAMBLE Chapter 2,Title 59 of the Utah Code Ann. states that the governing body of each city shall,by ordinance or resolution, adopt a proposed tax levy or,if the tax rate is not more than the certified tax rate, a final tax levy on the real and personal property for • various municipal purposes. Chapter 2,Title 59, of the Utah Code Ann.provides for certain notice and hearing requirements if the proposed tax rate exceeds the certified tax rate. It is the intent of Salt Lake City to comply with the mandate of the Utah Legislature, but reserve in itself the power to amend the tax rates set herein to guarantee, after final appraisal figures have been determined,that it does not exceed the amount required for its governmental operations and taxing authority granted by the Legislature. Further,it is the intent of the City to levy an additional tax, if necessary,to cover costs of State legislative mandates or judicial or administrative orders under Chapter 2,Title 59 of the Utah Code Ann. SECTION 1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this ordinance is to adopt a final tax levy upon all real and personal property within Salt Lake City made taxable by law in the • year 2003 to defray the necessary and proper expenses of Salt Lake City to maintain the 40 government thereof and for operating and maintaining its libraries and reading rooms and to pay for costs of State legislative mandates or judicial or administrative orders under Chapter 2, Title 59 of the Utah Code Ann. SECTION 2. TAX LEVY: 2003-2004. The City Council hereby levies upon all real and personal property within Salt Lake City made taxable by law in the year 2003, for the fiscal year of Salt Lake City ending June 30,2004, a tax of.005458 on each dollar of taxable valuation of said property apportioned as follows: (a) .004024 shall be credited as revenue in the general fund; (b) .000055 shall be credited as revenue in the general fund to be used for repayment of court ordered judgments; (c) .000777 shall be credited as revenue in the special library fund; • (d) .000009 shall be credited as revenue in the special library fund to be used for repayment of court ordered judgments; (e) .000585 shall be credited toward repayment of the Block 37 General Obligation Bonds for the construction of a new City library building and other improvements; and (f) .000008 shall be credited toward the repayment of the Block 37 General Obligation Bonds to be used for repayment of court ordered judgments. Said tax levies in this Section 2 shall be subject to Mayor approval and City Council reconsideration pursuant to § 10-3-1214 of the Utah Code Ann. SECTION 3. CERTIFIED TO AUDITOR. The tax levies hereinabove determined and levied shall be certified by the City Recorder to the Auditor of Salt Lake S 2 County,State of Utah by the 17m day of August 2003 pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 2,Title 59 of the Utah Code Ann. SECTION 4. RESERVE POWER AND RIGHT TO AMEND. The City hereby expressly reserves the power and right to amend any property tax levy made herein as it may deem just,proper and appropriate under the law. SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,this day of ,2003. CHAIRPERSON • ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attornney's Office oats 7-2 5'�p3� 3 • By 4 //�Y'// // ATTEST: • CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2003. Published: Ordinance 03\BadgaUdogmg final tax levy l-23-03.doc • • 4 • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: August 8,2003 SUBJECT: Railyard Special Improvement District Assessment Ordinance and Bond Sale AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: Council District 4 STAFF REPORT BY: Gary Mumford ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT: Department of Management Services AND CONTACT PERSON: Dan Mule,City Treasurer KEY ELEMENTS: As part of the Gateway project,the City agreed to assist in arranging for financing of public street improvements relating to the extension of Rio Grand Street(street between the Gateway shops). Prior to the Gateway project,Rio Grand Street was a two block street.from 200 South to 400 South. The Gateway project extended the street from 200 South to 50 North. In 1999, the Council established a special improvement district for extending the street. These improvements induded paving,sidewalks,curb and gutter,crosswalks,and storm drainage. The Gateway Associates will repay the bond over a 20-year period. The final Council actions relating to this district is to adopt the assessment ordinance and adopt a resolution authorizing the issuance of bonds. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Council staff recommends that the Council adopt the ordinance and resolution. ["I move that the Council'] Adopt the assessment ordinance confirming the assessment rolls and levying an assessment against certain properties and related matters. ["I move that the Council'] Adopt a resolution finalizing the terms and conditions of the issuance and sale of adjustable rate demand assessment bonds,series 2003,in the aggregate principal amount of$17,600,000;awarding and confirming the sale of the bonds;and related matters. BACKGROUND: In 1999,the Boyer Company requested that the City create a special improvement district for public improvements in the Gateway project area relating to extension of Rio Grand Street The property owner constructed and installed the improvements with the understanding that the City would issue bonds to finance the improvements. The Redevelopment Agency was involved with the Gateway project by financing a portion of the plaza,parking,housing,and renovation of the Union Pacific Depot The City's Municipal Building Authority bonding for the park blocks on 500 West. Property owners along 500 West \1 Street paid for sidewalk,curb&gutter,landscaping,lighting and other improvements to 500 • West Street through a special improvement district The Railyard special improvement district differs substantially from the City's traditional special improvement districts because of the large dollar amount, the longer repayment period,and because there is only one property owner. The district and the related bonding were structured to shift legal and economic risks from the City to the property owner. The bonds are special limited obligations of the City,payable solely from assessments levied against the property owner. A direct-pay letter of credit provided by Citibank,N.A.will secure the payment of principal and interest CHRONOLOGY: • November 16,1999-The Council adopted a resolution declaring the intention of the City to create the Railyard special improvement district • December 16,1999-The Council adopted a resolution creating the Railyard special improvement district cc Rocky Fluhart,Dan Mule,JD Baxter S I\, •