12/04/2003 - Minutes PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4 , 2003
The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Thursday, December
4, 2003, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South
State Street.
In Attendance: Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Eric Jergensen, Nancy
Saxton, Jill Remington Love, Dave Buhler and Dale Lambert.
Also in Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; LuAnn Clark,
Housing and Neighborhood Development Director; Gordon Hoskins, City Controller; Steve
Fawcett, Management Services Deputy Director; Steve Whittaker, Technology Consultant;
Louis Zunguze, Planning Director; Rocky Fluhart, Chief Executive Officer; Marge Harvey,
Council Constituent Liaison; Laurie Dillon, Budget Analyst; Michael Sears, Council
Budget and Policy Analyst; Janice Jardine, Council Land Use Policy Analyst; Vicki
Pacheco, Council Staff Assistant; Sherrie Collins, Special Project Grants Monitoring
Specialist; Mary Johnston, City Courts Director; Brent Wilde, Planning Deputy Director,
David Dobbins, Business Services Director; Rick Graham, Public Services Director; Sim
Gill, City Prosecutor; Zane Gill, Management Services Administrative Enforcement
Officer; Virginia Ward, City Justice Court Judge; Janet Wolf, Mayor's Director of Youth
Programs; Krista Dunn, Police Grant Specialist; Doug Dansie, Downtown/Special Projects
Planner; and Beverly Jones, Deputy City Recorder.
Councilmember Christensen presided at and conducted the meeting.
The meeting was called to order at 5:40 p.m.
AGENDA ITEMS
#1. REPORT OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, INCLUDING REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS
AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. View Attachment
See File M 03-5 for announcements.
#2. HOLD A DISCUSSION REGARDING HOUSING WITH THE CHAIRS OF THE FOLLOWING CITY BOARDS
AND COMMISSIONS: View Attachment
A. HOUSING TRUST FUND ADVISORY BOARD - KENT MOORE
Mr. Moore and LuAnn Clark briefed the Council from the attached handouts. Mr.
Moore emphasized continued need for housing issues funding. He said responsible
homeownership was needed. He said affordable housing projects throughout the City
needed to be maintained. He said additional opportunities needed to be looked at to
try and get people into housing where they could become taxpaying citizens and benefit
the entire City.
Councilmember Saxton asked if the Board had any plans to educate the public on
available housing loans and needs. Mr. Moore said the Advisory Board did not have
plans for education. He said the Board wanted to encourage the City to work with the
school district and others to provide funding to educate people on financial matters.
Councilmember Saxton asked what was needed to get more affordable housing into
all areas of the City. Mr. Moore said they continued to educate different builders to
look at all areas of the City. He said then the Board could use their network of
builders to educate other builders who did not understand some of the subsidies they
could receive if they were willing to develop affordable housing projects.
Councilmember Jergensen asked about affordable housing and low-income housing.
03 - 1
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4 , 2003
Mr. Moore said the Board' s largest concern was finding a permanent funding source. He
said some programs being presented to the Board were for rental assistance. He said
that money would never be returned. He said discussion had been held on how much the
Board wanted to put into rental assistance. He said the Board made some recommendations
on rental assistance but they were a minor part because the money spent was one-time
money.
Mr. Moore said housing needs continued to grow. He said there was a lot of
downtown property that was in disrepair and did not meet ADA requirements.
Councilmember Jergensen asked if the Housing Trust Fund could take in private donations.
Ms. Clark said yes.
Councilmember Buhler referred to the first paragraph in the handout. He said
under "barriers providing a full range of housing", it mentioned zoning regulations.
He asked for an example of zoning regulations which were barriers to housing. Mr.
Moore said he did not have specific areas but some properties needed to be multi-use
or multi-family housing. Councilmember Buhler said the trend was to downzone and
remove areas from the City that were multi-family.
Councilmember Lambert asked about the statement in the handout that read
"establish a homeownership incentive indoor program for families between 80% and 120%
of area medium income." Mr. Moore said a program was in place where a person could
receive some down payment assistance. He said if a person stayed in the home for a
specific period of time the loan became a grant. He said if that person moved then
the money needed to be repaid out of sale proceeds.
Councilmember Turner asked how people could become responsible homeowners. He
said in his area there were many starter homes and asked what it would take to encourage
people to come, stay and be good neighbors. Mr. Moore said his perception was
affordable housing and ordinance enforcement.
Councilmember Christensen asked if there was some way to reach out to the large
employment areas such as the University of Utah to encourage people to make an
investment. Ms. Clark said they had a hard time finding qualified buyers because of
all the bankruptcies. Mr. Moore said lenders needed to educate borrowers.
B. HOUSING ADVISORY AND APPEALS BOARD - DAVE FOX
Mr. Fox and Ms. Clark briefed the Council from the attached handouts. Mr. Fox
said the Board was considering four issues: 1) the legalization of occupied accessory
units such as mother-in-law apartments, and 2) review of off street parking
requirements. He said in most residential areas, parking was two spaces per housing
unit. He said maybe that could be cut back to one. He said 3) was to revise the
housing code to allow certain requirements to be handled by an administrative hearing
officer, and 4) was identifying common housing code appeals and authorize housing and
zoning officers to make on-site approvals.
Councilmember Buhler said he agreed that if some issues were always approved
then people should not be made to wait 30 days for approval. He asked if it would
take ordinance changes to make those issues possible. Ms. Clark said changes had been
made to allow the Board of Adjustment to give certain powers to their hearing officers.
She said those powers could be given to the hearing officer for the Housing Advisory
and Appeals Board. Councilmember Buhler requested information on empowering the
hearing officer. He said he was in favor of moving these issues along. Councilmember
Lambert said he supported streamlining the issues.
03 - 2
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4 , 2003
Councilmember Jergensen said he was interested in review of off street parking
requirements. He said in the Avenues and Capitol Hill' s area there was minimal off
street parking. He said if two parking stalls were required per unit then every bit
of available land space became parking lots. He said that was counter-productive and
encouraged Mr. Fox to continue working on the parking issue.
C. BUSINESS ADVISORY BOARD - GREG GRUBER
Mr. Gruber and Louis Zunguze briefed the Council with the attached handouts. Mr.
Gruber said they were a small business board who worked with the City to help streamline
the process and make things better for businesses in the future. He said he wanted to
talk about revitalization of the downtown core. He said urban environments required
a certain critical mass in order to be self-sustaining.
Mr. Gruber said Portland, Oregon had turned closed warehouse units into luxury
lofts. He said young professionals had moved in and businesses had started to appear
to support the urban professionals. He said the City needed to focus on who they were
trying to attract and what the steps were. He said they had thought endlessly about
what made dynamic urban areas work. He said vertical zoning worked for New York. He
said in vertical zoning the ground level of the building was retail space, the second
floor was space for professionals and small offices and above that were housing units.
Councilmember Lambert said he liked vertical zoning aesthetically. He said there were
a number of examples where builders and developers had been unwilling to develop
vertical zoning because of the amount of office and retail space located downtown.
Mr. Gruber said the viability and success of retail business at ground level depended
on density created by the City. He said density brought crime but it was necessary to
make retail work. He said people who lived in cities did not require cars and their
needs were different.
Councilmember Christensen asked if the City had good demographic information.
Ms. Clark said they had new census data. She said the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) had
performed a study about who lived downtown. She said they could request an analysis
of the type of people who had purchased or rented downtown. Councilmember Christensen
asked if there was a way to find out who was most likely to live downtown. Councilmember
Jergensen said census data was available for Salt Lake City but he felt other developers
or groups had collected data from cities such as Portland or Denver. Mr. Gruber said
he agreed. He said one resource would be the University of Utah. He said the City
library had trained research people as well.
D. HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION - SOREN SIMONSEN
Mr. Simonsen and Mr. Zunguze briefed the Council from the attached handouts. Mr.
Simonsen said he wanted to address several points: 1) implementing zoning provisions
which allowed basement apartments, granny flats and accessory structures and to remove
restrictions that made such apartments illegal once the unit was given up and 2) look
at City policies and regulations for new and in-fill developments for higher density
housing. He said focus should be placed on redevelopment of under zoned, underutilized
and marginal commercial properties rather than policies and regulations which lead to
demolition of existing homes.
Mr. Simonsen said 3) to recognize that Salt Lake City has many neighborhoods and older
housing stock which provide a model for diversity of household types, ages, sizes and
income levels and 4) to recognize the relationship between the provision of affordable
housing and preservation of older structures.
03 - 3
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4 , 2003
Mr. Simonsen said studies recognized most affordable housing in many urban communities
was older housing stock. He said eliminating older housing units was detrimental to
providing affordable housing. He said the study cited that 48% of housing built prior
to 1950 rented for less than $500 per month. He said only 16% of housing built within
the last five years rented for less than $500 per month. He said 5) to target more
money for rehabilitation of existing single-family homes and 6) to implement zoning
that allowed residents to live in the same neighborhood as their housing needs changed.
Councilmember Saxton said responsible ownership was needed and it was hard to legislate
responsibility. She said the City had to find ways to enforce and educate. She asked
if there had been any discussion on preservation versus reuse. Mr. Simonsen said a
lengthy discussion had been held on reuse because of the many office space vacancies.
He said current provisions in many commercially zoned areas did not allow any sort of
residential use.
Mr. Simonsen said the Commission was open to reuse of properties and wanted to see
more reuse through zoning and other ordinances. Councilmember Saxton said there was
a need for residential preservation or saving of historical buildings. She said people
who loved historical buildings wanted preservation instead of reuse. She said she was
interested in some discussion about reuse versus preservation.
E. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - MICHAEL JONES
Mr. Jones and Mr. Zunguze briefed the Council from the attached handouts. Mr.
Jones said he felt quality housing had been effectively addressed throughout the City
by the market with the exception of the downtown area. He said the key for downtown
housing was vibrancy and vitality. He said there were two to four story buildings
with a handful of skyscrapers along Main Street and it was important to maintain that
scale.
Mr. Jones said middleclass affordable housing was important. He said a good
example of desirable housing was the proposed housing adjacent to the City Center. He
said one barrier was land availability and there was not much land in the downtown
area. He said the second barrier was construction costs. He said the availability of
sufficient and varied shopping and entertainment was important. He said another barrier
was various vacant storefronts on Main Street.
Councilmember Christensen said the Board of Adjustment received exceptions to
the City' s zoning ordinances and asked if many of the requests were repetitive and
made reuse of housing difficult. Mr. Jones said a pattern of requests came before the
Board because they considered certain kinds of matter. He said an effort was made on
an ongoing basis to consider when requests needed to be moved to staff level to make
the process smoother and simpler for applicants. He said many unit legalizations came
to the board from the Avenues. He said the Board knew parking was a problem throughout
the Avenues.
F. PLANNING COMMISSION - PRESCOTT MUIR
Mr. Muir and Mr. Zunguze briefed the Council from the attached handouts. Mr. Muir
said the fundamental issue was education. He said the City needed to verify that
parking demands and ordinance requirements were in line with multiple-family and mixed-
use zoning needs. He said regulatory conditions needed to achieve the goals intended
and not impede or discourage development. He said fundamental problems were policy-
oriented issues. He said the public had an inherent resistance to change so education
was needed.
03 - 4
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4 , 2003
Mr. Muir said the City needed to resist the community' s desire to downzone every
neighborhood in the name of stabilization, historic preservation or to create
neighborhood diversity. He said the City needed to retool the community's negative
perception of density. He said better understanding of the financial market was
needed. He said the City needed to better understand the housing industry and define
the regulatory and economic stimulus that would be most effective.
Mr. Muir said fundamental cost barriers were structured parking costs. He said the
public sector needed to step in and provide some assistance in shared common structures.
He said better demographics were needed to understand the community. He said the City
needed to look at major industries to see what the employee profile was. He said an
action plan should start with education of boards, industries and professionals. He
said density incentives needed to be created which matched construction costs models.
Councilmember Jergensen asked what types of zones and areas in the City should be
encouraged to maximum density. Mr. Muir said there was limited market potential in
the downtown core. He said the City had to capture the vision of an average consumer.
He said existing parts of the City with a basic infrastructure that would attract
residents needed to be considered.
Councilmember Jergensen said in creating density the biggest areas of concern would
come from areas that should remain traditionally single-family, duplex or low density.
He said the population's mindset said if there were density, the neighborhood would be
downgraded. He said it would take a combination of good projects and clear concise
education. Mr. Muir said the community needed to target a zone and create the
neighborhood.
#3. RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING REVENUE PROJECTIONS, BUDGET AMENDMENT NO.
2 AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS. View Attachment
Michael Sears, Steve Fawcett, Rocky Fluhart, Rick Graham, Virginia Ward, Sim Gill,
Zane Gill, Laurie Dillon, Janet Wolf, Krista Dunn and Mary Johnston briefed the Council
from the attached handout. Mr. Sears said there were two new initiatives to consider
as part of the budget amendment. He said Initiative No. 28, Olympic Legacy security
lighting for $22,500 was new.
Councilmember Christensen said work was done that went beyond the District's Legacy
project. He said it was felt that engineering costs for the whole section of lighting
should be done concurrently with the installation of the legacy project to save money.
He said one option was to eliminate some of the legacy stops that had been planned to
pay for the extra work. Mr. Graham said in order to complete the scope of work
electrical sources were needed. He said it was consistent with plans for the rest of
the trail.
Councilmember Saxton asked where the monies would come from. Mr. Sears said from
contingency. Councilmember Saxton asked if this project had been on the Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) project list for consideration by the board. Mr. Sears said
it was not on the list but the trail and the parkway project as a whole had been
considered in segments over the last several years.
Councilmember Saxton asked if the project was time sensitive and would prevent the
Council from taking the project back to the CIP Board. Ms. Gust-Jenson said these
costs had already been incurred. She said last year the Council passed a legislative
intent stating that all engineering costs should be allocated to cost centers. She
said it could be a new line item for the project or allocated to reduce the District
One Olympic project by $22, 000. Councilmember Saxton said she would feel more
03 - 5
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4 , 2003
comfortable if the Council sent a letter to the CIP Board letting them know what had
been decided.
Councilmember Lambert said if lighting was not part of the legacy project why was the
Council considering it when there were other spending priorities. Councilmember
Christensen said it made sense from an engineering standpoint to do the whole trail
regardless of how many Olympic stops they put in. He said the project was done and
paid for so if the Council did not appropriate contingency, they would scale back the
Olympic project. Mr. Graham said an element of the Olympic project was to add lights
to the plazas located along the trail. He said they wanted lights for security and
that fell within the historical plan of what they had been doing all along. He said
the electrical work not only supported the eight plazas but it gave them the capacity
to add on without having to spend money later to light the rest of the trail.
Councilmember Turner said he supported the extra monies for engineering costs. Mr.
Graham said in order to put the lights in the money would be spent. He said the issue
was whether they should use a portion of the Olympic legacy money for electrical work.
Mr. Sears said Initiative No. 29, UTOPIA, was a request for $53, 114 to cover bonding
expenses associated with issuing the bonds. He said this would be reimbursable once
the bonds were actually issued. Ms. Gust-Jenson said Council had previously asked what
the potential cost was to the City if they signed onto UTOPIA. She said the amount
was $4.7 million attributable to the City. Mr. Fluhart said that was correct. He
said that was annually for the life of the bonds. Councilmember Jergensen said the
cost could be as high as $24 or $25 million. He said $4 .7 million was an annual
guarantee that could be over a seven or ten year period. Mr. Sears said the $4.7
million was 45% of the City's cost. He said the City' s actual amount was $6. 9 million
per year for 20 years.
Councilmember Buhler said the Council had not agreed to this. Mr. Fluhart said the
decision needed to be made within the next month. Councilmember Buhler said the
Council had agreed to fund a feasibility study. He asked if UTOPIA wanted that amount
in advance of the Council agreeing to join. Mr. Fluhart said they needed to choose
whether or not to participate. He said if the Council choose to participate, then the
Council had to decide whether to refuse to back the bonds in which case Salt Lake City
would not participate in any net revenue in the future, or choose to guarantee the
bonds at 45% and receive any net revenue generated by the system in Salt Lake City.
Councilmember Buhler asked if the City only paid $53, 000 if they decided to participate.
Mr. Fluhart said he was not sure. He said he had the same question. He said he
believed if the City decided not to join then they could forego the $53, 000. He said
there was a board meeting on Monday and he would get the answer. He said UTOPIA did
not know they had to pay the fees in advance as opposed to having them paid out of the
proceeds of the bonds. He said in private entity funding the fees was paid upfront
and then when the bonds were sold they were repaid.
Councilmember Lambert said UTOPIA needed enough cities to back the bond or the bond
would not issue. He said Salt Lake City was critical to UTOPIA. Mr. Fluhart said
that was correct. He said backing the bond made some Council Members uncomfortable
because of the risk. Mr. Fluhart said that would depend on choices other cities made.
He said UTOPIA knew there was a breaking point, but they did not know what it was.
Councilmember Jergensen said it would be helpful in January to know what percentage of
Salt Lake City was serviced by fiber. Mr. Fluhart said in terms of land area, it was
small. He said he would get that information to the Council.
03 - 6
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4 , 2003
Mr. Sears said Issue No. 1 was CIP - Sidewalk replacement for $130, 000. He said that
was the property owner's portion of the project. He said the Administration wanted to
increase the budget by that amount so the City could be in receipt of the funds and
make expenditures. Council Members had no questions or concerns.
Mr. Sears said Issue No. 3, was Prosecutor' s Office and Justice Court staffing for
$190,345. Councilmember Lambert asked about the requested staff positions. Mr. Sears
said there were four case manager clerks and one court clerk requested by the Justice
Court and one associate City prosecutor and two office technicians requested by the
Prosecutor' s Office. Mr. S. Gill said an office technician would assist with the
creation of files, data input, running of subpoenas and other related work.
Councilmember Saxton asked if a model was used in the management of the Justice Court.
Ms. Johnston said there were National Court standards they referred to as much as
possible. She said they had met with people from Midtown in New York on court standards.
Ms. Dillon said when the Justice Court was set up they knew it was a new court and
that it would be larger than any other Justice Court in the State. She said they knew
they could not operate the same way the District Court did because cases were different.
Ms. Dillon said they developed their own model based on what they thought the caseload
would be. She said traffic and criminal cases had grown and the model they had in
place now was inadequate. She said they planned how many clerks would be assigned to
various sections. She said that had to be adjusted based on actual numbers.
Councilmember Saxton asked how the Justice Court was doing as far as streamlining
cases. Mr. Z. Gill said they were setting jury trials in January and February for
cases ready for trial settings. He said if a case was ready for a trial setting in
District Court, the gap would be twice that long to get the jury trial setting. He
said they were setting pretrials about six weeks out right now.
Ms. Johnston said one of the concerns they had was traffic cases. She said they used
to take up to six months to complete. She said an analysis done in the last year
showed the cases were resolved within 60 days. She said that was a significant
difference. She said criminal cases were a different matter. She said they could be
delayed not only by the court system but also by lawyers needing more time. Mr. S.
Gill said if there was lag time it was because of the influx of new caseloads coming
in.
Councilmember Lambert said the Justice Court and the Prosecutor's Office were doing
the best they could and had a real need for increases. He said other City departments
were understaffed. He said Zoning had a large backlog. He said his concern was they
were looking at a budget next year where additional positions would need to be cut.
He said it concerned him to have an increase midyear in one department. Mr. Z. Gill
said the City did not want to see delays because of understaffing. Ms. Dillon said if
they had known they were as overworked as they were they would have included additional
staffing in their proposed budget.
Councilmember Christensen said previously the Court had mentioned some issues with the
software system. He asked how the internal systems were working and if the requested
positions were related to the system. Mr. Z. Gill said the positions did impact and
overlap issues on the case management system. He said case management was falling
apart. He said they needed people to use the case management software to track
compliance. He said they did not want to have people's probations run out because
they did not have time to track compliance.
Mr. Sears said Issue No. 5 was U.S. Department of Education - Youth Programs for
$57,500. Councilmember Buhler asked how the money had been spent so far. He asked
03 - 7
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4 , 2003
about site refurbishment and capital expenses. Ms. Wolf said they still planned to
refurbish the boxing building and Ottinger Hall. She said they were currently in
negotiations and in the design phase for Ottinger. She said they had a partnership
with Salt Lake Rotary. She said they had committed an extensive amount of resources
to help with that project. She said they were looking for more funding for the boxing
building. Councilmember Buhler said money should be spent on youth not buildings. He
said if the Council was interested in re-looking at this item, there could be a
contingent appropriation if money was redirected.
Councilmember Christensen asked how the success was measured. Ms. Wolf said they had
an extensive and aggressive definition of success. She said they were looking at
building resiliency skills.
Mr. Sears said Issue No. 8 was COPS in Shops for $7, 000. All Council Members were in
favor of this issue.
Mr. Sears said Issue No. 9 was U.S. Department of Justice - Arrest Policies for
$500,000. He said Council had asked for a breakdown of the remaining $333,480. He
said it would be used for travel, equipment, and contractual obligations.
Mr. Sears said the Council had a draft resolution requesting that revenue collection
and forecast information be provided to the City Council at least four times each year.
He said the Council had requested that be done in conjunction with the quarterly budget
amendments. All Council Members supported the resolution.
#4. RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING PETITION 400-01-66, LARRY H. MILLER
MANAGEMENT COMPANY, REQUEST TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE MAXIMUM TIME
LIMIT FOR TEMPORARY TENTS ASSOCIATED WITH OUTDOOR SALES. View Attachment
Janice Jardine, Doug Dansie, Brent Wilde and Louis Zunguze briefed the Council from
the attached handout. Ms. Jardine said before the meeting she received an e-mail from
Kevin Nalder from the Fire Department. She said she was able to get a copy to the
Planning staff and they indicated they would be happy to meet with Mr. Nalder to brief
him on the proposed ordinance prior to a hearing.
Councilmember Buhler asked if concerns had been resolved. Ms. Jardine said yes. Ms.
Gust-Jenson said one main issue was that sometimes the tents were up for 180 days. She
said some people were worried about parking. She said parking had been addressed. Ms.
Jardine suggested the Council might want to add an additional phrase that talked about
homeowner hosted functions.
Mr. Dansie said in the existing ordinance temporary tents were limited to nonresidential
zones only. He said this came up when they talked to the tent industry and the Fire
Department. He said when someone held a wedding reception they could not get a permit
for a tent because the City did not allow them. Ms. Gust-Jenson said the proposed
ordinance gave some authority to the zoning Administrator to waive certain provisions.
She said it did not list criteria. She said Planning was willing to work with staff
to identify criteria for residential tent use. She said every 4th and 24th of July,
the City had to deal with lobbyists concerned because firework sellers could not use
tents. She said she did not know what the status of that was.
Mr. Dansie said the tent section was part of a bigger section of temporary uses. He
said modification of tents did not necessarily relate to fireworks because they had
their own subsection in the ordinance. Councilmember Christensen asked if that section
of the ordinance could be amended. Mr. Dansie said they could add the word tents in
the section under fireworks. Mr. Wilde said tents for fireworks would be a non-issue
03 - 8
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4 , 2003
for Planning as long as the Fire Department would approve it.
Ms. Jardine said a motion could be prepared that the Council further move to request
the administration to evaluate the section of the code and come back with any changes.
Councilmember Christensen asked that changes be given to the Council at least one week
before the hearing so interested parties could review and comment at the public hearing.
All Council Members were in favor of setting a hearing date in January of 2004 at their
Tuesday, December 9, 2003 meeting.
#5. RECEIVE A REPORT REGARDING A PROPOSED OLYMPIC LEGACY PROJECT FOR COUNCIL DISTRICT
2. View Attachment
Councilmember Turner said their proposal was to construct a new entrance to the Peace
Gardens and improvements to the Poplar Grove/Jordan River Trail way at 500 South. All
Council Members were in favor of forwarding this to the next meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 9:37 p.m.
bj
03 - 9
• MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 2, 2003
TO: Council Members
FROM: Marge Harvey
SUBJECT: December 4, 2003 Housing Policy Discussion
As part of the Council's on-going housing policy discussions, Chairs of six City Boards and
Commissions with a housing component have been invited to address the Council on December 4. Each
Chair has been allotted five minutes to discuss the views and perspectives of their Boards on the four
topics that were addressed during the April 3, 2003 Housing Fact Finding Meeting. Those topics are:
• Barriers to providing a full range of housing.
• Opportunities for innovation.
• Methods to encourage home ownership.
• Methods to enable family housing for all income levels.
Following each presentation, a ten minute period has been allotted for questions from the
• Council. The Chairs who will address the Council are:
1. Housing Trust Advisory Fund Board Kent Moore, Chair
2. Housing Advisory and Appeals Board Dave Fox, Chair
3. Business Advisory Board Greg Gruber, Chair
4. Historic Landmark Commission Soren Simonsen, Chair
5. Board of Adjustment Michael Jones, Chair
6. Planning Commission Prescott Muir,Chair
Each of the above Boards and Commissions were also invited to submit written comments with
suggestions regarding future housing policy direction for the City and key City housing issues. Attached
are the written comments that have been received.
•
•
LUANN CLARK 1 ` 1 U_alt C./ SE g ROSS C.ANDERSON
• DtNECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT
November 20, 2003
Carlton Christensen
Chairman
Salt Lake City Council
451 South State Street, Room 304
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Dear Chairman Christensen:
In response to the City Council's request that the housing boards and
commissions consider issues relative to the City's housing policy needs, the
Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board (HTFAB)discussed this matter at the
October 17, 2003 Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board meeting.
•
Attached is a copy of the issues the HTF Advisory Board would like to see the
City Council address in the review of the City's housing policy needs.
We appreciate the opportunity to participate in the review and discussion of this
matter.
Respectfully,
•LjlaNrrz-e___
Kent Moore
Chairperson
Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board
Encl.
451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 406,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH B41 1 1
TELEPHONE:BO1-535-7902 TOD:801.535.6021 FAX:SO1.535.6078
SLC HOUSING TRUST FUND ADVISORY BOARD
HOUSING ISSUES
Barriers to providing a full range of housing
• Lack of a permanent funding source for the Housing Trust Fund that
provides adequate resources to assist with a mix of rental and
homeownership housing projects.
• The perception of some in the community regarding affordable housing
projects and the residents. Support an education program.
• Land availability and the cost of housing
• Vacant and boarded properties
• Zoning Regulations
• Lack of amenities that support housing such as commercial
developments, parks, grocery stores, public transportation, schools, etc.
• Need of a viable, long term plan for housing with a commitment from the
City's leadership.
• Balance of housing throughout the community—support and build more
affordable housing on the east side.
• Coordinated effort with all agencies that provide housing resources
Opportunities for Innovation:
• Support mixed income/mixed use projects with expedited permit process
and flexible zoning ordinances.
• Support a variety of homeownership opportunities such as town homes,
condominiums, co-housing, etc.
• Review the Zoning Ordinance to provide more opportunities for housing
projects and create an expedited process for permits for innovative
housing projects. Create a "green tape" process for housing projects.
• Support and establish a preservation strategy that preserves existing
affordable housing
ID
• Support an education program for developers on which programs are
available and encourage other developers to share the knowledge.
Methods to Encourage Homeownership
• Add the word "responsible"—Methods to Encourage Responsible
Homeownership.
• Develop a partnership with the schools to educate students on how to
manage their finances. Include information on buying a home, managing
credit card debt and issues regarding a good credit report.
• Expand the availability of funding to educate citizens on the financial
issues of homeownership. The educational program should include
information on pre-purchase qualifications as well as post purchase
information.
• Establish a homeownership incentive and/or program for families between
80% and 120% of area median income.
• Educate residents on available housing resources including rehabilitation
programs.
• Provide resources to pay for the cost of educating residents and students.
Methods to Enable Family Housing for all Income Levels.
• Continue to fund and support existing housing programs.
• Expand homeownership and affordable housing education programs to
include realtors, lenders, developers, etc.
Other Housing Policies Issues
• Preservation of Section 8 projects.
• Continue programs that assist with the rehabilitation and renovation of
existing affordable housing projects.
e
LUANN CLARK :j �i�J` ii 91201013141 ROSS C.ANDERSON
DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYON.
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND NEIOH•ORH000 DEVELOPMENT
November 12, 2003
Carlton Christensen, Chair
Salt Lake City Council
451 South State Street, Room 304
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Dear Chairman Christensen:
In response to the City Council's request that the housing boards and
commissions consider issues relative to the City's housing policy needs, the
Housing Advisory and Appeals Board (HAAB)discussed this matter at the
September 10, 2003 HAAB meeting.
The HAAB board would like to see the following issues addressed in the review
of the City's housing policies:
• Consider legalization of owner-occupied accessory units
• Review of off-street parking requirements
• Revise the Housing Code to allow certain items in the Code to be handled
by the Administrative Hearing Officer
• Identify the most common Housing Code appeals and authorize housing
and zoning officers to make on site approvals
We appreciate the opportunity to participate in the review and discussion of the
City's housing policy needs.
Respectfully,
koJ
Dav ox
Chairperson
Housing Advisory and Appeals Board
4S1 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 406,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH S41 1 1
TELEPHONE:001-53S-7902 TOD:SO1-535-6021 FAX:001-535-60781111
•CC+C{.CO MIY11
Original Message
• From: McFarlane, Alison
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 12:29 PM
To: Gust-Jenson, Cindy
Subject: FW: Housing
Cindy,
Here is another response I just received from another member of the
Business Advisory Board. Thanks.
Alison
Original Message
From: Rebecca Guevara [mailto:rebeccaguevara@qwest.net]
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 11:42 AM
To: McFarlane, Alison
Subject: Housing
Hi, Alison, Ideas on housing are:
1. City could be overlapping neighborhoods of smaller hubs with Salt
Lake greater downtown as major. Sugarhouse and 15th & 15th is sample
and that could be repeated in greater number. What is good about
Sugarhouse and 15th that is model is: diversity in cost of homes, size,
mix of retail with necessary shopping like groceries, bakeries,
interspersed, reasonable walkability and access to public
transportation. 2. Housing needs purposeful use of buildings,
townhouses, single homes from quite affordable to plush and they should
start with the old fashion efficiency apartment (or condo) for one
• person to homes for families in all price ranges. Smaller sizes
especially useful to students if LDS new school and others actually
happens and there are a lot of adults with little money, no partner and
in need of something to call their own. 3. The city as a whole needs to
have a guiding master plan to build city solidarity instead of our old
assessment of neighborhoods as the good, the bad and the ugly. Through
a citywide housing plan there could be a greater awareness of need for
neighborhood greenspace, retail, areas specific to elderly, adults
only, children in everycorner or a mixture. Thank you, Alison, Rebecca
From: McFarlane,Alison
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 11:04 AM
To: Gust Jenson,Cindy
Subject: RE:
Cindy,
I have polled the Business Advisory Board members and am detailing their comments
below:
• Encourage as many mixed use projects as possible. The "European model"
of retail at street level, business and professional one floor up, and residential on
upper levels is a model that creates density that is very necessary particularly in
downtown Salt Lake City. (vertical zoning)
• Scrutinize zoning throughout the City to make sure the most conducive land for
housing is zoned appropriately.
• Housing density in as many areas of the City as possible will greatly impact area
businesses; aggressively pursue housing.
DEC 0 3 2003
S Q x‘G1TY G•RORATIOI `
ROCKY J. FLUHART ,� , .� . -. ,� �� #$..�,-1: ROSS C. ANDERSON
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER MAYOR
MEMORANDUM FROM
THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
TO: Carlton Christensen, Chair, and '
Members of the Salt Lake City Council
FROM: Rocky J. Fluhart
DATE: December 3, 2003
RE: UTOPIA Financing
• Yesterday, Roger Black informed me that UTOPIA's bond insurer and bond rating agencies will
require payment of fees for their services in advance of bond sales. These fees are generally paid
from bond proceeds in public agency financings. However, UTOPIA is being treated as a private
party financing and these fees are generally paid in advance by private entities. The city will be
reimbursed the total amount paid for fees from bond proceeds. The fees to UTOPIA total
$250,000; $120,000 for bond insurance, $30,000 for an independent due diligence report that
will be commissioned by the bond insurer, $50,000 for Standard and Poor's rating, and$50,000
for Moody's rating. Salt Lake City's share of the total amount is $53,114. Salt Lake City's share
is based upon Salt Lake City's percentage of total UTOPIA construction costs.
The Administration recommends an appropriation of fund balance in the amount of$53,114 to
pay this assessment.
•
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 233, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1
TELEPHONE: 601-535-6426 FAX: 601-535-6 1 9❑
®a . Eo P>PEw
Salt Lake City Corporation
Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Budget Development and Budget Amendment
Manaqement Services FY 2003-04 I •
Department For Fiscal Year
Bonding expenses for UTOPIA bond(rembursable) Amendment#2, Initiative#28
Initiative Name Initiative Number
Rocky Fluhart 535-6426
Prepared By Phone Number
New Item N/A
Type of Initiative CFDA Number
Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change
A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year
FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06
1. General Fund
Fund Balance 53,114
Total $53,114 $0 $0
2. Internal Service Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
3. Enterprise Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
4. Other Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source:
1. General Fund III
Bonding expenses for UTOPIA bond(rembursable) 53,114
Total $53,114, $0 $0
2. Internal Service Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
3. Enterprise Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
4.Other Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
C. Expenditure Impact Detail
1. Salaries and Wages
2. Employee Benefits
3. Operating and Maint. Supply
4. Charges and Services 53,114
5. Capital Outlay
6. Other(Specify) 0 0
Total $53,114, $0 $0
•
BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#28 03UTOPIA Bond Expenses.xlsl2/3/20032:24 PM
Salt Lake City Corporation
• Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Budget Development and Budget Amendment
• D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount
N/A
•
•
BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#28 03UTOPIA Bond Expenses.xls12/3/20032:24 PM
Salt Lake City Corporation
Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Budget Development and Budget Amendment
E.Measured or measurable Impact on functions,structure and organization,or plans. •
F.Issue Discussion:A complete justification wit contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below;
criteria,condition,effect,cause and recommendation.
Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected.It provides a basis for comparison without
which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue.In straightforward cases,it can be an
ordinance or policy.In other cases,it maybe an industry standard or comparable data from another city.
Condition is a description of current practices.It is the information to which the criteria is compared.
Effect is the difference,if any,between the condition and criteria.It is best described in terms of a dollar impact •
or a service level impact.If an effect cannot be identified,there is no finding.
Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding.It is simply identifying why the
condition varies from the criteria.Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often
goes deeper into management
Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause.By doing so,it is most likely to result in
improving the condition to be in line with the criteria.
Issue Discussion:
The City has learned that UTOPIA's bond insurer and bond rating agencies will require payment of fees for their
services in advance of bond sales. These fees are generally paid from bond proceeds in public agency financings.
However,UTOPIA is being treated as a private party financing and these fees are generally paid in advance by •
private entities. The city will be reimbursed the total amount paid for fees from bond proceeds. Salt Lake City's
share of the total amount is$53,1 14. Salt Lake City's share is based upon Salt Lake City's percentage of total
UTOPIA construction costs.
•
,
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
• BUDGET AMENDMENT #2 - FISCAL YEAR 2003-04
DATE: December 2, 2003
SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Budget Amendment #2 - Briefing
STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears
CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rocky Fluhart, David Nimkin, Steve Fawcett,
DJ Baxter, Rick Graham, Ed Rutan, Steven Allred, Chief Dinse,
Chief Querry, Alison Weyher, David Dobbins, Luann Clark, Greg
Davis,Jerry Burton, John Vuyk, Gordon Hoskins, Elwin
Heilmann, Shannon Ashby, Sherrie Collins, Laurie Dillon, Susi
Kontgis, and Kay Christensen
The briefing and discussion of the second budget amendment for the fiscal year 2003-
04 budget was held on November 18, 2003. The proposed amendment includes
several state and federal grants relating to youth programs, public safety, emergency
management and police and fire functions. There are requests to use General Fund
balance for prosecutor and Justice Court staffmg and an encumbrance carryover for
Justice Court software. Other budget amendment initiatives relate to grant funding,
• housekeeping items and capital budgeting. During the meeting on November 18, 2003
Council Members requested additional information on five initiatives and a separate
briefing on the status of revenue collection and forecasts for the remainder of the
fiscal year. The briefing on the current state of revenue collection will be held on
December 2, 2003. Responses to Council Member questions on budget amendment
initiatives are included in the text of this report or attached.
NEW INITIATIVE
Issue #28 Olympic Legacy Security Lighting($22,500-CIP Fund)("New Item")
The Administration is recommending that the Council appropriate $22,500 from CIP
contingency to complete the engineering design of the power system for security
lighting adjacent to the District One Olympic Legacy Project.
There are sufficient contingency funds available to fund this project and complete the
adjacent section of security lighting. The Administration recommends that the Council
appropriate the requested funds.
MATTERS AT ISSUE RELATING TO INITIATIVES #1, 3, 5, 8, 9
Issue #1: CIP- Sidewalk Replacement($130,000- CIP Fund)("New Item")
During the adoption of the fiscal year 2003-2004 budget the City Council adopted
a CIP - Sidewalk Replacement project. The total cost of the project is higher than
• originally anticipated and as such the Administration is requesting that the
Council approve the recapture and appropriation of CIP funds in completed or
closed CIP Sidewalk Replacement cost centers to the current fiscal year sidewalk
replacement project. In addition to the recapture and appropriation of City funds
Page 1
the budget for the property owner's portion of the Special Improvement District will
be increased by $130,000.
The Sidewalk Replacement Special Improvement District covers an area in the
•
vicinity of 900 to 2100 South from 1100 to 1500 East. The total cost of the project
is expected to be approximately $1.49 million, $200,000 of which is funded by
Public Utilities.
Council Members asked for additional information regarding this CIP project.
The Administration has provided the following information:
This is a budget adjustment. This adjustment will increase the budget in
CIP cost center, 83-04048, by $130,000 for a total budget of$400,000., to
facilitate the increase of the resident's portion of the SID.
It will also move the remaining cash from CIP cost centers 83-99008
($120,788.88); 83-98009, ($49,442.29); and 83-02013, ($190,004.20);
totaling $360,235.37, and increase the current year CIP SID cost center 83-
04048.
Issue #3: Prosecutor's Office and Justice Court Staffing ($190,345 — General
Fund) ("New Item")
The Administration is recommending that the City Council appropriate $190,345
from fund balance in the General Fund to the Justice Court and Prosecutor's
Office to add additional FTE's to address increased caseloads. The Administration
is seeking approval for 8 additional positions (5 at the Justice Court and 3 at the
Prosecutor's Office). •
The requested fund balance would be used to hire 4 Case Manager Clerks, one
court clerk, one associate City Prosecutor and two Office Techs. The transmittal
details the increased caseload at the Justice Court and provides justification for
the increase.
Council Members discussed the operation of the Court, caseloads, budgetary
impacts and also the Prosecutor's Office. Council Members indicated that they
may ask additional questions about this request during the revenue briefing or
follow-up briefing before the public hearing on this issue. The Administration has
provided the attached revenue and expenditure information for the Justice Court.
The City would have received 50% of fine revenue from the District Court had the
City not established a justice court.
The following are questions that were included in the original staff report:
The Council may wish to ask the Administration for a review of the revenue provided
by the Justice Court to determine if the court is revenue neutral or in a revenue
positive position. The Council may also wish to consider the staffing levels of the
other departments that are below optimal staffing levels and inquire why this staffing
request was not recommended during the budget adoption process when other
positions were being eliminated. The Council may also want to consider the future
year budgetary impacts of approximately $300,000 that this proposed staffing •
increase will cause. The Council may wish to ask whether inefficiencies and systems
Page 2
issues between the Court and the Prosecutor's Office still exist. A number of issues
have been raised with the Council Office recently, including:
• • A citizen recently complained about the wait time required of the public
desiring to resolve traffic infractions. Currently, an individual that doesn't
have legal counsel has to wait several hours, until cases for those with
legal counsel and those individuals from the jail are heard. Based upon a
request from a Council Member, the Administration is reviewing this
scheduling issue.
• A citizen also complained that he was given incorrect information about the
scope of authority of the hearing officers and as a result had to return on
more than one day to have his problem addressed. The Council may wish
to inquire about whether the scope of the hearing officers'authority is clear
and is available to the public in writing in advance.
• Given the significance of this staffing request, the newness of the Justice
Court and the issues relating to the computer system raised in the
Council's audit, the Council may wish to use some of its audit funding to
engage an expert on court management to review the resource allocation
for the City's Justice Court.
• The neighborhood nuisance abatement program has been of interest to the
Council in the past. The Council may wish to ask the Prosecutor's Office
for information on how this program is prioritized compared to other needs
in the office.
The Council may also wish to ask the Prosecutor's Office about how priorities are set to
determine the cases screened for actual prosecution. This could include a request for
• information on the current focus and how that focus would change without this
additional staffing. In addition, the Council may wish to ask about the impact of
diversion programs on the Prosecutor's and the Justice Court's workload (`John's
program, Drug court, Mental Health Court, etc.).
Issue #5: U.S. Department of Education - Youth Programs ($57,500 - Misc.
Grant Fund) ("Grant Requiring New Staff Resources")
The Administration is requesting that the City Council appropriate $57,500 in
grant funds from the U.S. Department of Education for the continuation and
expansion of the current programs and services provided by the Youth City
program. The total revenue portion of this grant is $894,150 and will be
budgeted during fiscal year 2003-04; the expenditure budget will be $57,500.
The grant funds will pay for an additional program assistant and salary and
benefits for existing staff associated with the program. The grant period is from
fiscal year 2003 to 2008. The new FTE is funded for 3 years in this grant.
Additional expenses such as travel, equipment and supplies, operating and
maintenance expenses at the program sites and contracts with program providers
are included as eligible expenses under this continuation grant.
This grant does not have a new resolution for the Council to sign. A resolution,
which was previously adopted by the Council, authorizes the Mayor to accept this
grant and sign any additional contracts or awards related to the grant. The only
• needed Council action is the adoption of the budget to allow for the facilitation of
this grant.
Page 3
There is one additional FTE associated with this grant. The Administration
recommends that the Council accept this grant and approve the appropriation
request. •
The Council requested an accounting of the current $1.2 million grant that
the City has received and a summary of the number of youth served by the
Youth City program. The Administration has provided the following information
on the number of youth served with the existing grant, the proposed grant and
provided an accounting of funds which is attached:
Number of students served with $1.2 million grant
160 students at Glendale Middle School.
103 students at Northwest Multi-Purpose Center
120 students at Central City Recreation Center. The grant paid for only
equipment, no staff costs included.
403 students at Fairmont Park
60 students in Liberty Park
810 young people in the employment program
31,767 students and families participated in the Imagination Celebration.
The grant pays for% of the Imagination Celebration's Coordinator.
In addition, $50,000 went to the Sorenson Center to expand the programs
and purchase equipment.
Proposed grant information
The total amount of this grant is $894,150 for a 5 year period, FY 2003- •
2008. This is a supplemental appropriation for continuation and
expansion of the current programs funded with the $1.2 US Department of
Education appropriation.
The application requested 1 new FTE. This is a Program Assistant position
to provide administrative support services. The grant would pay the first 3
years salary of this position, FY 2003-2006, and 125 hrs of existing
program teachers for expansion of the current programs to include a
Hispanic Youth segment. In FY's 06-08 this grant would continue to pay
for 4 existing FTE's that are currently funded with the $1.2 appropriation
as well as other related costs to continue the current Youth City programs.
In addressing the question of whether grant funds can be used to fund
current FTE's rather than hire new positions, the answer is possibly under
the following conditions.
1. If a current position or a percent of a position is dedicated to the
functions of the grant, then that position or percent could be paid with
grant funds.
Supplanting: Federal funds must be used to supplement existing funds for
program activities and not replace those funds which have been
•
appropriated for the same purpose.
Page 4
2. The current appropriated budget and scope has been approved and
awarded by the Department of Education to hire an FTE. Any change in
• the approved scope and budget would need to be submitted to the
Department of Education for prior approval.
I have attached a copy of the Fiscal Impact Statement submitted for the full
5 year budget which details the eligible use of funds over that period. I
will bring you a copy of the current approved/awarded budget that was
sent to us by the Department of Education.
If the City decides not to accept the appropriation, these funds would be
returned to the US Department of Education.
In addressing approved expenditures and award of the current$1.2
appropriation, I have attached a spreadsheet of all expenditures as of
11/5/03 for Council review.
Accounting of funds- $1.2 million grant(See attached)
Issue #8: COPS in Shops ($7,000—Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grant requiring existing
staff resources")
The State of Utah, Department of Public Safety has awarded the City a
continuation grant to pay to place undercover police officers in convenience stores.
The Police Department is requesting that the grant funds be used to pay police
overtime. The goal of the Cops in Shops program is to prevent alcohol/drug related
IIcar accidents.
This grant does not have a new resolution for the Council to sign. A resolution,
which was previously adopted by the Council, authorizes the Mayor to accept this
grant and sign any additional contracts or awards related to the grant. The only
needed Council action is the adoption of the budget to allow for the facilitation of
this grant.
No additional FTE's are associated with this grant. The Administration
recommends that the Council accept this grant and approve the appropriation
request.
The Council may wish to note that in past briefmgs the Council has had concern
regarding the use of grant funds for overtime. This grant pays enough to cover
expenses for the program when officers are assigned. The grant is not large enough
to pay for a full time position to operate this program. The Council asked how
many hours this grant will fund and additional details about this grant. The
Administration provided the following response:
The $7,000 requested for officer overtime would fund approximately 218
hours at $32.00 per hour. This grant is specifically designed for officer
over-time when placing officers in convenient stores and markets to
observe and cite underage persons attempting to purchase alcohol. It is a
III State incentive for valley wide Police agencies to provide this function. If
the grant is not accepted for over-time purposes, the City will need to
decline the grant.
Page 5
Currently this is not an operation or function provided by the PD within
their daily scope of responsibilities.
•
Issue #9: U.S. Department of Justice - Arrest Policies ($500,000 - Misc. Grant
Fund) ("Grant requiring existing staff resources")
The Administration is requesting that the City Council appropriate $500,000 in
grant money from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence against
Women for the purpose of encouraging arrest policing and enforcement of
protection orders. The Administration proposes that police overtimes expenses of
$33,280 and salary expenses of $75,000 for an IMS Technology Engineer be
covered with this appropriation. The overtime funds will be used for Police Officers
to issue Class A warrants and protection order violations, the IMS employee will
develop a web service that will link City department data systems to the State of
Utah's data systems and other non-profit agencies for the purpose of tracking
protection orders and violations of protection orders in Salt Lake City.
This grant does have a new resolution for the Council to sign. The resolution
authorizes the Mayor to accept this grant and sign any additional contracts or
awards related to the grant. The Council will need to adopt appropriate the
requested budget and adopt the resolution.
The Administration is requesting that one FTE position in IMS and Police overtime
expenses be funded with this grant. The Council will need to consider this existing
FTE and police overtime budget during the fiscal year 2004-2005 and 2005-2006
budget processes as this grant covers a period from September 2003 through the
end of August 2005. •
Council Members requested a breakdown of the remaining of the budget for
this grant. $166,520 of the $500,000 will be spent on police overtime ($91,520)
and an existing IMS Technology Engineer ($75,000). The remaining $333,480 in
budget will be spent as follows:
Travel $15,000
OJP designated Technical Assistance Training (Locations unknown at this time)
Grant specifies that 2 people are required to attend 3 trainings
Costs include: Airfare, Lodging, Per Diem and Ground Transportation
Equipment $10,000
Application Server Approx cost 10,000
This is equipment that IMS will purchase and is necessary to upgrade the City's
electronic infrastructure for operating PROMIS system that will link BCI, Third
District Court, SLC Justice Court, YWCA, and SLCPD
Contractual $308,480
To include:
Utah Bureau of Criminal Identification (BCI) $117,580
Page 6
Sole Source Contract; Programming Consultant and equipment to link City data
systems to Utah Criminal Justice Information System.
• Programming Consultant Fees $107,580
Equipment 10,000
Bach Harrison Evaluation Services $10,000
Independent external evaluation of PROMIS and agencies collaboration.
Utah Third District Court $98,000
Personnel 1 FTE Clerk $70,000
Programming Scan Protective Orders into PROMIS 8,000
Hardware/Equipment 20,000
Legal Aid Society of Salt Lake $72,000
Personnel Paralegal 1 FTE $72,000
Translations Services $10,900
Translation for all contractual components
•
III
Page 7
Justice Court Revenue and Expenses
•
Budgeted revenue and expenses for FY 2003-04
Revenue
Small Claims, Misc $53,234
Traffic School $400,000
Moving Violations $3,700,000
Late Fees $98,280
Court Fees $910,000
Traffic Mitigation $310,000
Revenue Total $5,471,514
(Parking violations revenue of$3,500,000 not included)
Expenses
Justice Court $3,146,954
Building Debt Service $373,013
Building Maintenance $82,000
Prosecutor's Office $1,440,117
Less Parking violations expenses
5.75 FTE Hearing Officers(220)@$37,100/yr ($213,325)
1 FTE Cashier(218)@$35,000/yr ($35,000)
Postage ($30,000)
•
Process Service charges ($88,000)
(Parking violations expenses = ($366,325)
Expense Total $4,675,759
Net Revenue $795,755
Less 8 new positions requested ($295,904)
Justice Court Revenue vs. Expense $499,851
Collection Efforts as of October 2003
Amount collected $382,000
Costs ($30,000)
Net Collected $352,000
•
EDGAR Grant As of 11/5/03
• Site Refurbishment Award Expenditures Balance Changes/Comments/Notes
Fairmont-63009 $ 25,000.00 $ 22,621.90 $ 2,378.10 blinds/ADT monitoring/Construct
Ottinger-63009 $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00
Boxing Building-63010 $ 175,000.00 $ 13,110.00 $ 161,890.00
Total $ 300,000.00 $ 35,731.90 $ 264,268.10
ED Grant Administration Award Expenditures Balance Changes/Comments/Notes
Salaries Teachers etc
*Fairmont Cottage-63001 $ 92,720.00 $ 473.65 $ 92,246.35
*Ottinger Hall-63002 $ 92,720.00 $ 9,809.24 $ 82,910.76
*Boxing Building-63003 $ 92,720.00 $ 18,695.83 $ 74,024.17
Central City-63005 $ 31,920.00 $ 2,903.71 $ 29,016.29 Global Artways-63006 $ 100,000.00 $ 15,309.00 $ 84,691.00 *Coord/Teachers/Drivers/Fringe_
Admin-Salaries/Fringe-63007 $ 82,920.00 $ 73,704.73 $ 9,215.27 &Special consultants
Total $ 493,000.00 $ 120,896.16 $ 372,103.84
Overall Grant Admin Award Expenditures Balance Changes/Comments/Notes
63008
Supplies $ 35,000.00 $ 2,636.85 $ 32,363.15 adjust 6,404 to SMC Contract
Equipment $ 57,450.00 $ 3,378.61 $ 54,071.39 for supplies. 30,000 to 3 sites
Travel $ 6,500.00 $ 6,500.00
Training $ 7,000.00 $ 308.30 $ 6,691.70
O&M $ 54,000.00 $ 7,810.02 $ 46,189.98
• Evaluation $ 7,500.00 $ 7,500.00 Eval to Contractual-later
Total $ 167,450.00 $ 14,133.78 $ 153,316.22
Contractual Award Expenditures Balance Changes/Comments/Notes
Sorenson-63004 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00
Total $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00
2nd Year Total-63011 $ 189,550.00
Grand Total 1,200,000.00 $ 170,761.84 1,029,238.16
•
RESOLUTION NO. OF 2003
(Requesting that Revenue Collection and Forecast Information be
• Provided to the City Council at Least Four Times Each Year)
WHEREAS,the Salt Lake City Council has adopted a general budget policy of
not using one-time revenues to balance the budget; and
WHEREAS,the City Council adopted a legislative intent statement in June 2002
that the Administration present a budget that is balanced using one-time funds for one-
time expenses,with no less than nine percent of ongoing General Fund revenues invested
annually in the Capital Improvement Program fund; and
WHEREAS, the City's Administration presents budget amendments periodically
throughout the year with requests for appropriations of fund balance without an
accounting of probable revenue; and
WHEREAS,the City Council adopted a legislative intent statement in June 2002
to maintain a healthy fund balance of at least 10%of General Fund revenue; and
WHEREAS, in fiscal year 2002-03,the City Council found itself in a position of
funding projects throughout the year only to have to allocate fund balance during the last
budget opening of the year to balance the fiscal year budget because of a revenue
shortfall; and
1111 WHEREAS,the City Council adopted a legislative intent in June 2003 that the
Administration report to the City Council by January 15, 2004 on fiscal year 2003-04
revenue collections; and
WHEREAS,the City Council requested that the Administration request budget
amendments no more often than quarterly unless there are extenuating circumstances or
emergencies;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City,
Utah:
That the City Council requests the City's Administration to provide an accounting
of general fund revenue collections and a current-year revenue forecast at least four times
each fiscal year with one revenue forecast report in conjunction with each quarterly
budget amendment request.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,this day of
, 2003.
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
By
CHAIRPERSON
111/ ATTEST:
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER
G:\Resoluti\Requestion Revenue Collection&Forecast Information 12-2-03 draft
Page 1 of 2
*dine, Janice
From: Nalder, Kevin
Sent: Thursday, December 04,2003 4:30 PM
To: Jardine,Janice
Subject: FW:Council mtg.Temporary Tent Ordinance
Categories: Program/Policy
Janice,
After review of the proposed ordinance to amend Chapter 21A.42 pursuant to Petition 400-01-66 some items that may require
some clarification.
-Page 2, item D.5.:
"Tents larger than 200 sq. ft. and canopies larger than 400 sq. ft. are permitted for personal home use for not
more than 5 days with Fire Department approval. "
A provision in the Utah Code prohibits the Fire Department from conducting inspections on single family dwellings.
This opens the door for the Fire Department to be responsible for inspections of tents on residential property. Although this may
not occur often, it is something we have not been responsible for in the past.
-Page 3,item E under"Key Elements"
"Art festivals,neighborhood fairs,vending carts and other similar activities,authorized by other City regulations to
olite on public or private property or within the public way,are not subject to the temporary use zoning regulations."
es this exempt, for example,the tents at the annual Arts Festival,from applying for a permit from the Fire Department?
Does item"H"on page 4 resolve the issue? In addition,temporary tents are regulated through the Fire Department and
must comply with specific Fire Code requirements.
Perhaps the language could be more definitive.
-Page 3, last sentence in item D under"Key Elements"
"The intent is to regulate all temporary uses conducted on private property. (Sec. 21A.42)"
Again,is it the intent to have the Fire Department conduct inspections on residential property for tents or other temporary uses?
If you have any questions or would like me to attend the council meeting this evening fell free to call my mobile 550-0127
9 Kevin 5Vidder
Battalion Chief
Fire Marshal—Salt Lake City Fire Department
305 East 200 South
Salt Lake City,Utah 84111
Phone: (801)799-4163
Fax: (801)799-4156
Email: kevin.nalder@slcgov.com
• Original Message----
From: Querry, Chuck
Sent:Wednesday, December 03, 2003 9:17 AM
To: Nalder, Kevin; Rock, Brett
12/4/2003
Page 2 of 2
Subject: FW: Council mtg.Temporary Tent Ordinance
Good Morning Brett and Kevin •
Will you review this let me know what issues you may have before the Coucil meeting tomorrow.
Thanks, Chuck
Original Message
From: Jardine,Janice
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 09:08
To: Nimkin, David; Fluhart, Rocky; Baxter, DJ; Rutan, Ed; Pace, Lynn;Querry, Chuck; Nalder, Kevin;Andrus, Dan;
Weyher, Alison; Dobbins, David; Wilde, Brent; Spangenberg, Craig; Butcher, Larry;Calfa, Enzo;Coffey,Cheri; Dansie,
Doug;Aramaki,Jan;Jones, Sylvia; Weaver, Lehua; Harvey, Marge; Daley,Annette; Esham, Barry;Archuleta, Archie
Subject: Council mtg.Temporary Tent Ordinance
Please find attached an agenda for the Council meeting Thursday, Dec. 4th,the Council staff report and the
transmittal/proposed ordinance for Petition 400-01-66 Larry H. Miller Management Company request to amend the Zoning
Ordinance relating to the maximum time limit for temporary tents associated with outdoor sales.
•
S
12/4/2003
• SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: December 2,2003
SUBJECT: Petition No.400-01-66—Larry H.Miller Management Company request to amend the
Zoning Ordinance relating to Temporary Uses and the maximum time limit for tents
associated with outdoor sales(Sec.21A.42.070.F)
STAFF REPORT BY: Janice Jardine,Land Use and Public Policy Analyst
ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Community and Economic Development—Planning Division
AND CONTACT PERSON: Doug Dansie,Principal Planner
OPTIONS:
1. Forward the proposed ordinance to a future Council meeting for a public hearing.
2. Identify changes to the proposed ordinance and forward to a future Council meeting for a public
hearing.
3. Request additional written information and refer to an additional Council work session.
4. Other options identified by Council Members.
5. Any combination of the above.
• NEW INFORMATION AND MATTERS AT ISSUE:
NEW INFORMATION:
A. On January 7,2003,Council Members received a briefing regarding the proposed Zoning Ordinance
text change relating to temporary uses and the maximum time limit for tents associated with outdoor
sales to remain in place. At the end of the discussion,the Administration indicated that they would
address the issues and questions that were raised and provide additional information to the Council.
B. Issues discussed at the Council briefing included:
1. Size including limiting square footage and differentiate between sizes such as separate criteria
for a canopy over a patio versus a tent enclosed on the sides or in a separate location.
2. Long-term safety issues and aesthetics including life/safety,fire and building code,traffic and
parking impacts,visual appearance and impacts on the surrounding neighborhood.
3. Differentiate between the type and scale of the use such as major events,existing business
activities and non-profit/homeowner type uses.
4. Limiting the types of uses and sub-leasing.
5. The potential of creating an unintended impact of unfair competition for existing businesses.
6. Limiting locations—downtown versus non-residential zones citywide.
7. Reducing the timeframe to address the potential for a tent to be used as a permanent structure.
8. The potential for someone to put up tent(s)in the same general area but different locations one
right after the other.
9. How other cities deal with this issue(not including tents for special events).
C. On May 13,2003,at the request of the Administration,the Council adopted a motion to refer this item
• back to the Administration for additional review.
Page 1
D. The Administration has submitted a new ordinance for Council consideration. Key elements identified
by the Administration in the proposed ordinance are summarized below. Please see the
Administration's transmittal and the proposed ordinance for details. •
1. Tents smaller than 200 sq.ft.and canopies smaller than 400 sq.ft.associated with a business
that is legally licensed as a permanent or temporary business are permitted:
a. In all nonresidential zoning districts
b. Up to a maximum of 45-days per calendar year
2. Tents larger than 200 sq.ft.and canopies larger than 400 sq.ft.associated with a business that
is legally licensed as a permanent or temporary business are permitted:
a. In the following zoning classifications:
• Downtown D-1,D-2,D-3 and D-4
• Manufacturing M-1 and M-2
• General Commercial
• Public Lands PL and PL-2
• Business Park
• Research Park
• Open Space
b. Up to a maximum of 45-days per calendar year
c. The Zoning Administrator may extend the maximum time limit to 180-days per
calendar year based on the following:
• The intended use meets the parking requirements
• A positive recommendation from the following City Depts./Divisions
o Transportation
o Public Utilities.
o Business Licensing S
o Fire
o Police
o Historic Landmark Commission(if applicable)
3. The Zoning Administrator may waive the zoning district bulk and yard requirements.
4. Tents smaller than 200 sq.ft.and canopies smaller than 400 sq.ft.are permitted in all
residential districts without a permit for personal home use for not more than 5 days.
5. Tents larger than 200 sq.ft.and canopies larger than 400 sq.ft.are permitted for personal home
use for not more than 5 days with Fire Department approval.
6. Canopies are defined as a tent structure that is open on more than 75%of its sides.
MATTERS AT ISSUE:
A. Council Members may wish to request additional language be added to the proposed ordinance that would
clarify or further define personal home use such as including reference to homeowner hosted functions to
address special activities such as fundraising. The Council Office had a complaint this summer from a
homeowner who was hosting a special event for a non-profit organization and couldn't get approval.
B. Council Members may wish to discuss with the Administration steps or options that would address the
issues of unfair competition and visual impacts as previously discussed by the Council.
C. Council Members may wish to discuss with the Administration the criteria used by the Zoning
Administrator to waive the bulk and area requirements in the zoning districts as specified in the proposed
ordinance.
D. In a related matter,the temporary tent issue was raised this spring in regard to firework stands. At that time,
the Administration noted the need to address time frames and re-evaluate regulations for other temporary •
uses. The Administration indicated they would pursue additional amendments to the City Code and Zoning
Ordinance. Council Members may wish to request an update on the status of the revisions.
Page 2
E. The Administration's transmittal notes representatives of the tent industry raise issues regarding the
efficiency of the current permitting process. The Permits office committed to providing written clarification
of the permit processes and outreach information to tent providers including providing an expedited process
• and simplifying payment methods. Council Members may wish to inquire as to whether the documentation
is complete and available for review.
The following information was provided previously. It is provided again for your reference.
KEY ELEMENTS:
A. The proposed text change would extend the current maximum 10-day time limit for tents associated with
outdoor sales as temporary uses to remain in place:
• 45 days per calendar year through an over-the-counter permit,and
• allow an extension of time(over the proposed 45 day limit)up to a maximum 180 days s through the
Planning Commission conditional use process.
B. The Administration notes that the proposed change was initiated due to the Delta Center operating an
outdoor food concession throughout the summer to provide restaurant services primarily for construction
workers working on the Gateway shopping center. The management company wished to have the tent in
place for the duration of the summer but the ordinance currently only allows a maximum of 10 days. The
petitioner notes that it is expensive to put up and take down temporary tents and that the proposed change
would:
• Eliminate the need for tents to be taken down and put up several times.
• Allow an opportunity to recover some of the costs for setting up and dismantling tents,and
• Allow a more equitable treatment for businesses that wish to use temporary tents. (The petitioner
• notes that the tent erected behind the centerfield wall at Franklin Covey Field appears to operate
under a different set of rules.)
C. Other examples of businesses that would benefit from the proposed text change identified by Planning staff
include the Outdoor Retailer's Convention that uses temporary tents for 19 days during the convention and
Bricks Club(private club)intent to enclose a patio area during the winter months.
D. The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance Temporary Use section is to provide general regulations,applicable in
all non-residential zoning districts,for uses and structures that have only a seasonal or temporary duration,
such as uses and structures associated with carnivals and fairs,the Christmas season,or construction
projects. The intent is to regulate all temporary uses conducted on private property. (Sec. 21A.42)
E. Art festivals,neighborhood fairs,vending carts and other similar activities,authorized by other City
regulations to operate on public or private property or within the public way,are not subject to the
temporary use zoning regulations.
F. Other uses permitted separately in the Temporary Use section of the Zoning Ordinance(Sec. 21A.42.070)
include:
• Outdoor sales of plant products during spring and summer—permitted April through October
• Christmas tree and other seasonal item sales-permitted a maximum of 45 days
• Festivals,bazaars,outdoor sale events,carnivals,circuses and other special events—permitted a
maximum of 14 days
• Farmers' markets—permitted June through October
• Movie or film locations—no maximum time limit
• • Construction trailers and temporary contractor's storage yards—no maximum time limit
• Outdoor sales of fireworks—no maximum time limit
Page 3
• Relocatable offices—no maximum time limit
• Bus shelters,kiosks and other temporary buildings—permitted a maximum of 6-months
G. Temporary uses may be approved by the Zoning Administrator subject to the applicable requirements and •
conditions identified in the Zoning Ordinance or identified by the Zoning Administrator including:
• Use limitations applicable in the district in which the temporary use is located
• Hours and days of operation
• Mitigation of traffic and parking impacts
• Limitations on temporary signage
H. In addition,temporary tents are regulated through the Fire Department and must comply with specific Fire
Code requirements.
I. The Administration notes major issues raised during the review process and the Planning Commission
hearing included:
• Fire Code compliance,tent size,height and visual compatibility,traffic and parking impacts,
compliance with Health Department regulations,and potential impacts on surrounding businesses and
neighborhoods.
• Modification of the Planning staff recommended time frame. Staff recommended 21 to 180 days
approved by the Zoning Administrator with input from affected City departments/divisions. (the
Planning Commission is recommending 45 days with an over-the-counter permit and up to 180 days
through the conditional use process.)
• The potential for temporary uses and tents to by-pass the normal review and code compliance processes
and create an unfair competition advantage impacting surrounding businesses.
• The potential for tents to be used as permanent structures.
• Restricting the types of uses that would be permitted in temporary tents to uses that would not be in
direct competition with surrounding businesses.
•
MATTERS AT ISSUE /POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION:
Council Members may wish to consider or discuss with the Administration steps taken or options to
address the following issues and concerns.
A. Has the Administration and the Planning Commission considered using an overlay zone in very specific
areas rather than applying the proposed changes on a citywide basis? This could limit the use of temporary
tents to commercial areas within a specific geographic boundary or to commercial areas that do not abut
residential neighborhoods similar to the regulations for sidewalk vending carts. What are the pros and
cons?
B. The Administration's transmittal notes that comments relating to the proposed text changes were requested
from Community Council Chairs by letter. Were the City Boards or Commissions and various business
organizations such as the Business Advisory Board,Transportation Advisory Board,Downtown Alliance,
Chamber of Commerce and the Vest Pocket Business organization involved in the review process? If so,
what type of comments or input were received?
C. The Planning Commission's minutes reflect a major focus on issues relating to the Delta Center and the
surrounding area. Because the proposed change would be applied on a citywide basis,what steps have
been taken to address potential unintended impacts on other areas and neighborhoods of the City?
D. One Planning Commissioner inquired as to best practices,standards or ordinances from other cities.
Planning staff indicated that other cities had not been contacted. Would Council Members like Council
•
staff to contact other cities and provide additional information?
Page 4
E. The two examples used relating to the potential for the 180-day conditional use appears to be commercial
expansion opportunities(such as the Delta Center food service and the private club patio enclosure).
1. The Council may wish to discuss the policy implications and equity issues that might be associated
• with allowing businesses and organizations to expand their activities for six months of the year
using temporary structures.
2. The Council may wish to evaluate whether the use of temporary tents for 6 months per year is the
best approach for business expansion opportunities,or whether these opportunities should be
considered using the City's existing ordinances. (i.e. should a private club patio be enclosed for use
in winter months using this ordinance or the existing ordinances,building and fire codes.)
3. It should be noted that the 180-day conditional use would not be limited to business expansion
opportunities. Automobile tent sales,parking lot retail sales and other activities are also potential
uses.
4. While parking and transportation issues are to be considered as part of the approval process,there
is no requirement specified that the City's parking requirements be followed for the special 180-
day conditional use. As such,there could be an impact on abutting businesses and/or
neighborhoods.
5. Beyond parking impacts due to more customers or visitors,it would be possible to use a portion of
the parking lot for a temporary tent thus further reducing the available parking.
6. The use of temporary tents may increase the walkable nature of communities and bring additional
activity and a festive atmosphere to surrounding areas.
7. While conditional uses are issued at the discretion of the Planning Commission,the Council has
previously noted that nearly all conditional use requests are approved,either as submitted or with
modifications.
F. In a related matter,the Temporary Use Chapter of the Zoning Ordinance provides separate regulations and
maximum time limits for a variety of uses. (Please refer to the Key Elements section,Item F. of this staff
report.) The ordinance states"Bus shelters, kiosks and other temporary buildings are permitted in all
• commercial, manufacturing and downtown districts. Such uses shall be limited to a period not to exceed
six(6)months. Such facilities shall not be located in any required yard or any required parking area and
sales from these facilities shall be prohibited. (Sec.21A.42.070.J) Council Members may wish to clarify
with the Administration what types of bus shelters are covered by these regulations.
MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS:
A. The City's Strategic Plan and the Futures Commission Report contain statements that support creating
attractive conditions for business expansion including retention and attraction of large and small businesses,
but not at the expense of minimizing environmental stewardship or neighborhood vitality. The documents
express concepts such as maintaining a prominent sustainable city,ensuring the City is designed to the
highest aesthetic standards and is pedestrian friendly,convenient,and inviting.
B. The City's 1990 Urban Design Element includes statements that emphasize preserving the City's image,
neighborhood character and maintaining livability while being sensitive to social and economic realities.
Applicable policy concepts include:
• Allow individual districts to develop in response to their unique characteristics within the overall
urban design scheme for the city.
• Ensure that land uses make a positive contribution to neighborhood improvement and stability and
building restoration and new construction enhance district character.
• Require private development efforts to be compatible with urban design policies of the city
regardless of whether city financial assistance is provided.
• Treat building height,scale and character as significant features of a district's image.
40 • Ensure that features of building design such as color,detail,materials and scale are responsive to
district character,neighboring buildings,and the pedestrian.
Page 5
C. During the Council's recent discussions relating to growth,annexations and housing policy,Council
Members have expressed support for developments that promote livable community concepts such as:
• pedestrian and bicycle friendly environments
• compact,transit and pedestrian oriented developments 40
• neighborhood anchor areas or commercial and/or business uses that are necessary to the function of
residential neighborhoods or are compatible with residential activity
• local services that are conveniently available or can be provided and are accessible on foot
CHRONOLOGY:
The Administration's transmittal provides a chronology of events relating to the proposed Zoning
Ordinance text amendment. Key dates are listed below. Please refer to the Administration's chronology for
details.
• January 17,2002 Letter and draft ordinance sent to all Community Council Chairs
requesting input and comments.
• March 21,2002 Planning Commission Hearing
cc: Dave Nimkin,Rocky Fluhart,DJ Baxter,Ed Rutan,Lynn Pace,Chief Queny,Kevin Nalder,Dan Andrus,Alison
Weyher,David Dobbins,Brent Wilde,Craig Spangenberg,Enzo Calfa,Cheri Coffey,Doug Dansie,Council
Constituent Liaisons
File Location: Community and Economic Development Dept.,Planning Division,Zoning Text Amendment,
Temporary Uses—tents associated with outdoor sales
III
•
Page 6
S e? 1 0 2033
S'` T \ a 01 art. C # _poRATON, ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON
• ALISON WEYHER 3t -. �J � �
DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR
COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
7711-1/7
TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chi Administrative Officer DATE: September 5, 2003
FROM: Alison Weyher
RE: PETITION NO. 400-01-66: A request by the Larry H. Miller Co. to extend
the 10-day maximum length of time a temporary tent may remain erected to 180
days.
STAFF CONTACT: Doug Dansie
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
BUDGET IMPACT: None
• DISCUSSION
Council members had requested that temporary tents only be used in conjunction with an
existing licensed business, as opposed to use by unlicensed businesses in the City. In
addition, the Council also asked that a reasonable timeline be established for temporary
tents to remain erected. The vast majority of tents are used for short term sales from
existing businesses or as legitimate temporary uses, which also receive business licenses
(Christmas trees lots, etc.). However, the attached ordinance includes language intended
to highlight the fact that a tent must also be connected with an otherwise legal use. The
ordinance also distinguishes between commercial tents and non-commercial tents for
personal use (for example; weddings, graduations, barbeques, etc).
Building and fire codes do not regulate tents less than 200 square feet and canopies (open
on 75% of the perimeter) of less than 400 square feet. The proposed ordinance allows
such small tents that do not require Fire Department review to continue to be allowed in
all non-residential zoning districts as they are presently allowed, but will allow larger
tents (above 200 square feet) only in defined zoning districts that are more appropriate for
larger festivals and sales events. These include the D-1,D-2, D-3, D-4, M-1, M-2, CG,
PL, PL2, BP, RP and OS zoning districts.
When this Petition was reviewed by the Planning Commission, staff originally
recommended that the present 14-day period that tents are allowed be increased to 21
• days, with the potential for extension up to 180 days by the Zoning Administrator
(presently tents of any size are allowed in all non-residential zoning districts and have
4S1 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
TELEPHONE: 601-535-623❑ FAX: 80 1-535-6005
accvEo F«ca
been receiving multiple 10 day extensions for the entire year). After review, the Planning
Commission recommended 45 days per calendar year with extension to 180 days through •
the Conditional Use Process. The proposed ordinance keeps the 45 day per calendar year
time period recommended by the Planning Commission, and allows larger tents an option
for a one time extension for up to 180 days per calendar year in the D-1,D-2,D-3, D-4,
M-1, M-2, CG, PL, PL2, BP, RP and OS zoning districts with approval from the Zoning
Administrator- if they meet all parking requirements and approval of other appropriate
city departments. This approach eliminates the Conditional Use Approval process
Before drafting the proposed ordinance, staff met with representatives of the tent
industry, which raised the issue of tents in residential areas. The new ordinance creates
guidelines for placement of tents for personal home use. The ordinance proposes that
tents smaller than 200 square feet(and canopies smaller than 400 square feet), would be
allowed in residential areas without a permit for up to five days. Tents larger than 200
square feet(and canopies larger than 400 square feet) would be allowed, for up to the
same period(5 days) subject to Fire Department review and approval.
The representatives of the tent industry also raised issues regarding the efficiency of the
permitting process. As a result, Planning Staff met with personnel from the Permits
Office and the Fire Department to determine a way to address these issues. The Permits
office has committed to providing written clarification of the permitting process and to
provide outreach information to Tent providers to clear up any confusion regarding the
process and eliminate the problem of some providers abiding by the process while others
do not. Such outreach efforts will include clarification of the one-stop process, •
contacting Tent providers with information regarding expedited processing, simplifying
payment methods and notifying all tent providers of the new permitting process.
The proposed ordinance is attached for your review.
C: Louis Zunguze, Planning Director
Brent Wilde, Deputy Planning Director
Cheri Coffey, Planning Programs Supervisor
Doug Dansie, Principal Planner
•
• SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. of 2003
(Amending Chapter 21A.42 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Code
regarding Temporary Tents, pursuant to Petition No. 400-01-66)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 21A.42 OF THE SALT LAKE
CITY ZONING CODE REGARDING TEMPORARY TENTS, PURSUANT TO
PETITION NO. 400-01-66.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Zoning Code currently contains provisions
regarding various temporary uses; and
WHEREAS, the City Code currently ostensibly limits the use of temporary tents
associated with outdoor sales to a maximum time period of ten days; and
WHEREAS, after hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council,
• the City has determined that the maximum time period for temporary tents should be
clarified and modified as set forth herein; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this ordinance is in the best interest of the
City;
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Chapter 21A.42.070.F of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and
hereby is amended to read as follows:
F. Tents: Tents smaller than 200 square feet and canopies smaller than
400 square feet, associated with outdoor sales from a business that is
legally licensed as a permanent business or a temporary business as
outlined in Chapter 21A.42, are peiniitted in all nonresidential districts.
No tent shall be allowed to remain for a period of more than two (2) days
longer than the period during which the use with which it is associated is
allowed to remain or, a maximum of ten (10)45 days..-,per calendar year.
Tents lareer than 200 square feet and canopies larger than 400 square feet.
associated with outdoor sales from a business that is legally licensed as a
4111 permanent business or a temporary business as outlined in Chapter
21A.42. are permitted in D-1. D-2, D-3, D-4. NI-1, M-2, CG, PL. PL2. BP, .
RP and OS zoning districts. No tent shall be allowed to remain for a
period ofmore than two (2) days longer than the period during which the
use with which it is associated is allowed to remain or, a maximum of
forty-five (45) days, per calendar year.
The Zoning Administrator may approve tents or canopies in the D-1. D-2,
D-3, D-4, M-1. M-2. CG, PL, PL2, BP, RP zoning districts for a period
not to exceed one hundred eighty(180) days. per calendar year, lithe tent
or canopy also meets the parking. requirements for the intended use and
upon receiving, a positive recommendation from the Salt Lake City
Transportation Division, Public Utilities Department, Business Licensing
Division, Fire Department, Police Department and Historic Landmark
Commission(when located within an historic district or on a landmark
site).
Unless waived in writing by the Zoning Administrator, every tent shall
comply with the bulk and yard requirements of the district in which it is
located.
Tents smaller than 200 square feet and canopies smaller than 400 square
feet are permitted in all residential districts, without apermit, for personal
home use, for a period of not more than five (5) days. Tents larger than
200 square feet and canopies larger than 400 square feet are permitted in4110
all residential districts, with a fire department permit, for personal home
use, for a period of not more than five (5) days.
For purposes of this regulation, canopies are defined as a tent structure
that is open on more than 75% of its sides.
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on
the date of its first publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of
, 2003.
CHAIRPERSON
11111
• ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on
Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed.
ROSS C. ANDERSON
MAYOR
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER
•
(SEAL)
Bill No. of 2003.
Published:
• G:\Ordinance 03\Amending Code re Temporary Tents-June 20,2003.doc
3
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. of 2003 •
(Amending Chapter 21A.42 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Code
regarding Temporary Tents, pursuant to Petition No. 400-01-66)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 21A.42 OF THE SALT LAKE
CITY ZONING CODE REGARDING TEMPORARY TENTS, PURSUANT TO
PETITION NO. 400-01-66.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Zoning Code currently contains provisions
regarding various temporary uses; and
WHEREAS, the City Code currently ostensibly limits the use of temporary tents
associated with outdoor sales to a maximum time period of ten days; and
WHEREAS, after hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council,
the City has determined that the maximum time period for temporary tents should be
clarified and modified as set forth herein; and •
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this ordinance is in the best interest of the
City;
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Chapter 21A.42.070.F of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and
hereby is amended to read as follows:
F. Tents: Tents smaller than 200 square feet and canopies smaller than
400 square feet, associated with outdoor sales from a business that is
legally licensed as a permanent business or a temporary business as
outlined in Chapter 21A.42, are permitted in all nonresidential districts.
No tent shall be allowed to remain for a period of more than two (2) days
longer than the period during which the use with which it is associated is
allowed to remain or, a maximum of 45 days, per calendar year. Tents
larger than 200 square feet and canopies larger than 400 square feet,
associated with outdoor sales from a business that is legally licensed as a
permanent business or a temporary business as outlined in Chapter
• 21A.42, are permitted in D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4, M-1, M-2, CG, PL, PL2, BP,
RP and OS zoning districts. No tent shall be allowed to remain for a
period of more than two (2) days longer than the period during which the
use with which it is associated is allowed to remain or, a maximum of
forty-five (45) days, per calendar year.
The Zoning Administrator may approve tents or canopies in the D-1, D-2,
D-3, D-4, M-1, M-2, CG, PL, PL2, BP, RP zoning districts for a period
not to exceed one hundred eighty(180) days, per calendar year, if the tent
or canopy also meets the parking requirements for the intended use and
upon receiving a positive recommendation from the Salt Lake City
Transportation Division, Public Utilities Department, Business Licensing
Division, Fire Department, Police Department and Historic Landmark
Commission (when located within an historic district or on a landmark
site).
Unless waived in writing by the Zoning Administrator, every tent shall
comply with the bulk and yard requirements of the district in which it is
located.
Tents smaller than 200 square feet and canopies smaller than 400 square
feet are permitted in all residential districts, without a permit, for personal
• home use, for a period of not more than five (5) days. Tents larger than
200 square feet and canopies larger than 400 square feet are permitted in
all residential districts, with a fire department peumit, for personal home
use, for a period of not more than five (5) days.
For purposes of this regulation, canopies are defined as a tent structure
that is open on more than 75% of its sides.
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on
the date of its first publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of
, 2003.
CHAIRPERSON
•
2
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
•
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on
Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed.
ROSS C. ANDERSON
MAYOR
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER
0—z-o—o_37)
(SEAL)
G/e
Bill No. of 2003.
Published:
G.\Ordinance 03\Amending Code re Temporary Tents-Clean-June 20,2003.doc
•
• MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 2, 2003
TO: City Council Members
FROM: Council Member Van Turner
SUBJECT: District Two Olympic Legacy Project
In response to the Council's decision to fund Olympic Legacy projects,I would appreciate the
Council's support for the District Two Olympic Legacy Project. This proposal divides the funding
between two locations,one in the Poplar Grove neighborhood and one in the Glendale neighborhood as
outlined below:
1. Construction of a new entrance to the Peace Gardens:
a) The existing entrance(old asphalt)will be removed and new pavers and concrete will
be installed. (The pavers will be provided to the project from excess pavers that have
been stored at the Parks Division since the completion of the Main Street Paver
Project.)
b) Four new benches and an information kiosk with a map of the Peace Gardens will be
installed.
c) The Olympic snowflake symbol will be cast into the concrete paving to symbolize
• the Salt Lake City 2002 Winter Games.
d) New plantings will be added to soften and enclose the new entry area at the Peace
Gardens and to tie the new entrance into the existing gardens.
e) The three flagpoles that were used at the Olympic Medals Plaza will be placed in the
garden next to the existing concrete World Globe area. Flags of the Nation, State and
City(or other appropriate flags chosen by the City and Peace Gardens Committee)
will be displayed on the flag poles.
2. Improvements to the Poplar Grove/Jordan River Trailway at 500 South Street:
a) The statue of Prometheus will be retrieved from 500 West Street and permanently
installed at the Jordan River Trailway north of 500 West at 500 South.
b) Tables and benches will be placed at this location.
c) The Olympic snowflake will be cast into the concrete paving to symbolize the Salt
Lake City 2002 Winter Games.
d) Bids for the project will include a drinking fountain and bicycle rack which will be
installed at the site if funding is available.
When the funding for District Olympic Legacy projects was approved,each Community Council
in District Two was invited to submit proposals for projects. A total of four project proposals were
submitted. These proposals were then presented to the community at the District Two Town Meeting in
July. Subsequent meetings were held with neighborhood representatives and staff from the City Parks
Division to determine which projects best fit the criteria set by the City Council. As a result of these
meetings,the two projects outlined above were selected. Regular monthly updates have been made to the
111111
Community Councils during this process.
•
The project meets the criteria set by the Council in the following ways:
1. The project must provide a long-term improvement to the City or create a
community asset. This project will add a new entrance to the Peace Garden and
permanent amenities to the Jordan Trailway at 500 South.
2. The project must be limited to property that is owned by the City and be easily
accessible to the community. The features in both projects will be placed along the
City-owned Jordan River Trailway and in the City-owned Peace Gardens.
3. The project may include the enhancement an existing feature within the Council;it
may include the development of a public place. This proposal will provide the
addition of new amenities to the Jordan Trailway and Peace Gardens.
4. The project proposal shall identify any potential maintenance cost and propose
funding source(s)for such costs. The plans for the projects were developed in
consultation with representatives from the Parks Division and the materials chosen for the
project were selected to provide ease of maintenance by City staff.
5. The Project Proposal shall provide an illustration of the end product. (Drawings of
the project will be available for the Council on Dec.4th.)
6. As an option,the Project may be combined with other grants,(including CBDG
money),but the end product shall not be the repair of routine City infrastructure
such as curb,gutter,or sidewalk. N/A
7. The end product shall display a plaque indicating that Salt Lake Salt Lake City
2002 Winter Olympics Legacy moneys were used in whole or in part to fund the
project. Plaques which make this designation will be installed at both locations. •
8. The project proposal shall recommend the appropriate department within the City
to manage and appropriate the funds for each project. The project will be
administered through the Parks Division.
•
By definition people attracted to urban living think differently than the rest of us.
• We must not allow our own way of thinking to prejudice critical decisions on the
future of our downtown.
Long Range Plan
Re-vitalizing Downtown
Goal: To make Downtown Salt Lake City the most desirable urban living situation in
the western United States".
Timetable: 1st step
2" step
3rd step
4th step
First steps:
-Gather data
Who lives downtown in the west today?
Do they have identifiable needs that we can address?
How do we communicate to "high propensity populations"?
-Assess data
Is there a base of"high propensity"population within Utah?
If we must attract from out of state are their needs different?
Do we have the type of dwelling the target population requires?
Do we have the kind of downtown employment they need?
Second step
-Based on knowledge gained in the first step of the process:
What do we need to reach our goal?
Businesses to attract urban living people?
Appropriate housing opportunities?
Services for medical recreational etc, needs?
How do we encourage the private sector to provide needs?
Employment
Services
Schools, medical, recreational, entertainment?
Third step create a plan to fill the void
-What do we need to become the"most desireable living situation in the western
United states"?
-What is a reasonable timetable to achieve the goal of the plan?
What is the target date—who will be responsible
Can the timetable be shortened?
• Fourth step
-Staged implementation of plan
-Fixed checkpoints to gauge progress
• Salt Lake City Corporation
Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Budget Development and Budget Amendment
• Public Services Engineering 2003-04
Department For Fiscal Year
Budget Adjustment BA#2 Initiative#28
Olympic Legacy Security Lighting
Initiative Name
Rick Graham/Sherrie Collins 535-6150
Prepared By Enter Phone#of Contact Person
Analyst Use Only N/A
Type of Initiative Enter Grant CFDA#As Applicable
Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change
A.Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year
FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06
1.General Fund
$0 $0 $0
2.Internal Service Fund JI
Total $0 J $0 $0
3.Enterprise Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
4.Other Fund
CIP Fund Cost Center 83-00099 (22,500)#•
Total $0 $0
B.Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source:
1.General Fund
Total $0.00 $0 $0
2.Internal Service Fund
Include detail in this cell,add rows if necessary
Total $0 $0 $0
3.Enterprise Fund
Include detail in this cell,add rows if necessary
Total $0 $0 $0
4.Other Fund
New 83 CIP Cost Center $22,500
Total $22,500 $0 $0
C.Expenditure Impact Detail
1.Salaries and Wages
2.Employee Benefits
3.Operating and Maintenance
4.Charges and Services
5.Capital Outlay $22,500
6.Other(Specify)Property Owner GF budget
Total $22,500 $0 $0
•
BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#27 03OlympicLegacy addendum addition.xlsl2/2/20033:30 PM
Salt Lake City Corporation
Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Budget Development and Budget Amendment
D. Cost Centers Decrease Increase I
83-00099 GF CIP Contingency $ 22,500.00
New 83 Cost Center-Increase $ 22,500.00
41110
BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#27 03OIympicLegacy addendum addition.xls12/2/20033:30 PM
Salt Lake City Corporation
Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Budget Development and Budget Amendment
• E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions,structure and organization
F. Issue Discussion:A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below;
criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation.
Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which
analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or
policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city.
Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared.
Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a
service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding.
Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition
varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into
management
Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the
condition to be in fine with the criteria.
Issue Discussion:
The Parks Department has recently completed the design portion of District One's Olympic Legacy
Project. This project includes construction of 8 small plaza's that include seating, Olympic information
and safety lighting at various locations along the Jordan River Trailway. The security lights require a
• power source that includes electric panels and power transmission conduits and wiring, which will
ultimately supply power to the entire Trailway Safety Lighting System between North Temple and
Redwood Road. The engineering design of the power system is necessary in order to deliver power to
the locations that are part of the District One Olympic Legacy sites along the Trailway. These
additional funds would be used to pay for the electrical engineering fees for design of the complete
power system, rather than use District l's Olympic Legacy funding to design the entire project for the
overall benefit to the larger project. For this reason, it is requested that the additional funding be
appropriated from the CIP Contingency to facilitate this project.
It is recommended that the City Council make the necessary budget adjustment to facilitate this
project.
•
• Salt Lake City Corporation
Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Budget Development and Budget Amendment
• Public Services Engineering 2003-04
Department For Fiscal Year
Budget Adjustment BA#2 Initiative#28
Olympic Legacy Security Lighting
Initiative Name
Rick Graham/Sherrie Collins 535-6150
Prepared By Enter Phone#of Contact Person
Analyst Use Only N/A
Type of Initiative Enter Grant CFDA#As Applicable
Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change
A.Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year
FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06
1.General Fund
$0 $0 $0
2.Internal Service Fund JI
Total $0 J $0 $0
3.Enterprise Fund
Total $0 $0 $0
4.Other Fund
CIP Fund Cost Center 83-00099 (22,500)#•
Total $0 $0
B.Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source:
1.General Fund
Total $0.00 $0 $0
2.Internal Service Fund
Include detail in this cell,add rows if necessary
Total $0 $0 $0
3.Enterprise Fund
Include detail in this cell,add rows if necessary
Total $0 $0 $0
4.Other Fund
New 83 CIP Cost Center $22,500
Total $22,500 $0 $0
C.Expenditure Impact Detail
1.Salaries and Wages
2.Employee Benefits
3.Operating and Maintenance
4.Charges and Services
5.Capital Outlay $22,500
6.Other(Specify)Property Owner GF budget
Total $22,500 $0 $0
•
BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#27 03OlympicLegacy addendum addition.xlsl2/2/20033:30 PM
Salt Lake City Corporation
Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Budget Development and Budget Amendment
D. Cost Centers Decrease Increase I
83-00099 GF CIP Contingency $ 22,500.00
New 83 Cost Center-Increase $ 22,500.00
41110
BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#27 03OIympicLegacy addendum addition.xls12/2/20033:30 PM
Salt Lake City Corporation
Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Budget Development and Budget Amendment
• E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions,structure and organization
F. Issue Discussion:A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below;
criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation.
Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which
analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or
policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city.
Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared.
Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a
service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding.
Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition
varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into
management
Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the
condition to be in fine with the criteria.
Issue Discussion:
The Parks Department has recently completed the design portion of District One's Olympic Legacy
Project. This project includes construction of 8 small plaza's that include seating, Olympic information
and safety lighting at various locations along the Jordan River Trailway. The security lights require a
• power source that includes electric panels and power transmission conduits and wiring, which will
ultimately supply power to the entire Trailway Safety Lighting System between North Temple and
Redwood Road. The engineering design of the power system is necessary in order to deliver power to
the locations that are part of the District One Olympic Legacy sites along the Trailway. These
additional funds would be used to pay for the electrical engineering fees for design of the complete
power system, rather than use District l's Olympic Legacy funding to design the entire project for the
overall benefit to the larger project. For this reason, it is requested that the additional funding be
appropriated from the CIP Contingency to facilitate this project.
It is recommended that the City Council make the necessary budget adjustment to facilitate this
project.
•