Loading...
07/01/2003 - Minutes (2) PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, JULY 1, 2003 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Tuesday, July 1, 2003, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance: Council Members Carlton Christensen, Nancy Saxton, Jill Remington Love, Dave Buhler, Dale Lambert, Eric Jergensen and Van Turner. Also in Attendance: Mayor Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson; Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer; Ed Rutan, City Attorney; Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Gary Mumford, Council Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor; Michael Sears, Council Budget & Policy Analyst; Janice Jardine, Council Planning & Policy Analyst; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Sylvia Jones, Council Research & Policy Analyst/Constituent Liaison; Lehua Weaver, Council Constituent Liaison; Louis Zunguze, Planning Director; Elizabeth Giraud, Historic Preservation Planner; Doug Wheelwright, Land Use & Transportation/Subdivisions Planner; Alison Weyher, Community and Economic Development Director; Roger Evans, Building Services and Licensing Director; Tim Harpst, Transportation Director; LuAnn Clark, Housing And Neighborhood Development Director; Bob Gore, Economic Development/Initiative Grants Administrator; Sandi Marler, Community Development Program Specialist; Gordon Hoskins, City Controller; Steve Fawcett, Management Services Deputy Director; Steve Oliver, Facilities Manager; Boyd Ferguson, Assistant City Attorney; Dan Mule' , City Treasurer; Nancy Boskoff, Arts Council Executive Director; Linda Hamilton, Investigator Civilian Review Board; Dianna Karrenburg, Community Affairs Manager; Laurie Dillon, Budget Analyst; Jerry Burton, Police Department Administration Manager; Scott Folsom, Assistant Police Chief; Chris Dunn, Police Department Communications Manager; Larry Littleford, Deputy Fire Chief; Dennis McKone, Fire Department Administrative Assistant/Media Relations; John Vuyk, Fire Department Assistant Financial Manager; Kelly Murdock, City Financial Advisor for Wells Fargo Bank; and Pam Johnson, Deputy City Recorder. Councilmember Christensen presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:32 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. No announcements or additional information. #2. INTERVIEW ROBERT (BIP) DANIELS PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HIS REAPPOINTMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Mr. Daniels said the Planning Commission had improved the process. He said one change was to work closer with the City Council. He said attending several National Planning Seminars had also helped give direction for improvements. He said because the Planning Commission was comprised of different view points, it was balanced and the decisions were fair. #3. INTERVIEW DIANE ETHERINGTON PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HER REAPPOINTMENT TO THE LIBRARY BOARD. Ms. Etherington said she was impressed a contingency fund had been set aside to help with unexpected budget cuts experienced by the Library. She said staff had reached the decision to cut back on hours, rather than have co-workers unemployed. She said everyone worked together to make the Library a success. 03 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, DULY 1, 2003 #4. INTERVIEW DAN GREENWOOD PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HIS APPOINTMENT TO THE HOUSING TRUST FUND ADVISORY BOARD. Mr. Greenwood said he brought to the board a finance background, as well as the desire to help improve the City. He said one answer to the City' s affordable housing issue could be co-op or condominium housing. He said when units were re-sold the City would get the monies. He said this would allow a continual flow of housing monies. #5. INTERVIEW JOHN JOHNSON PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HIS REAPPOINTMENT TO THE ARTS COUNCIL. Mr. Johnson said he was committed to promoting arts within Salt Lake City. He said during the three years he served he had been involved with the general group, the grants committee and the executive committee. #6. INTERVIEW DEREK PAYNE PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HIS APPOINTMENT TO THE CITY & COUNTY BUILDING CONSERVANCY & USE COMMITTEE. Mr. Payne said in college the City County Building was used as an example in testing for architectural strategies. He said it was important to weigh each decision in regard to the building because of its historical significance. He said the building was architecturally and artistically the focal point of the City. #7. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A PROPOSED AMENDMENT REGARDING INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BOND CRITERIA (PRIVATE ACTIVITY BONDS) . View Attachment LuAnn Clark, Dan Mule' , Gary Mumford and Kelly Murdock briefed the Council. Mr. Mule' said the proposed amendment would provide additional alternatives for loan funding for those unable to meet existing criteria. Mr. Murdock said industrial revenue bonds were only available to nonprofit organizations that provided health care or educational services and some small manufacturing businesses. Councilmember Lambert asked if the amendment increased fees to the borrower. Mr. Murdock said the amendment allowed additional businesses to qualify for bond loans, but it increased loan fees. Councilmember Christensen asked if the increased fees would encourage borrowers to look elsewhere for a loan. Mr. Mule' said other municipalities charged comparable fees. A discussion was held on the fees charged by the City's financial advisor and the review process done to ensure protection of the City's interests and credit rating. #8. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE POLICE CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD ORDINANCE. View Attachment Linda Hamilton, Rocky Fluhart, Boyd Ferguson and Gary Mumford briefed the Council from the handout. Ms. Hamilton said the changes were clerical housekeeping items. She said 11 members of the board had been approved by Council. She said 10 of those 11 had completed the training provided by the Salt Lake City Police Department. She said the board was prepared to hear their first official case next week. Councilmember Buhler asked if Ms. Hamilton' s title should be changed to Director or Administrator of the board. Mr. Fluhart said originally administrative support for the Police Civilian Review Board was to be provided by internal audit. He said even 03 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, DULY 1 , 2003 though Ms. Hamilton' s position has now had to take on dual roles of investigator and administrative support, her title had remained the same. #9. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING AN EXTENSION TO THE TIME PERIOD FOR SATISFYING THE CONDITIONS OF SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 47 OF 2002 (WALMART/ALBERMARLE STREET CLOSURE. ) View Attachment Alison Weyher, Doug Wheelwright, and Janice Jardine, briefed the Council. Councilmember Lambert said the original petition called for a Sam's Club to be built at the location. He asked if the Community Council was aware of the change of stores. Cindy Gust-Jenson said the original petition was for a Wal-Mart Store. She said the Community Council had been in favor of proposal. Councilmember Turner asked if soil contamination testing had delayed the construction process. Mr. Wheelwright said Wal-Mart would not be able to purchase the property from Ford Motor Company until the State of Utah had certified environmental remediation was complete and no further action was necessary. Ms. Wheyer said a representative from Wal-Mart said the environmental verification letter from the State was expected in about two weeks. She said building permits would be issued to Wal-Mart as soon as the letter was in hand. Councilmember Saxton said the City needed to take mass transit routes into consideration when planning large shopping centers. She said the proposed Wal-Mart Store was not accessible to those using Trax or City bus lines. See the City Council meeting of July 1, 2003, for additional discussion. #10. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A PROPOSED REZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1433 AND 1435 SOUTH 1100 EAST FROM RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (PETITION NO. 400-03-12) . View Attachment Doug Wheelwright, Elizabeth Giraud, Louis Zunguze and Janice Jardine briefed the Council from the handout. Ms. Giraud said the proposed zoning change allowed the petitioner to combine two parcels into one lot for construction of a new synagogue. Councilmember Saxton said the corridor had been rezoned Residential Business (RB) for preservation of the existing buildings on 1100 East. She said rather than rezone the property again to accommodate structures; an exception should be made for religious or educational buildings. Councilmember Jergensen said he was concerned about parking issues in a residential location. Ms. Giraud said synagogue members were not allowed to drive on the Sabbath, so parking would not be an issue. She said the building would also serve as the Hebrew School and the Ceremonial Bathing House. #11. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A LOAN FROM THE HOUSING TRUST FUND TO MORSE HEALTH AND HOUSING IN PARTNERSHIP WITH UTAH NON-PROFIT HOUSING CORPORATION, INC. FOR REHABILITATION OF THE LAURELWOOD APARTMENTS LOCATED AT 1341 SOUTH STATE STREET. View Attachment LuAnn Clark and Michael Sears briefed the Council from the handout. Ms. Clark said Valley Mental Health had a large number of cliental in residential housing across the City. She said they needed to continue their mental health programs. Councilmember Saxton asked if this type of residential mix was unique to this housing location. Ms. Clark said Mr. Morse's non-profit organization's mission was to integrate those with mental health issues into a mainstream population. She said the Laurelwood Apartments 03 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, DULY 1 , 2003 had approximately 23 residential units of the total 95 units rented to cliental of Valley Mental Health. #12. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATING TO MEETINGS, POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE HOUSING TRUST FUND ADVISORY BOARD. View Attachment LuAnn Clark and Michael Sears briefed the Council from the handout. Ms. Clark said proposed changes would streamline the Housing Trust Fund ordinance. She said it was difficult to get a quorum to meet without a pending application to discuss. She said the proposed change would only require quarterly meetings, with the opportunity of additional ones if needed. Mr. Sears said the proposed change also allowed for different terms for different types of housing loans. He said the current ordinance required some housing loans to be monitored for a minimum of 55 years. #13. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 1. View Attachment Michael Sears, Gordon Hoskins, Steve Fawcett, Tim Harpst, Jerry Burton and Alison Weyher briefed the Council from the attached handout. A discussion was held on Issue No. 1, the CIP Fund Contingency-Light Pole Safety Study. Mr. Hoskins said the funding request was for a study of the condition of streetlights installed some time ago. Councilmember Christensen said the City should not bear the cost. He said it should be included in the Special Improvement District (SID) , billing. Mr. Harpst said a portion of the cost would come from SID' s. He said testing would be done on light poles outside the SID districts as well. Councilmember Turner asked if the deterioration was lack of quality. He said the light pole manufacturer should be held responsible. Mr. Harpst said quality was not the issue, but rather the age of the poles. He said the street lights in question would be 30 or more years old. No discussion was held on Issues No. 2 through No. 7, proposed budget amendments relating to miscellaneous grant funding. Mr. Sears said Issue No. 8, the Crime Victim Reparation Grant (VOCA) , had been removed from consideration in the budget amendment. He said the City Prosecutor's Office had not yet received award documentation. Councilmember Saxton said the Council should restore the Deputy Director position in Building and Housing. She said it was important to have as much equality as possible in the Community and Economic Development (CED) Department. She said the Planning Division had two deputy directors, while the Building Division now had none. Ms. Weyher said although the Deputy Director' s position had been cut, that City employee had been offered the Principal Planner' s position. She said eliminating the planning position would have the most consequences for the City. She said that position was responsible for eight projects which were at critical stages. Councilmember Lambert said he had originally voted against eliminating the Deputy Director's position. He said he agreed that offering the planning position to this employee was the best solution. The meeting adjourned at 8:12 p.m. pi 03 - 4 • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: June 27,2003 SUBJECT: Amendment to Police Civilian Review Board Ordinance to correct some practical problems AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICrs: Citywide STAFF REPORT BY: Gary Mumford ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Management Services AND CONTACT PERSON: Linda Hamilton,Civilian Review Board Investigator CC: Rocky Fluhart,David Nimkin,Linda Hamilton,Chief Dinse,JD Baxter KEY ELEMENTS: In preparing policies and procedures relating to the Police Civilian Review Board Ordinance, the Investigator/Administrator for the Board,Linda Hamilton,identified some inconsistencies or items in the ordinance that need clarification. She also recommended a couple changes to make the process more practical. The Administration's transmittal provides a brief summary of the 11 proposed changes. Council members may wish to refer to this concise list on the • attached transmittal. MATTERS AT ISSUE: The proposed amendment adds the word"Administrator" to the Investigator's title since in addition to investigations,this position provides administrative support for the Board. The amendment will correct two inconsistencies: • Two-year term for Board members noted in one section should be three years to be consistent with other references to board terms • Investigator/Administrator to be added to the list of those with whom Board members can discuss cases. The proposed amendment clarifies the following: • Days are business days • 96 hours(four days)is four business days • Internal Affairs"report"is changed to"case file" since reports are not issued • Investigator's report to be distributed to the Board panel rather than the entire Board • No one representing a police officer under investigation(such as a union)can request the Board to review the case since the current ordinance doesn't provide that the involved police officer can request a review • Internal Affairs notifies the Investigator/Administrator of interviews on cases involving excessive force or on cases on which the Board has directed the 40 Investigator/Administrator to investigate rather than for all interviews. The amendment provides the following practical revisions: • Investigator/Administrator has five business days to complete a report rather than two business days • Internal Affairs case file to be distributed to the Board panel rather than the entire Board (file may be more than an inch think) • Board panel provides a report to the Police Chief but not to Internal Affairs since it is probably not appropriate for Internal Affairs to receive a report that may be critical of the Chief's decision The Council may wish to forward this amendment to a future meeting for consideration. Council Members may wish to ask about the status of implementing the ordinance and whether the ordinance and the Board are now fully operational. BACKGROUND: The ordinance that was in place prior to June 2002 provided that the Civilian Review Board evaluate trends in complaints of police officer misconduct,but did not allow the Board to make recommendations regarding specific cases. The ordinance that the City Council adopted on June 18,2002 allows the Civilian Review Board to make recommendations regarding individual cases and officers. Cases in which it is claimed that a police officer used excessive force-The current ordinance provides that the Civilian Review Board audit and review all cases in which it is claimed that a police officer used excessive force. The investigator becomes a participant with Internal Affairs in interviewing witnesses and reviewing other information. The Board appoints a five-member panel to review the findings of the investigator and prepare a report for the Police Chief with a copy to the entire Board. If the panel does not agree,it can also submit a minority report. The Board creates a new panel for each case. Full-time investigator position-The investigator performs the review concurrently with the Internal Affairs investigation,and the investigator is able to participate in the Internal Affairs interviewing sessions. After completion of the review,the investigator forwards recommendations to a Board panel. The Board panel forwards a report to the Police Chief and to the full Board. The intent is that the Police Chief has the recommendations of the Civilian Review Board as well as Internal Affairs when making decisions concerning discipline. The Chief makes the final decision. Cases filed with the Board within four days-A person who files a complaint with the Police Department will be informed that the person can also file the complaint with the Civilian Review Board within four days. [The proposed amendment clarifies that the period is four"business" days.] The Board has the option of accepting or not accepting the complaint. This decision is to be made promptly so that the investigator can participate with the review made by Internal Affairs. Cases in which the person making a complaint is dissatisfied with the decision of the Police Chief- The investigator is to make a review of a case when a person other than the police officer is dissatisfied with the decision of the Police Chief regarding a complaint. [The proposed ordinance clarifies that no one acting on the police officer's behalf may request a review.] This review is to be made by reviewing records of the Police Department regarding the incident but without questioning witnesses. A panel is appointed to review the investigator's findings and to prepare a report to the Police Chief and to the entire Board. If the panel wishes,it may request that the Police Department reopen the case. The Police Chief is to determine whether or not to reopen the ® case. The current ordinance states that the Board may adopt rules that allow it to dismiss any claim that it deems frivolous,malicious or false. Board Members-The board will meet at least once every three months,and panels meet as necessary to review cases. An expanded training curriculum over a period not to exceed three months includes: (1)a specific training course as determined by the Police Chief and the Mayor,(2) eight hours of training by the Internal Affairs Division,and(3)four three-hour ride-alongs(one in each of the four police sectors). This training must be completed before a board member can actively participate on the board. Board Advisor-The Mayor appoints a Board Advisor,a person with prior police experience,who is not employed at the current time by any law enforcement agency,to provide advice to the Board. Semiannual Trend Report-Every six months the Board is to prepare an advisory report highlighting the trends in police performance and giving recommendations regarding training needs or changes in police policy and procedures. Early warning system-If a police officer has exhibited a pattern of generating complaints,the Chief of Police is to make a review and where appropriate is to require the officer to receive counseling,testing,or training. The Police Department is to document the pattern of behavior of the police officer,the review by the Chief of Police,and the assigned counseling,testing,or training. Amok up CHRONOLOGY: February 1993-Salt Lake City implemented a police review board that included citizen participation(2 citizens and 3 police offices). 1995-A third citizen was added to the board. Summer 1996-A Council Member suggested inquiring into the review board process after talking to concerned constituents. October 3,1996-A special committee was established to evaluate the effectiveness of the review process and propose further improvements. August 5,1997-The City Council adopted an ordinance providing for a police civilian review board made up entirely of citizens with staff support independent of the Police Department. March 2,1999-The City Council adopted an amendment to the Civilian Review Board Ordinance that(1)increased the number of board members from five to seven,(2)specified that the City Attorney is the attorney for the Civilian Review Board,(3) specified that closure of meetings be governed by the Open and Public Meetings Act,(4)clarified that police officers can be compelled to attend and testify in meetings of the Board,(5)required that requests for reviews be signed and dated by the person making the request,and(6)clarified that recommendations are limited to matters involving overall police performance or policy concerns. Tune 18,2002-The City Council adopted an ordinance giving significantly more authority to the • Police Civilian Review Board than the previous ordinance. It created an Investigator position, gave the Board authority to investigate individual complaints against Police officers and to review the final decision of the Police Chief on complaints already investigated by Internal Affairs. JUN 2 0 2833 ROCKY J. FLU HART SALT Ufa GIT ¢CORPOI AIIO3 -- —. - —� ..,...-- a- ROSS C. ANDERSON CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER -� � - __ - - MAYOR 0 COUNCIL TRANSMITAL ç7A TO Rocky J. Fluhart DATE: June 18, 2003 Chief Administrative officer FROM: Linda Hamilton SUBJECT: Amendment of City Ordinance 2.72—Police Civilian Review Board STAFF CONTACT; Linda Hamilton, Investigator. Phone Number 535-7230. DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: Amend City Ordinance 2.72—Police Civilian Review Board BUDGET IMPACT; None • BACKGROUND: Ordinance 2.72 was adopted by the City Council on June 18, 2002. This ordinance gave significantly more authority to the Police Civilian Review Board than the previous ordinance. Specifically, it created an Investigator position, gave the Board authority to investigate individual complaints against police officers, and to review the final decision of the Police Chief on complaints already investigated by Internal Affairs. Because of the new authority of the Police Civilian Review Board new policies and procedures had to be drafted to implement the ordinance. In the process of drafting policies and procedures and deteiuiining how to efficiently and effectively implement the ordinance some practical problems arose. The recommended amendments are housekeeping amendments making the ordinance more practical at the implementation level and to clarify certain provisions. The recommended amendments to the ordinance are: 1. An amendment that references in the ordinance to the title"Investigator" be changed to "Administrator/Investigator." This change is being requested because a considerable amount of the workload is in fact administrative rather than investigative. The recommended change in title more accurately reflects the • actual responsibilities of the position. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 238, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535.6425 FAX: 8O1-535-61 9❑ �i-aE. Eo PAPER 2. Amendments to change "days" to "business days" in order to make timeframes easier to apply on a practical level. • 3. Amendments to change references to the Internal Affairs "report"to the Internal Affairs "case file"because Internal Affairs does not prepare a report. 4. Amendments to clarify that Investigator's reports and the Internal Affairs case file are sent to a Board panel rather than the entire Board. 5. An amendment clarifying that Internal Affair will only be required to notify the Investigator of interviews on cases alleging excessive force or cases on which the Board has directed the Investigator to investigate, rather than "all" interviews. 6. An amendment changing the amount of time the Investigator has to complete the report to the Board panel from two days to five business days. 7. An amendment that gives complainants four business days to file a complaint rather than 96 hours. 8. An amendment correcting a clerical error in one section of the ordinance that incorrectly stated that the teiins of Board members was two rather than three years. 9. An amendment correcting a section of the ordinance that stipulates who Board members may discuss cases with, which currently does not allow the Board members to discuss cases with the Investigator. 10. An amendment that clarifies that a person representing the subject officer may not request a review of the Police Chief's final decision on a complaint. The ordinance currently stipulates that the police officer who was the subject of an investigation cannot request a review by the Police Civilian Review Board. This proposed amendment stipulates that no one acting on the police officer's behalf • may request a review either. 11. An amendment that deletes the provision of a Board panel' providing a report on a review of the Police Chief's final decision to Internal Affairs. Since Internal Affairs is lower in the chain of command, it is probably not appropriate to send a report to that organization that may be critical of the Chiefs decision. PUBLIC PROCESS: Not Applicable • • SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2003 (Police Civilian Review Board) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2.72 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO THE POLICE CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Chapter 2.72 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the Police Civilian Review Board, be, and the same hereby is, amended as follows: Chapter 2.72 Police Civilian Review Board 2.72.010 Purpose. • The best interests of the City and its residents will be served by civilian oversight of certain complaints and internal police investigations regarding conduct of the police. As such, the Civilian Review Board will audit and review all cases in which it is claimed that a police officer used excessive force and such other cases as the Board in its discretion may request. Such audit and review are intended to foster trust between the community and law enforcement personnel and to assure fair treatment to police officers. 2.72.020 Definitions. For the purpose of this Chapter, unless otherwise apparent from the context, certain words and phrases used in this Chapter are defined as follows: A. "Board" means the Police Civilian Review Board created under this Chapter. B. "Board Advisor" means the Board Advisor appointed pursuant to Section 41111 2.72.030(D). C. "City" means Salt Lake City Corporation, a Utah municipal corporation. D. "Council" means the City Council of the City. E. "Internal Affairs Unit"means the internal affairs unit of the Police Department. F. "Investigator/Administrator"means the independent Board investigator/administrator appointed pursuant to Section 2.72.060. G. "Mayor" means the duly elected or appointed and qualified Mayor of the City. H. "Member" or"member of the Board"means a person appointed by the Mayor who is duly qualified and acting as a member of the Board. I. "Panel" or"Board review panel"means a panel of Board members described in Section 2.72.180. J. "Person" means an individual. K. "Police Chief' means the Chief of Police of the City. L. "Police Department" means the Police Department of the City. • 2.72.030 Board Appointments; Term of Office; Board Advisor. A. Creation. The Board is hereby created. B. Appointments by Mayor. The Mayor, with the advice and consent of the Council, shall appoint fourteen(14) civilians as members of the Board. Included in this number shall be two (2) from each Council district. The Mayor shall make such appointments with a goal of providing geographical, professional, neighborhood, racial, gender and ethnic diversity to the Board so that balanced community representation is achieved. Officers or employees of the City shall not be appointed to the Board. C. Term of Office. All members of the Board shall serve for a three (3) year tern, provided that the terms of the initial appointees shall be staggered so that not more 2 than seven (7) ten is shall expire in any one year. Each member's teiut of office shall • expire on the first Monday in September. A member shall not serve more than two (2) consecutive full terms. D. Board Advisor. The Mayor shall appoint, as Board Advisor, a person with prior police experience, who is not at the time employed by the Police Department or any other law enforcement agency, to provide input and advice to the Board. The Board Advisor shall have the same tent of office as members of the Board and shall not serve for more than two (2) consecutive tetntts. The Board Advisor is not a member of the Board and does not have a vote on the Board. 2.72.040 Policies and Procedures. The Board shall adopt policies and procedures,not inconsistent with this Chapter, for the conduct of its meetings, for the conduct of meetings of panels, and for any other • purposes it considers necessary proper er for its functioning. p g 2.72.050 Organization. A. Officers. The Board shall annually select from its members a chair and a vice chair. B. Staff. The Mayor shall appoint a full-time investigator/administrator for the Board, as provided in Section 2.72.060. The City shall additionally provide staff to create written minutes from any Board and panel meeting recordings. C. Attorney. The City Attorney shall be the attorney for the Board. In the event of a conflict of interest, any legal advice or assistance shall be obtained, as directed by the Office of the City Attorney. 2.72.060 Independent Board Investigator/Administrator. 41111 A. Appointment; Removal. In the interest of legitimate civilian oversight, the Mayor shall appoint a full-time independent Investigator/Administrator for the Board. • In making such appointment, the Mayor shall consider any recommendations of the Board regarding who should be appointed. The Investigator/Administrator shall operate out of the City's Department of Management Services. The Investigator/Administrator shall be an at-will employee and shall be subject to removal by the Mayor, with or without cause, but only after the Mayor considers any recommendations of the Board regarding such removal. B. Required Qualifications. The Investigator/Administrator shall have the following qualifications: 1. Experience in public sector labor and employment law (preferably relating to police and firefighters), Utah civil service law, and civil rights law, or the ability to quickly learn applicable legal principles. • 2. Strong interpersonal and supervisory skills. 3. Objectivity toward police and community interests. 4. No felony convictions or misdemeanor criminal convictions in cases involving violence or moral turpitude. The Investigator/Administrator shall not be under a pending felony indictment or infoiivation when appointed. A felony conviction or indictment or information, or a conviction of a misdemeanor involving violence or moral turpitude after appointment, shall be a basis for removal. 5. Strong writing skills. 6. Verbally articulate. 7. Strong interviewing skills. 4 8. Strong investigative skills. C. Desired Investigator/Administrator Qualifications. If possible, the Investigator/Administrator shall have the following qualifications: 1. Mediation training and mediation experience. 2. History of community involvement and public service. 3. Administrative and management skills. 4. Ability to positively interact with citizens, police officers, and the community. 5. Trial or appellate experience. 2.72.070 Criminal Conviction or Pending Indictment. No person may be appointed as a member of the Board who has (1) any felony convictions, pending indictments or informations; or(2) misdemeanor criminal • convictions, pending indictments or informations in cases involving violence or moral turpitude. A felony conviction or a conviction for a misdemeanor involving violence or moral turpitude after appointment to the Board, shall be a basis for removal from the Board. 2.72.080 Voluntary Service; Immunity From Liability. Board members and the Board Advisor shall perform their services on or for the Board without pay or other compensation, except for payment or reimbursement of expenses actually and reasonably incurred as approved in writing, in advance, by the Mayor, Board members and the Board Advisor shall be deemed volunteers as defined in Title 67, Chapter 20, Utah Code Annotated, as amended, or any successor statue, and, as such, shall be defended by the City Attorney, but shall be immune from any liability with 5 respect to any decision or action taken in the performance of their duties and •responsibilities on or for the Board as provided by Title 63, Chapter 30b, Utah Code Annotated, as amended, or any successor statute. 2.72.090 Removal from Office. Any member of the Board or the Board Advisor may be removed from office by the Mayor, for cause, prior to the normal expiration of the teiiii for which such member or advisor was appointed. 2.72.100 Vacancy Filling. Any vacancy on the Board shall be filled for the unexpired term of the vacated member in the same manner as the member whose position has been vacated was appointed. 2.72.110 Members' Ethics. Members shall be subject to and bound by the provisions of the City's Conflict of • Interest Ordinance, Chapter 2.44, Salt Lake City Code, or any successor ordinance. Any violations of the provisions of said Chapter shall be grounds for removal from office. 2.72.120 Eligibility For--for Membership; Training. A. Eligibility. To be eligible to be appointed as a member of the Board, a person shall be at least twenty-one (21) years of age and shall be a resident of the City. B. Training. After being appointed to the Board, but prior to functioning as a member, each member of the Board shall receive the following training regarding the duties of the Board and regarding police practices and procedures: • 6 1. A specific training course, as determined by the Police Chief and the • Mayor, regarding police practices and procedures, duties of the Board, and cultural diversity. 2. At least one (1) three (3) hour ride along in each of the City's police sectors. 3. Meetings with selected community groups and persons who have an interest in police oversight, as determined by the Police Chief and the Mayor. 4. Eight (8) hours of training provided by the Internal Affairs Division. 5. A supplemental training course containing elements from items 1 through 4 above, as determined by the Police Chief and the Mayor, within thirty(30) days after commencing the second year of the twothree-year terra. The Mayor shall revoke the appointment to the Board of any member who fails to • complete such training within three (3)months after such member's appointment to the Board; provided that the Mayor may extend such training deadline if, in the Mayor's judgment, such an extension is appropriate. I 2.72.130 Meetings Of-of Board. A. Regular Meetings. The Board as a whole shall hold regular meetings at least once every three (3) months. B. Panel Meetings. Board review panels may meet as necessary to review cases. C. Open Meeting Law Compliance. Notice of meetings of the Board and panels shall be provided, and records of Board and panel meetings shall be kept, as required in the Open and Public Meetings Act, Title 52, Chapter 4, Utah Code Annotated, • 7 as amended, or any successor statute. The Board and panels may close a meeting if allowed under Section 52-4-5, Utah Code Annotated, as amended, upon the affirmative IP vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the Board or panel present in an open meeting for which notice is given, provided a quorum is present. When a meeting of the Board or a panel involves the discussion of the character,professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual, including any police officer,privacy rights are involved, and it is hereby recommended that the Board or panel close such meeting under the Open and Public Meetings Act unless, in their sound discretion, they deteiiiiine that such meeting should be open to the public. Subject to the Open and Public Meetings Act, the Board and panels shall keep written minutes of their meetings, and records of all of their examinations and official actions. D. Special Meetings; Notice. Special meetings of the Board or panels may be ordered by the chairperson of the Board, a majority of the members of the Board, a • majority of the members of the Council, or the Mayor. The order for a special meeting must be signed by the person or persons calling such meeting and, unless waived in writing, each Board member not joining in the order must be given not less than three (3) business days prior notice of the meeting. Such notice shall be served personally or left at the Board member's residence or business office. E. Location Of-of Meetings; Record of Proceedings. Meetings shall be held at such public place as may be designated by the Board. The Board and panels shall cause any written minutes of their proceedings to be available for inspection in the office of the City Recorder, except with respect to matters not subject to public disclosure under the Utah Government Records Access and Management Act, Title 63, Chapter 2, Utah II 8 • Code Annotated, as amended, or any successor statute. The Board and panels shall record the yea and nay votes of the Board or panel members on any action taken by them. The Board and panels may suspend the rules of procedure for their meetings by unanimous vote of the members of the Board or panel, as applicable, who are present at the meeting. The Board or panel shall not suspend the rules of procedure beyond the duration of the meeting at which the suspension of rules occurs. 2.72.140 Quorum and Vote. A. Quorum. No business of the Board as a whole shall be conducted at a meeting without at least a quorum of eight (8) members. No business of a Board panel shall be conducted at a meeting without at least a quorum of three (3) members. B. Vote. All actions of the Board shall be represented by a vote of the members. A simple majority of the voting members present at a meeting at which a • quorum is present shall be required for any action to be taken. All actions of a Board panel shall be represented by a vote of the participating members. A simple majority of the panel members present at each meeting at which a quorum is present shall be required for any action to be taken. C. Effective Date of Decision. Any decision of the Board or any panel shall become effective immediately upon its adoption. 2.72.150 Investigations by the Board. A. In General; Notice. The Investigator/Administrator shall have access to all Internal Affairs Unit investigations in which it is claimed that a police officer used excessive force, together with such other investigations as the Board in its discretion may • request. The Police Department shall notify the Board through the • Investigator/Administrator when cases are initiated by the Internal Affairs Unit. B. Citizen Requested Investigations. Any person who files with the Police Department a complaint about a police officer, whether or not claiming that the police officer used excessive force, may, within four(4) business daysninety six (96)hours after filing such complaint, file with the Board a request that the Board investigate the complaint. At the time a person files such a complaint with the Police Department, the Police Department shall notify such person in writing of the person's right, within four (4) business days ninety six (96) hours after such filing, to request a Board investigation of the complaint. The Board, in its discretion, may grant or deny such request, and Board shall promptly notify the person making the request of the Board's decision to grant or deny the request. If the Board grants the request, it shall promptly notify the Internal Affairs Unit thereof, and the Investigator/Administrator shall have access to the Internal • Affairs Unit's investigation of such complaint. C. Investigatory/Administrator's Database. When the Investigator/Administrator is notified that a complaint is filed with the Internal Affairs Unit, or when the Board agrees to investigate a complaint at the request of a person pursuant to subsection (B), the Investigator/Administrator shall ensure that all pertinent data concerning the complaint is collected and entered into a computer database for future analysis. D. Investigator'-s/Administrator's Access to Files. The Investigator/Administrator shall have access, via computer database network, to all Police Department files on its network, except those files that are confidential by law. The • 10 • Investigator/Administrator shall not discuss with or release the contents of those files to any person other than members of the Board, the Police Chief or his or her designee, the Internal Affairs Unit, the Mayor or his or her designee, or the Office of the City Attorney. A breach of this confidentiality obligation by the Investigator/Administrator or any related staff shall be grounds for removal from office, as well as civil and criminal liability pursuant to any applicable City, state or federal law. E. Investigators/Administrator's Access to Internal Affairs Investigation. The Investigator/Administrator shall have unfettered access to the Internal Affairs Unit investigation process. The Investigator/Administrator may inquire of the commander of the Internal Affairs Unit or the applicable Assistant Police Chief about the status of any open case. F. Investigator/Administrator; Interviews. 411 1. Access to Internal Affairs Interviews. The Investigator/Administrator shall have access to all interviews scheduled by the Internal Affairs Unit. The Police Department shall notify the Investigator/Administrator when all-interviews related to (a) investigations in which it is claimed that a police officer used excessive force or (b) investigations that the Board in its discretion has requested to review are scheduled so that he or she the Investigator/Administrator may be present, at the Investigator's his or her discretion. The Investigator/Administrator may participate in questioning the witnesses. The Investigator/Administrator may request that the Internal Affairs Unit interview witnesses or collect evidence, as he or she deems appropriate. 2. Disclosure to Witnesses. If the Investigator/Administrator participates in • any portion of the interview process, he or she must clearly communicate to all 11 participating witnesses that he or she is an independent investigator/administrator affiliated with the Board and not with the Police Department. • 3. Compelling Attendance of Witnesses and Police Officers. If the Investigator/Administrator desires to interview a witness or a police officer in connection with an open Internal Affairs Unit investigation that the Investigator/Administrator is investigating or reviewing pursuant to this Chapter, and if such person declines to be interviewed, the Investigator/Administrator may ask the Mayor to compel the witness or police officer to meet with and be interviewed by the Investigator/Administrator pursuant to Chapter 2.59,Salt Lake City Code. 4. Presence of Internal Affairs Unit Investigator. The Investigator/Administrator shall have no contact with any witness or accused employee, except when an Internal Affairs Unit investigator is present or invited to be present. 5. Forwarding of Information to Internal Affairs Unit. Any information • relevant to Internal Affairs Unit investigations of which the Investigator/Administrator becomes aware shall be forwarded immediately to the commander of the Internal Affairs Unit. 6. Protection of Constitutional Rights. The Investigator/Administrator is bound to the same extent as the Police Department and the City to protect the rights of officers and witnesses under the Utah Constitution and the United States Constitution. G. No Interviews by Board. The Board and Panels shall not call or interview witnesses. • 12 • H. Completion of InvestigatorIs/Administrator's Investigation. The Investigator/Administrator shall complete his or her investigation of each case within two (2) days after the completion date of the Internal Affairs Unit's investigation. I. Report of Investigator/Administrator. Within two (2) five (5)business days (or such longer period of time approved by the City's chief administrative officer after consultation with the Police Chief or his or her designee) keys-after his or her completion of the investigation of a case receipt of the case file from the Internal Affairs Unit, the Investigator/Administrator shall provide to the Board review panel a written report that summarizes the case and such investigation, and states the Investigator-ss/Administrator's recommendations regarding the case. J. Board's Access to Investigator2-s/Administrator's Records. Upon • request, the Investigator/Administrator shall provide to the Board the Investigator's/Administrator's notes and other records regarding cases investigated by the Investigator/Administrator. K. Board's Access to Files. Except as required by law. Mmembers of the Board shall not discuss with or release the contents of Police Department files to any person other than members of the Board, the Investigator/Administrator, the Police Chief or his or her designee, the Internal Affairs Unit, the Mayor or his or her designee, or the Office of the City Attorney. A breach of this confidentiality obligation by a member of the Board shall be grounds for removal from office, as well as civil and criminal liability pursuant to any applicable City, state or federal law. 2.72.160 Outside Agency Criminal Investigations Concerning Police Use of Force. • 13 In cases involving the review of police officer actions by the Salt Lake County District Attorney's Office, the Utah Attorney General's Office, or the United States • Department of Justice, the Investigator/Administrator shall review the case only after the review by such outside agency is completed, unless (a) the Board, in consultation with the applicable outside agency, directs otherwise, and (b) if the Internal Affairs Unit determines to commence an investigation before completion of the outside agency review. When the review is completed, the Investigator/Administrator shall have access to all materials provided to the Internal Affairs Unit by the Salt Lake County District Attorney's Office, the Utah Attorney General's Office, or the United States Department of Justice. I 2.72.170 Internal Affairs Unit-Report Case File. At the completion of an Internal Affairs Unit investigation (a) in cases in which it is claimed that a police officer used excessive force, (b) in other cases that the Board in • its discretion has requested to review, or(c) in cases in which the Board agrees to investigate a complaint at the request of a person pursuant to Section 2.72.150(B), a copy of the Internal Affairs Unit report case file shall be forwarded immediately to the Investigator/Administrator,who shall make it available to and-the Board review panel. 2.72.180 Board Review Panels. The Board shall assign a Board review panel to review(a) each Internal Affairs Unit case in which it is claimed that a police officer used excessive force, (b) such other cases the Board in its discretion may request, and (c) cases the Board agrees to investigate at the request of a person pursuant to Section 2.72.150(B). Each panel shall consist of five (5) randomly chosen members from the full Board. A new panel shall be • 14 • selected for each new case. The panel shall review the Investigator's/Administrator's report on the case delivered to the Board pursuant to Section 2.72.150(I). 2.72.190 Board Review Panel Reports. A. Majority Report. At the completion of a panel's review of a case pursuant to Section 2.72.180, the panel shall prepare a report and immediately forward a copy of that report to the Police Chief and to the Board. The panel's report shall contain, at a minimum, recommendations concerning case disposition and any other recommendations to the Police Chief in terms of the individual case or general practices or policies. The report shall be filed as promptly as possible, considering the time needed for the filing of minority reports and the Police Department's deadline for completing internal investigations of complaints, after the panel receives the Internal Affairs Unit's report on the case pursuant to Section 2.72.170. • B. Minority Report. If less than all of the panel members join in the report to the Police Chief and to the Board, any member not joining in the report may file with the Police Chief and the Board a minority report, setting forth such person's conclusions regarding the case. Any minority report must be filed within seven(7) business days after the filing of the majority report. 2.72.200 Communication of Case Disposition. All reports containing a case disposition or recommended case disposition shall contain the classifications consistent with Police Department policy: "unfounded"; "exonerated"; "no deteiiiiination is possible"; and"sustained."In addition to the classification, a definition of each term shall be included in the report. The definitions are as follows: (1) "unfounded": the reported complaint did not occur; (2) "exonerated": the 15 employee's actions were reasonable under the circumstances; (3) "no determination is possible": there is insufficient evidence to support pport a conclusion as to whether or not the employee violated policy; (4) "sustained": the employee's action(s) are in violation of policy or procedure of the Police Department. 2.72.210 Police Department Response to Case. Absent exigent circumstances in which the Police Chief in his or her sole discretion, determines that a discipline decision must be made before he or she receives a majority and any minority reports pursuant to Section 2.72.190, the Police Chief shall review and consider such majority and minority reports prior to making a discipline decision in the related case. However, the decision to discipline or not to discipline an officer, as well as the appropriate discipline, is within the sole discretion of the Police Chief Immediately following a decision of the Police Chief to discipline or not to discipline a police officer for the alleged use of excessive force and in any other case the • Board has designated for review or investigation pursuant to Section 2.72.150, the Police Chief shall submit to the Board and the Investigator/Administrator a report outlining the case disposition. If the Board disagrees with the case disposition, the Board may communicate the disagreement to the Police Chief in written format,with a copy to the Mayor. 2.72.220 Audits By Board. A. Semiannual Audits. Not less than once every six (6) months, the Board shall audit and review the reports of the Board review panels with respect to all internal police investigations commenced since the completion of the next preceding audit involving cases in which it is claimed that a police officer used excessive force, together 16 with such other cases as the Board in its discretion may request. The Board may also obtain and review any records or reports of the Investigator;Administrator or the Internal Affairs Unit. B. Semiannual Reports. 1. Majority Report. After it finishes each audit, the Board shall prepare a semiannual advisory report highlighting the trends in police performance and stating its findings, conclusions and recommendations regarding changes in police policy and procedures. Patterns of behavior, unclear procedures, policy issues, and training needs may be identified for review. A report shall be completed and filed with the Mayor, the Council, and the Police Chief within thirty(30) days after each of the Board's semiannual audits. • 2. Minority Report. If less than all of the members of the Board join in the majority report of the Board, any member not joining in the majority report may file with the Mayor, the Council, and the Police Chief a minority report, setting forth such person's conclusions regarding the audit. Any minority report must be filed within seven (7) business days after the filing of the majority report. 3. Confidentiality of Reports. No semiannual advisory reports shall contain the names of any individual persons. Except during a closed session of the Board, no individuals shall be mentioned by name in any verbal or written statements by the Board or the members thereof. 4. Copies of Semiannual Advisory Reports. Copies of such reports shall be provided to the Mayor, each member of the Council, and the Police Chief. • 17 5. Staff Support. The Police Department and the Mayor's Office shall cooperate with the Investigator/Administrator to ensure that the Board obtains all • information and resources necessary to gather infoiniation for its reports. 2.72.230 Citizen Requested Review Procedure. A. Requests for Review by Persons. 1. In General. Any person(other than a police officer who was the subject of a complaint or a person acting on behalf of such officer) who is dissatisfied with a decision of the Police Chief regarding a complaint filed against a police officer, may request a review of the decision by a Board review panel. The Board may adopt rules for establishing a standard for review and rules for creating a system of case review prioritization. 2. Deadline for Request. The request must be filed within thirty(30) days after the person's receipt of the determination of the Police Chief. The Board may adopt • rules for permitting late filings in extraordinary circumstances. 3. Form and Delivery of Request. A request for review, signed and dated by the person making the request, must be filed in writing, personally or by mail, at the office of the Investigator/Administrator or at such other location as the Board may from time to time designate. 4. Contents of Request. The request for review must include: (a) the name, address and telephone number of the person requesting review; (b) the approximate date the complaint was filed, if known; (c) the substance of the complaint; and(d) the reason or reasons the complainant is dissatisfied with the Police Chiefs decision. • 18 B. Filing False Complaints. Any person who files a complaint against a police officer under this Section or Section 2.72.150(B), knowing that such complaint is frivolous, malicious or false, shall be guilty of a Class C misdemeanor. In addition, any person who files a complaint against a police officer knowing that such complaint is frivolous, malicious or false, shall be civilly liable for all costs and expenses incurred in investigating and otherwise responding to the complaint. A complaint is frivolous if it has no reasonable basis in fact. The Board may adopt rules that allow it to dismiss any claim that it deems frivolous, malicious or false. C. Review Procedure. 1. InvestigatorIs/Administrator's Review. Consistent with Section • 2.72.230(A)(1), the Investigator/Administrator shall review all requests for review. While reviewing the request for review, the Investigator/Administrator may not question witnesses, but shall have access to all records of the Police Department regarding the incident of alleged misconduct involved. The Police Department and the Mayor's Office shall cooperate with the Investigator/Administrator so that the Investigator/Administrator obtains all necessary information and resources. The Investigator/Administrator shall comply with any City, state, or federal laws regarding privacy and confidentiality of such records. 2. New Information. If during the investigation new information becomes available to either the Internal Affairs Unit or the Investigator/Administrator, it shall be given to the Police Chief. • 19 3. Investigator'-s/Administrator's Report; Reopening of Cases. Upon completion of the review, the Investigator/Administrator shall issue a report to the Board, • with a copy to the Police Chief and the Internal Affairs Unit, concerning the perceived appropriateness of the previously issued case disposition by the Police Chief The Board shall appoint a panel to review the Investigator-s/Administrator's report. The panel must complete its review no later than seventy-five (75) days after it receives the Investigator's/Administrator's report. If the panel wishes, it may request in writing that the Police Department reopen the case. The Police Chief shall determine whether or not to reopen the case and shall communicate this determination to the Board in writing, with a copy to the Internal Affairs Unit. If the Board disagrees with the Police Chief s determination, the Board may communicate its disagreement to the Police Chief in written format, with a copy to the Mayor. 4. Board's Report. After reaching its conclusion, the Board shall file with • the complainant, the Mayor, the Police Chief, and the Internal Affairs Unit a written report regarding the matter, including a statement as to whether or not the Police Chief decided to reopen the case. 5. Minority Reports. If during the review process less than all of the Board members join in reports to the Mayor,the Police Chief, or the Internal Affairs Unit, any member not joining in the report may file with the Mayor, the Police Chief, the Internal Affairs Unit, and the Board a minority report, setting forth such member's conclusions regarding the case. Any minority report must be filed within seven (7) business days after the filing of the majority report. • 20 • • 2.72.240 Confidentiality of Records. Records and reports under this Chapter shall be kept in compliance with the Government Records Access and Management Act, Title 63 Chapter 2, Utah Code Annotated, as amended, or any successor statute. 2.72.250 Cooperation and Coordination. A. In General. All City officers and employees, including those of the Police Department, shall provide complete and prompt cooperation to the Board in the discharge of its duties. The Board and other City officers and employees shall coordinate their activities so that such officers and employees and the Board can fully and properly perform their respective duties. B. Police Department. It is recognized that the memorandum of agreement between the City and the Salt Lake Police Association contains a deadline by which the Police Department must notify police officers of the disposition of any internal Police Department disciplinary investigation and of any disciplinary action to be administered. The Police Department and the Police Chief are encouraged to complete their internal investigations in such a manner and time that the Board and Board review panels have sufficient time to perfoiin their duties and issue their majority and any minority reports prior to such deadline in the memorandum of agreement, in order to allow the Police Chief to consider such reports prior to making a decision regarding case disposition or discipline. • 21 2.72.260 Board Actions Shall not Bind the Mayor or Police Chief. Ill The recommendations of the Board shall not be deemed to bind the Mayor and the Police Chief in their determinations. Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to be a delegation of the Mayor's responsibility and authority regarding the Police Department. 2.72.270 No Creation of Legal Standard or Third Party Rights Nothing in this Chapter shall create any legal standard regarding conduct by the City, the Board, the Investigator/Administrator, or the Police Depaitnient, nor create any third party rights whatsoever, except as specifically provided in this Chapter. 2.72.280 Publicizing of Investigation and Review Procedures. The Police Department and the Mayor's Office shall publicize(a)that the Board investigates all Internal Affairs Unit investigations in which it is claimed that a police officer used excessive force, and such other investigations as the Board in its discretion III may request, (b) the availability of the citizen requested investigation procedure described in Section 2.72.150(B), and (c) the availability of the citizen requested review procedure described in Section 2.72.230, and shall educate the public regarding where and when to file requests for review or investigation. In order to publicize the review and investigation procedures, the Police Department and the Mayor's Office shall develop brochures and other written publicity materials, and shall provide for dissemination of infoiiiiation through other foinis of media, which are not limited to written infoiiiiation, within budgeted appropriations. SECTION 2. That Section 2.08.090 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the Police Department, be, and the same hereby is, amended as follows: • 22 • 2.08.090 Police Department: A. Functions: The Police Department by and through its sworn officers, shall be responsible for preserving the public peace, preventing crime, detecting and arresting criminal offenders, protecting the rights of persons and property, regulating and controlling motorized and pedestrian traffic, training sworn personnel, and providing and maintaining police records and communications systems. B. Duties: The Chief of the Police Department shall be the appointing power and have command over all the officers, members and employees in the department. It shall be the duty of the Chief, subject to the approval of the mayor,to make and adopt such rules and regulations for the operation and administration of the department, as in the Chiefs judgment, shall be necessary for the good of the service. • C. Early Warning System: The Chief of the Police Department, taking into account the recommendations of the Civilian Review Board and the Civilian Review Board's Investigator/Administrator pursuant to Chapter 2.72, shall develop an early warning system whereby the Police Department administration shall be notified by the Police Department's Internal Affairs Unit if a police officer has exhibited a pattern of generating complaints with the Internal Affairs Unit. This early warning system shall be activated regardless of the subsequent disposition of such complaint. When the early warning system is activated for a particular police officer, the Chief of Police shall review the circumstances and, where appropriate in his or her judgment, require such officer to receive counseling, testing, or training. The Police Department shall document the pattern of behavior of the police officer, the review by the Chief of Police, and the • assigned counseling, testing, or training of such officer. 23 SECTION 3. That this ordinance shall take effect immediately upon the date of • its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of , 2003. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorneys Office Date 6 "" By -73t-~ ( 4.��v 2 CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER 7 Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2003. Published: G:\Ordina03\.Amending 2.72 Police Civilian Review Board-clean 6-18-03.doc 411 24 JUN 2 0 2003 ALISON WEYHER SAAS + \ MUT CORM D e, si0 ,N � - - - �.®-��• aa ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIPS TOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: RockyFluhart, ief Administrative OfficerC1 ate: June 12, 2003 FROM: Alison Weyher RE: Petition 400-03-12: Zoning Map Amendment for property located at 1433 and 1435 South 1100 East STAFF CONTACT: Joel Paterson, Senior Planner(535-6141) e-mail: joel.paterson@ci.slc.ut.us DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: Petition 400-03-12 is a request by Pace Pollard Architects . for Chabad Lubavitch of Utah to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Map by changing the zoning designation of property at 1433 and 1435 South 1100 East from Residential Business (RB)to Single Family Residential (R-1-5000) ISSUE ORIGIN: The Chabad Lubavitch of Utah requested the proposed zoning map amendment to allow for the reconstruction of its synagogue. The RB District includes a provision that limits the maximum lot size to 10,000 square feet. In order to construct a new synagogue that meets the needs of the congregation, they need to combine their two parcels into a single lot that would be 12,500 square feet. The proposed zoning change would allow the property owner to combine two parcels into one lot to allow for the construction of a new synagogue and associated administrative functions for Chabad Lubavitch of Utah. Presently the lot at 1433 South 1100 East contains a former office building which functions as a worship space while the adjacent lot at 1435 South 1100 East has children's classrooms in a converted residence and an accessory structure (a mikvah)at the rear of the lot. A mikvah is a ceremonial bathing house integral to the religious tenets of Judaism and the classrooms are used for Hebrew school, which children attend twice weekly. The existing office and classroom buildings would be demolished for new construction, while the mikvah would remain. The proposed building will be one level above grade and one below. The proposed lot size is approximately 12,500 square feet and the proposed building footprint would not exceed 6,000 square feet. • Transmittal of Pei 2% QfQ -1/ E STREET, ROOM 4c'4, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-6230 FAX: 801-535-6005 t� wecvceu PnPcw A place of worship, such as a synagogue,requires conditional use approval in both the RB and the R-1-5000 zoning districts. The petitioner will submit a conditional use • application later pending the result of this application for a zoning map amendment. An important component of this application lies in the laws of the religion. Members of the Jewish faith are prohibited from driving on the Sabbath and the members of this orthodox congregation do not drive to services. The congregation was established in its present location ten years ago and those who have joined have moved within walking distance of the synagogue in order to keep the laws of the Sabbath. Moving the house of worship out of the neighborhood would cause undue hardship to the congregants, as they would all be forced to relocate. A search for a suitable lot within the neighborhood has been done over a period of several years to no avail. PUBLIC PROCESS: The East Central Community Council (ECCC) Executive Board reviewed this request on February 19, 2003 and passed the following motion: The ECCC Board supports a zoning change from RB to R-1-5000 that would allow for rebuilding of the synagogue because of problems with the RB that would deter the proposed development. The ECCC Board feels that recommending a zone change from RB to R-1-5000 would be a way to address some of the problems with the RB zone. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 14, 2003, and voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to change the zoning of 1433 and 1435 South 1100 East from RB to R-1-5000. • MASTER PLAN CONSIDERATIONS: The adopted land use policy document that guides new development in the area surrounding the proposed zoning map amendment, is the Central Community Development Plan that was adopted in 1974. A new master plan for this community is currently in the adoption process. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Central Community Master Plan in 2002 and recommended that the City Council adopt the plan. However, this document is still under review by the City Council and has not been adopted. A description of the pertinent information in both plans is provided below. Central Community Development Plan (1974): The existing Central Community Development Plan recommends very low density(3.3 dwellings per gross acre) residential development on the east side of 1100 East and low density(5.5 dwellings per gross acre)residential development on the west side of 1100 East. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the existing master plan for this portion of the Central Community. Central Community Master Plan not yet adopted): The Central Community Master Plan,recommended for approval by the Planning Commission in 2002 but not yet adopted by the City Council, recommends low density residential/mixed use (5-10 dwellings per acre) development in the vicinity of the proposed rezoning. The purpose of • Transmittal of Petition 400-03-13 —2— the Low Density Residential Mixed Use classification is to create viable neighborhoods • with lower density and low traffic-generating commercial land uses by providing the ability to mix small neighborhood retail and service land uses with residential dwellings. The intent is to maintain populations at compatible low-density levels and help support neighborhood business uses. Although this master plan encourages the type of business activity that owners can either operate out of their residences (live/work space) or in a residential structure, the residents living near the RB zoned strip along 1100 East are not completely satisfied with the RB designation because the zone is not serving to preserve the residential component. For this reason, the Central Community Master Plan, as recommended by the Planning Commission, identifies the need for a small area master plan for the 1100 East residential business area to determine appropriate land use and design considerations along this corridor. RELEVANT ORDINANCES: Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance section 21A.50.050, Standards for General Amendments (see Exhibit 5B, Planning Commission Staff Report to review the relevant findings). • Transmittal of Petition 400-03-13 —3— • TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. CHRONOLOGY 2. PROPOSED ORDINANCE 3. CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE 4. MAILING LABELS 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a. Hearing Notice and Postmark b. Staff Report c. Agendas/Minutes 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS 7. ORIGINAL PETITION • SI Transmittal of Petition 400-03-12 • EXHIBIT 1 1. CHRONOLOGY • Transmittal of Petition 400-03-12 110 CHRONOLOGY PETITION 400-03-13 February 19, 2003 Petition presented to the East Central Community Council Executive Board. The Board voted to support the proposed zoning map amendment. March 20, 2003 Petition 400-03-12 submitted to the Planning Division March 21, 2003 Petition assigned to Joel Paterson March 25, 2003 Petitioner met with Council member Love to discuss the petition April 29,2003 Notice of the Planning Commission public hearing mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the subject site April 30, 2003 The subject site was posted with information regarding the Planning Commission hearing May 14, 2003 Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council May 27, 2003 Request for an ordinance submitted to the City Attorney's office May 30,2003 Ordinance prepared by the City Attorney's office Transmittal of Petition 400-03-12 • EXHIBIT 2 2. PROPOSED ORDINANCE . Transmittal of Petition 400-03-12 1111 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2003 (Rezoning property located at 1433 and 1435 South 1100 East) AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1433 AND 1435 SOUTH 1100 EAST FROM RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS (RB) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL(R-1-5000),PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-03-12. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City and Council have held public hearings and have taken into consideration citizen testimony, filing, and demographic details of the area, the long range general plans of the City, and any local master plan as part of their deliberations. Pursuant to these deliberations,the City Council has concluded that the proposed change of zoning for the properties located at 1433 and 1435 • South 1100 East is appropriate for the development of the community in that area. NOW, THEREFORE,be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah: SECTION 1. Rezoning. The properties located at 1433 South and 1435 South 1100 East,which are more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto, shall be and hereby are rezoned from Residential Business (RB) to Single Family Residential (R- 1-5000). SECTION 2. Amendment of Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code,relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be, and the same hereby is amended consistent with the rezoning identified above. • SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of , 2003. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. • MAYOR ATTEST: E _ 73o-o3 CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2003. Published: G:\Ordinance 03\Rezoning property at 1433 and 1435 S 1100 E-May 29,2003.doc • EXHIBIT A • LEGAL DESCRIPTION 1433 and 1435 S. 1100 East 16-17-208-004 16-17-208-005 All of Lots 23, 24, 25, and 26, Block 3, Lincoln Park Subdivision, located in the West 1/2 of the B7 Northeast '/4 of Section 17, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian. 411F • 40 0 • EXHIBIT 3 3. CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE • Transmittal of Petition 400-03-12 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING • PETITION 400-03-12 BY PACE POLLARD ARCHITECTS FOR CHABAD LUBAVITCH OF UTAH,REQUESTING TO AMEND THE SALT LAKE CITY ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF 1433 AND 1435 SOUTH 1100 EAST FROM RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS(RB)TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL(R-1-5000) The Salt Lake City Council will hold a public hearing and consider adopting an ordinance to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Map by changing the zoning designation of 1433 and 1435 South 1100 East from Residential Business (RB) to Single Family Residential (R-1-5000). The City Council will hold a public hearing: Date: Time: 7:00 p.m. Place: Room 315 (City Council Chambers) Salt Lake City and County Building 451 S. State Street Salt Lake City, UT *Please enter the building from the east side* You are invited to attend this hearing, ask questions or provide input concerning the topic listed Iliabove. If you have any questions, contact Joel Paterson at 535-6141 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., or send e-mail to joel.paterson@ci.slc.ut.us We comply with all ADA guidelines. Accessible parking and entrance are located on the east side of the building. Hearing impaired who wish to attend the above meeting should contact Salt Lake City's TDD service number at 535-6021, a minimum of four days in advance so that an interpreter can be provided. i Transmittal of Petition 400-03-12 • EXHIBIT 4 4. MAILING LABELS • Transmittal of Petition 400-03-12 Wynn Johnson Katherine Gardner Ana Archuleta GREATER AVENUES CAPITOL HILL CENTRAL CITY 852 Northcliffe Drive 606 De Soto Street 204 E Herbert Avenue lipsalt Lake City, Utah 84103 Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Catherine New Samantha Francis Chris Viavant LIBERTY WELLS PEOPLES FREEWAY RIO GRANDE P.O. Box # 521744 70 W. Van Buren Ave. 404 South 400 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84152-1744 Salt Lake City, Utah 84115 Salt Lake City, Utah84101-2201 Dave Mortensen Ellen Reddick Jim Byrne ARCADIA HEIGHTS/BENCHMARK BONNEVILLE HILLS FOOTHILL/SUNNYSIDE 2278 Signal Point Circle 2177 Roosevelt Ave 1966 East 900 South Salt Lake City, Utah 84109 Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 Salt Lake City, Utah 841108 Shawn McMillen Mike Zuhl Paul Tayler H ROCK INDIAN HILLS OAK HILLS 1855 South 2600 East , 2676 Comanche Dr. 1165 Oakhills Way Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 _Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 Doug Foxley Jeffrey Mullins Tim Dee ST. MARY'S SUNNYSIDE EAST ASSOC. SUNSET OAKS 1449 Devonshire Dr. 873 S. Woodruff Way 1575 Devonshire Dr. Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 _ Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 - - Salt Lake City,Utah 84108 • Beth Bowman Kenneth L. Neal Tom Bonacci WASATCH HOLLOW ROSE PARK YALECREST 1445 E. Harrison Ave. 1071-North Topaz Dr. 1024 South 1500 East Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 Carol Goode Boris Kurz Angie Vorher EAST CENTRAL EAST LIBERTY PARK JORDAN MEADOWS 823 South 1000 East 1203 South 900 East. _1988 Sir James Dr. Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 John Storrs Jilene Whitby Kadee Nielson POPLAR GROVE STATE FAIRPARK WESTPOINTE 1028 West 500 South 846 W 400 N. 1410 N.Baroness Place. Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 Helen Peters Terry Ingersoll, Secretary SUGAR HOUSE WEST SALT LAKE 2803 Beverly Street 1559 West 1300 South Salt Lake City,Utah 84106 Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 4Ikpdated May 27,2003 KDC BOHMAN,WILDA H& CHABAD LUBAVITCH OF UTAH ELLISON,JERRY& Sidwell No. 1617207006 Sidwell No. 1617208004 Sidwell No. 1617204014 1122 E HARRISON AVE 1433 S 1100 E 1445 S MCCLELLAND ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 III BOHLING,GREGG S& CAMPBELL,BETH M DYKE,NORMAN W.H.&BARB Sidwell No. 1617209022 Sidwell No.1617204006 Sidwell No. 1617204002 1133 E EMERSON AVE 1403 S MCCLELLAND ST 1056 E HARRISON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 BLAUDZUHN,MARGARETA&RO BUSH,BEULAH J;ET AL DERBY,RYAN E&STEPHEN L Sidwell No. 1617208024 Sidwell No. 1617209003 Sidwell No. 1617205004 1163 E ROOSEVELT AVE 183 N 200 E 1058 E ROOSEVELT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 AMERICAN FORK UT 84003 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 BLAND,PETER A BURGON INVESTMENT CO DAVIS,JARED L Sidwell No. 1617204001 Sidwell No. 1617204026 Sidwell No.1617204017 1921 E 3380 S 7445 S 700 E 1055 E ROOSEVELT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 MIDVALE UT 84047 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 BIGLER,CATHY B& BRYANT,STEVE G CORDOVA,TOM& Sidwell No. 1617209023 Sidwell No. 1617204015 Sidwell No.1617205017 1153 E EMERSON AVE - 1053 E ROOSEVELT AVE 1055 E EMERSON AVE • SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT-LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY-UT 84105 0 BEAN,JAMES S BRUNSVIK,FRED M& CORBETT,JACKE L Sidwell No. 1617207004 Sidwell No. 1617205018 Sidwell No.1617207007 1397 S 1100 E 1059 E EMERSON AVE 1126 E HARRISON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 BASTIANI,PATRICIA& BROWN,KAREN COMBES,DAVID E& Sidwell No. 1617208019 Sidwell No. 1617205012 Sidwell No.-1617208007 1133 E ROOSEVELT AVE 1466 S 1100 E 1122 E BROWNING AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 BARBER,BRAD T& BRIGGS,KERRY M& CHRISTENSEN,MARIE W& Sidwell No. 1617208022 Sidwell No. 1617207016 Sidwell No. 1617207003 1151 E ROOSEVELT AVE 1131 E BROWNING AVE 929 E CANYON RIDGE WY#21 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 MIDVALE UT 84047 ANDERSON,GREGORY B BRESIN,KENNETH E&SHARO CHI, KAY H Sidwell No. 1617208021 Sidwell No. 1617209012 Sidwell No. 1617204020 1145 E ROOSEVELTAVE 1158 E ROOSEVELTAVE 1378 S 1100 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 f 1390 SOUTH 1100 EAST BOVINE,TINA MARIE CHAB LUBAVITCH OF 0 Sidwell No. 1617204033 Sidwell No. 1617208023 Sidwell No. 61720 1390 S 1100 E 1159E ROOSEVELT AVE 1435 S 110 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT E CITY5 6 AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160® ..+•••.+.+.•• • ......v .r••......., v..,.. ...111 IJ1U{.l. ilfl J 1VV HOFMAN,GRACE KILLPACK,JESSIE M MOHR,JULIE A Sidwell No. 1617207002 ,Sidwell No. 1617202029 Sidwell No. 1617204025 1387 S 1100 E P 0 BOX 242 4339 E CONTESSA ST •T LAKE CITY UT 84105 BOUNTIFUL UT 84011 MESA AZ 85205 HARDY,KIM M KELM,JOHN R MICHAEL,STEVEN L& Sidwell No. 1617208014 Sidwell No. 1617207012 Sidwell No. 1617208015 374 S MARYFIELD DR 1162 E HARRISON AVE 1158 E BROWNING AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 • HANSEN,KATHLEEN M KEENEY,MARK W& MCLENNAN,JOHN D Sidwell No. 1617209004 Sidwell No. 1617209008 Sidwell No. 1617204009 1487 S 1100 E 1136 E ROOSEVELT AVE 1419 S MCCLELLAND ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 GRAVES,TIM& JOHNSON,KARL& MARASCO,DAVID T& Sidwell No.1617207014 Sidwell No.1617205005 Sidwell No. 1617204007 1119 E BROWNING AVE 1062 E ROOSEVELT AVE 1409 S MCCLELLAND ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 - SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY1JT 84105 GLASBY,STAN R&AUDREY; JENSEN,-ED C&DAWN M(JT MANWIL-L,JIM S:& Sidwell No. 1617202030 Sidwell No. 1617208016 Sidwell No. 1617207047 4 1410 S MCCLELLAND ST 1160E BROWNING AVE 3160 S 1810 E - SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY-UT 84105 SALT.LAKE CITY LIT 84106 • GEERTSEN,H REED& JENSEN,ALFRED E&RAMONA LUBECK,PAUL T& Sidwell No. 1617204021 Sidwell No.1617208026 Sidwell No.1617204011 965 E 4800 S#2 1167 E ROOSEVELT AVE 2915 E BRIDGEWATER DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84117 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84121 GARCIA,MARIO J&KAREN M INTERNATIONAL DOWN AND FE LEAVITT, ROBERT& Sidwell No. 1617209025 Sidwell No. 1617209001 Sidwell No.1617207022 1163 E EMERSON AVE 1455 S 1100 E PO BOX 526291 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84152 GALLOW,SARAH& HYVONEN,KELLY& LANGBORG,ANNABELLE B Sidwell No. 1617209019 Sidwell No. 1617209007 Sidwell No. 1617208017 1125 E EMERSON AVE 1130 E ROOSEVELT AVE 1123 E ROOSEVELT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 FJS DYNASTY LC HUMPHREY,VALERIE N KOROLOGOS,TOM S& Sidwell No. 1617205001 Sidwell No:1617209006 Sidwell No.1617208006 1121 S DOUGLAS ST 1126 E ROOSEVELT AVE 1441 S 1100 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 alkL,JERRED HULL,CHRISTOPHER M KJOLSETH,FRANCISCO& Sidwell No.1617207010 Sidwell No.1617209024 Sidwell No. 1617208013 7506 E BIG COTTONWOODCYN 1159 E EMERSON AVE 1154 E BROWNING AVE BRIGHTON UT 84121 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 6 AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160® ONTIVEROS,MICHELLE PEARSON,LAURIE N& ROBERTS,TONI L Sidwell No. 1617209021 Sidwell No. 1617208020 Sidwell No. 1617208027 1131 E EMERSON AVE 1139 E ROOSEVELT AVE 1171 E ROOSEVELT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 • O'MARA,TIMOTHY PAVLOS,GUS G&JOANN M( RIKER,DELLA RAE Sidwell No. 1617204004 Sidwell No.1617208003 —Sidwell No. 1617204024 1391 S MCCLELLAND ST 742 E LISONBEE AVE - 61398 S 1100 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 • SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 NOEL,SCOTT J&EILEEN V; PAVLOS,GUS&JOANN(JT) RICHARDSON,GLADYS M Sidwell No. 1617205007 Sidwell No. 1617208002 Sidwell No. 1617208008 1068 E ROOSEVELT AVE 742 E LISONBEE AVE - A 124 E BROWNING AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 NOEL,SCOTT J&EILEEN V; PAULSON,DONNA T RICHARDS,DAVID F Sidwell No. 1617205006 Sidwell No. 1617204013 • Sidwell No. 1617208009 1068 E ROOSEVELT AVE 1439 S MCCLELLAND ST - 1126 E BROWNING AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 • " SALT LAKE CITY-tJT 84105 NIELSEN,GALEN P& PAUL-HUS,FRANCOIS E REED,LAURIE M Sidwell No. 1617209015 Sidwell No.1617207020 Sidwell No. 1617207008 1168 E ROOSEVELT AVE 1149 E BROWNING AVE 1134 E HARRISON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 NIELSEN,GALEN P& PARSONS,JENNIFER A& REED, DAVID L& Sidwell No. 1617209014 Sidwell No.1617204003 Sidwell No. 1617205002 1168 E ROOSEVELT AVE 1062 E HARRISON AVE 1052 E ROOSEVELT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 NELSON, LYNN F& PARRISH PROPERTIES I,LLC RAY,LORNA F& Sidwell No. 1617204034 Sidwell No. 1617204032 Sidwell No.1617209020 1475 E PRINCETON AVE 5010 S CASTO C1R 1129 E.EMERSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84117 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 0 NEILSON,LINDA PARRISH APARTMENTS LLC,T RAMBOUILLET INVESTMENT LL Sidwell No. 1617207015 Sidwell No.1617207001 Sidwell No. 1617208001 1125 E BROWNING AVE 1108 E HARRISON AVE#2 339 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 MOYAR,ANNA G;TR PACIFIC MALIBU,LLC PUGMIRE,NADINE;TR ET AL Sidwell No. 1617208018 Sidwell No. 1617205014 Sidwell No. 1617209005 1129 E ROOSEVELT AVE 1519 E MILITARY WY 1118 E ROOSEVELT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 • MONFROOY,TOM F JR PACIFIC MALIBU,LLC PRICE,AMY& • Sidwell No. 1617209002 Sidwell No. 1617205013 Sidwell No. 1617204012 1738 S 1900 E 4601 HAWTHORNE LN N W 1433 S MCCLELLAND ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 WASHINGTON DC 20016 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160® Smooth Feed Sheets TM Use template for 5160® ( trol 6-oock6 SMELSER, RUTH E;TR WILLIAMSON,ANDREW A& g2 3 Sb01 ►'1 WOO Sidwell No. 1617209018 Sidwell No. 1617207019 .E BROWNING AVE 1145 E BROWNING AVE 5LL/ U j o `l J03 LAKE CITY UT 84108 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 &Aoki Benny Zspp&/ SHELLEY,BRIAN G& WILDE,NELDON&ROMA I45 5iI Uhl 116,0 EQ5-1. SidweIl No. 1617209010 SidweIl No. 1617208012 1148 E ROOSEVELT AVE 1146 E BROWNING AVE 5 L-, UT D -1/O 5 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SU inn A" er ci - SEAICH,EDNA;TR WILDE, LURHEA B& pa, re/1 ArGn t cis Sidwell No. 1617207013 SidweIl No. 1617205008 25 b f. MO 7 WNING LELLAND ST SALT LAKEOCITY UT 84105SALT LAKE CCIITY UT 84105 I ✓ I sly yr SCHREINER,YASUE;ET AL WELLS,SCOTT D& �0 � 2 YSt7 .- S/ ix. S tc Sk fir.. yOG Sidwell No. 1617207005 SidweIl No. 1617209009 - �S�f�-� 1407 S 1100 E - 1142 E ROOSEVELT AVE C• , kJ- T`!J f/ SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SCHAAF,V PAUL& WARING,JACQUELINE D& ZUMWALT,DOUGLAS B& Sidwell No. 1617207009 Sidwell No. 1617207011 SidweIl No. 1617204008 1140 E HARRISON AVE 1154 E HARRISON AVE 1413 S MCCLELLAND ST S TLAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE COUNTY TOMKAT ENTERPRISES,LTD ZEBRACK,JAMES S& SidweIl No. 1617208025 Sidwell No. 1617205015 Sidwell No. 1617209013 2001 S STATE ST#N4500 2451 E MAYWOOD DR 1160 E ROOSEVELT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84190 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALMON,SHERYL TEEL,ROD& WRIGHT,HERBERT A;TR Sidwell No. 1617202031 Sidwell No. 1617209017 Sidwell No. 1617208011 1414 S MCCLELLAND ST 1111 E EMERSON AVE 1140 E BROWNING AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALISBURY,ROBERT& TANGARO,CARA M& WRIGHT,CHRIS L&RACHEL Sidwell No. 1617204005 Sidwell No.1617205003 Sidwell No. 1617204010 1397 S MCCLELLAND ST 1054 E ROOSEVELT AVE 1425 S MCCLELLAND ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SAKAEDA,KARL K& SWIFT, DAVID H& WOOD,JEFFREY L& SidweIl No. 1617208010 SidweIl No. 1617205010 Sidwell No. 1617207021 1134 E BROWNING AVE 1069 E EMERSON AVE 11513 N EAGLE PEAK DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 ORO VALLEY AZ 85737 RCTNNING,GEORGE W&41STICE,JAMES L WILSON,KATHRYN E&FAIRA Sidwell No. 1617207018 Sidwell No. 1617205011 Sidwell No. 1617209011 1143 E BROWNING AVE PO BOX 526432 1152 E ROOSEVELT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84152 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 - nAVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160® • 0 EXHIBIT 5 . 5. PLANNING COMMISSION • Transmittal of Petition 400-03-12 • EXHIBIT 5A 5A. PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING NOTICE AND POSTMARK • Transmittal of Petition 400-03-12 A. LOUIS ZUNGUZE M • a % ff(GvPS° 1 ®N�! ,,� , I BOSS C. ANDERSDN 0 PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B. WILDE PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR DOUGLAS L. WHEELWRIGHT, AICP DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Dear Property Owner: The Salt Lake City Planning Commission will consider Petition 400-03-12 by Chabad Lubavitch of Utah, requesting to change the zoning of property located at 1433 and 1435 South 1100 East from Residential Business RB to Residential R-1-5000. You are invited to attend the Planning Commission public hearing, which will be held: May 14, 2003 8:00 p.m.** Room 326 Salt Lake City and County Building • 451 South State Street **After 5:00 p.1n. please use the east entrance of the building. If you have any questions or comments '" 7 - = �_=' ,NARR@N=Av `"=; °=' '�-°`: "° -; concerning this proposal, please contact : ;. ---_--,-:- .,,r-�� '>t ° 'l ',' -„,lft' f -ri" Joel Paterson at (801) 535-6141 between =,,, § t i -riJ LL (, *-y, �'��'^;¢ RE�`: ?£:u � - >:.� e��a,�.rrE:ram;�;�'�_ los .dz,.y> �...:.._:... the h ours o f 8:00 a.m. and 5 :00 p.m. or �- ; -µy t:i_;,R : 1 _ - "- - N h ` send e-mail to joel.paterson@slcgov.com. , = _, r-- j ` ; .= ,-, 1, -",, . Because it is difficult to notify all -- �`<-",_- .- ', -=_ r interested parties, please share this notice uwid* -,_�1 �'° • �..- Al R-1-5000 E,'_ '� 'h @.�_ �ti with neighbors. it >. .,, . ._ a�, �-� Salt Lake City complies with all ADA `_ • _ • -t�. '' '`` guidelines. Assistive listening devices -`4<- ' :1-" K _~ k°N°• -° -`f P: S}s�"'- I and interpretive services provided upon 7 F _ L. r-• � ,, Lp w 24-hour advance request. .K - -4,4-=. t,;14::Ft. -isr RB x ;,:> � - - 7- .= _,. -'`c , ,• :, - Thank you, - .&,,V :'i ; . .•., ,.n:_ 1 Joel Paterson, AICP Senior Planner ID April 29, 2003 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7757 FAX: 801-535-61 74 C: aE�.��Eo PaPER '-- E.• LA—_• 4A1-te rut- te--, t-//017 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING • • Salt Lake City Planning Division 1A, POz-. A( • Attn: Joel Paterson - ; ;" 451 S. State Street, Room 406 cs. APR29'03 ! : 4 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 H MET: e.vs • EXHIBIT 5B 5B. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT . Transmittal of Petition 400-03-12 DATE: May 14, 2003 4111 TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission FROM: Joel G. Paterson,AICP Senior Planner Telephone: 535-6141 E-mail: joel.paterson@slcgov.com RE: Staff Report for the May 14, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting -",,:;' ''-`4, :HARRISON.AV v=- >- _. 1-:1 5 y:y Ufl Y It -myx,..- SE>"a :s: ..*`4�7y e -, E ":C �.. _ = �'t BROWNING AVE1, ` " , h•ir fHir• ,% z i IF� s.r X f fir^ xRB to � a s _; 'R-1-5000 _ -IV i s Al r a s- �g x__; =, I >- �,.s � 4r4 z;.:`=' " •• ",sue� 1 - ,,;,',':x- -> "�+I#� .. ,y ' k- t ,> ,. . ,-` = 1 L�C3L)SS1r�tEkk -Aif ;,,.';: „_.: `. `. ,.:, , . :>:,,. �3;'�.'y"''�� .;€ ,<ax�,v :._�,..�: ;-kk-= a LLa�, ..>-z -, k t_�_,,-�'f vk+ �e'*£f ram '. -:: ,,. `�"7 - L -�.�.F ram" ""._£-t'n.<¢ .�t,," Tr - xH.Wrfi`W fH yi' 3-ys .a" - 2 •4 _ „. c >„ ac ama 4.@ >.. Y.:««- .. ._..44'%:4<E.\, _ . -. ,Kwra;sG7^-<Y'#"}. ..^«-: , ,-n,de.'u CASE#: 400-03-12 APPLICANT: Pace Pollard Architects STATUS OF APPLICANT: The applicants representing the property • owner, Chabad Lubavitch of Utah Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 410-628 PROJECT LOCATION: 1433 and 1435 South 1100 East , PROJECT/PROPERTY SIZE: 1433 South 0.11 acres (approx. 4,700 s.f.) 1435 South 0.18 acres (approx. 7800 s.f. Total: 0.29 acres (approx. 12,500 s.f.) COUNCIL DISTRICT: District 5, Council Member Jill Remington Love REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant is requesting to amend the zoning map by changing the zoning designation for the property at 1433 and 1435 South 1100 East from RB Residential Business to R-1-5000 Single-Family Residential. The Chabad Lubavitch of Utah requested the proposed zoning map amendment to allow for the reconstruction of their synagogue. The RB District includes a provision that limits the maximum lot size to 10,000 square feet. In order to construct a new synagogue that meets the needs of the congregation, they need to combine their two parcels into a single lot that would be 12,500 square feet. PROPOSED ZONING MAP AMENDMENT: The proposed zoning change would • allow the property owner to combine two parcels into one lot to allow for the construction of a new synagogue and associated administrative functions for Chabad Lubavitch of Utah. Presently the lot at 1433 South 1100 East contains a former office building which functions as a worship space while the adjacent lot at 1435 South 1 100 East has children's classrooms in a converted residence and an accessory structure at the rear of the lot, a mikvah. A mikvah is a ceremonial bathing house integral to the religious tenets of Judaism and the classrooms are used for Hebrew school, which children attend twice weekly. The existing office and classroom buildings would be demolished for new construction,the mikvah would remain. The proposed building will be one level above grade and one below. The proposed lot size is approximately 12,500 square feet and the proposed building footprint would not exceed 6,000 square feet. A place of worship, such as a synagogue,requires conditional use approval in both the RB and the R-1-5000 zoning districts. The petitioner will submit a conditional use application later pending the result of this application for a zoning map amendment. An important component of this application lies in the laws of the religion. Members of the Jewish faith are prohibited from'driving on the Sabbath and the members of this orthodox congregation do not drive to services. The congregation was established in its present location ten years ago and those who have joined hive moved within walking distance of the synagogue in order to keep the laws of the Sabbath. Moving the house of • worship out of the neighborhood would cause undue hardship to the congregants, as they Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 410-628 —2— would aII be forced to relocate. A search for a suitable lot within the neighborhood has • been done over a period of several years to no avail. APPLICABLE LAND USE REGULATIONS: Section 21A.24.160 RB Residential/Business District Purpose: to provide for limited commercial use opportunities within existing residential areas located along higher volume streets while preserving the attractiveness of the area for single-family residential use. A place of worship is a conditional use in this zoning district on lots of less than four acres. The minimum Iot size for a place of worship is 5,000 square feet. Section 21 A.24.070 R-1-5,000 Single-Family Residential District Purpose: to provide for conventional single-family residential neighborhoods on lots not less than five thousand (5,000) square feet in size. A place of worship is a conditional use in this zoning district on lots of less than four acres. The minimum lot size for a place of worship is 12,000 square feet. • SURROUNDING ZONING DISTRICTS: North RB South RB East R-1-5000 West RB, RMF-35 SURROUNDING LAND USES: North Commercial • Kostas Restaurant 1429 S. 1100 E. • Black Sheep Wool Company 1417 S. 1100 E. South Commercial • Sugar House Hair Kare 1441 S. 1100E West Commercial, residential • Traces Home and Garden Shop 1432 S. 1100 E. • Sugar House Manor Apartments 1418-1426 S. 1100 E. • East Single family residential Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 410-628 —3— • MASTER PLAN SPECIFICATIONS: The adopted land use policy document that guides new development in the the area surrounding the proposed zoning map amendment, is the Central Community Development Plan that was adopted in 1974. A new master plan for this community is currently in the adoption process. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Central Community Master Plan in 2002 and recommended that the City Council adopt the plan. However, this document is still under review by the City Council and has not been adopted. A description of the pertinent information in both plans is provided below. Central Community Development Plan (1974): The existing Central Community Development Plan recommends very low density (3.3 dwellings per gross acre) residential development on the east side of 1100 East and low density (5.5 dwellings per gross acre)residential development on the west side of 1100 East. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the existing master plan for this portion of the Central Community. Central Community Master Plan (not yet adopted): The Central Community Master Plan,recommended for approval by the Planning Commission in 2002 but not yet adopted by the City Council, recommends low density residential/mixed use (5-10 dwellings per acre) development in the vicinity of the proposed rezoning. The purpose of the Low Density Residential Mixed Use classification is to create viable neighborhoods • with lower density and low traffic-generating commercial land uses by providing the ability to mix small neighborhood retail and service land uses with residential dwellings. The intent is to maintain populations at compatible low-density levels and help support neighborhood business uses. Although this master plan encourages the type of business activity that owners can either operate out of their residences (live/work space) or in a residential structure, the residents living near the RB zoned strip along 1100 East are not completely satisfied with the RB designation because the zone is not serving to preserve the residential component. For this reason, the Central Community Master Plan, as recommended by the Planning Commission, identifies the need for a small area master plan for the 1100 East residential business area to determine appropriate land use and design considerations along this corridor. SUBJECT PROPERTY HISTORY: • In July 1998, the Board of Adjustment approved a special exception (Case#2430- B) to allow an accessory building for use as a mikvah in the RB Zone. • In 1995, the zoning for this property was changed from B-3 to RB as part of the city-wide zoning rewrite project. • Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 410-628 —4— ACCESS: The subject property has access from 1100 East and via a public alley • running north/south between Browning (1410 S.) and Roosevelt (1460 S.) avenues. COMENTS,ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS: 1. COMMENTS: a) Transportation: The Transportation Division anticipates no impact to the 1100 East minor arterial roadway due to the proposed rezoning. The parking calculations indicate lave stall on-site and seven leased stalls from the property to the north as shared parking for the required twelve parking stalls. b) Public Utilities: The Public Utilities Department does not anticipate any problems resulting from the rezoning. The building plans will be reviewed when submitted for permits and any public utility concerns will be addressed at that time. c) Engineering: The Engineering Division has no concerns with the rezoning request. Any needed improvements or repair to the public way will be required as part of the building permit for the new synagogue. d) Police: The Police Department does not foresee any unusual problems that might arise from this request. e) Fire: The Fire Department recommends approval of the proposed zoning amendment. • f) Community Council: The executive board of East Central Community Council (ECCC)reviewed this request on February 19, 2003 and passed the following motion: The ECCC Board supports a zoning change from RB to R-1-5000 that would allow for rebuilding of the synagogue because of problems with the RB that would deter the proposed development. The ECCC Board feels that recommending a zone change from RB to R-1-5000 would be a way to address some of the problems with the RB zone. g) Planning Division: The Chabad Lubavitch of Utah requested the proposed zoning map amendment to allow for the reconstruction of their synagogue. The RB District includes a provision that limits the maximum lot size to 10,000 square feet. In order to construct a new synagogue that meets the needs of the congregation, they need to combine their two parcels into a single lot that would be 12,500 square feet. If the proposed zoning map amendment is approved, the following uses that are currently permitted in the RB would become conditional uses in the R-1-5000 District: • Assisted living center,small • Daycare • • Bed and Breakfast Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 410-628 —5— • Offices and reception centers The following uses are currently permitted or conditional uses in the RB but • would not be permitted in the R-1-5000 District: • Residential health care facility • Group home, large • Boarding house • Medical and dental offices • Dance studio • Restaurant • Off-site parking • Retail establishments • Schools 2. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS A decision to amend the text of the zoning ordinance or the zoning map is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council and is not controlled by any one standard. However, in making its decision concerning a proposed amendment,the Planning Commission and the City Council must consider the following factors: 21A.50.050 Standards for General Amendments • A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. Discussion: The zoning map amendment is consistent with the Central Community Development Master Plan, which is the controlling land use policy document for this area. This plan recommends very low density residential development at this location. The R-1-5000 zoning district is consistent with this recommendation. Findings: The proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Discussion: Chabad Lubavitch of Utah currently has a synagogue at this location. Construction of a"new synagogue is a conditional use in both the existing RB district and the proposed R-1-5000 district. Although the Chabad Lubavitch of Utah proposes to combine the two parcels into a single parcel of 12,500 square feet, it is common for residential are4 in the city to include places of worship on lots larger than the typical surrounding residential dwellings. With • Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 410-628 —6— the exception of the RB zoned strip along 1100 East and RMF-35 zoning for the Sugar House Manor Apartments at 1418-1426 South 1100 East, the surrounding • area is zoned R-1-5000. Construction of the new synagogue will require conditional use approval and will allow further public input concerning the design of the building. Findings: The proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties. Discussion: The proposed zoning map amendment will not change the current use of the property. The synagogue is an established entity at this location and the construction of a new facility is not intended to attract new members to the site for worship. The proposed new facility is intended to improve the space that houses existing functions and does not add any additional impact on the site. Normal growth of the congregation is expected to occur, however this would cause no noticeable impact. As mentioned earlier in this report, the members of this congregation do not drive to services on the Sabbath. Findings: The proposed zoning map amendment will not adversely affect adjacent properties • D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Discussion: The site of the proposed zoning map amendment is located in the Groundwater Source Protection Overlay (Secondary Recharge Area) and any new development of this site must comply with the requirements of the overlay. The proposed zoning map amendment will not affect the status of the overlay district. Findings: The proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of the Groundwater Source Protection Overlay zoning district. E. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection,schools,storm water drainage systems, water supplies, and waste water and refuse collection. Discussion: The Public Utilities Department has reviewed the site plan and indicates that adequate public services are available. The reuse of the site will not affect police and fire protection. The capacity of the street system in the vicinity is adequate and can accommodate the proposed use. 1111 Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 410-628 —7— Findings: Salt Lake City can provide adequate public services to the Douglas School site. • RECOMMENDATION: Based on the analysis and the findings presented in this report, the Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve Petition 400-03-12 to amend the zoning map by changing the zoning designation of 1433 and 1435 South 1100 East from RB Residential Business to R-1-5000 Single Family Residential. Attachments: I. Application 2. Site Plan, Elevations, Sections 3. Minutes, East Central Community Council Board Meeting, February 19, 2003 4. Departmental Comments 5. Public Comment • • Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 410-628 — 8— • • ATTACHMENT 1 APPLICATION • Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 410-628 Chabad Lubavitch of Utah Zoning Amendment Application Application for Zoning change 1433 South 1100 East 1435 South 1100 East • Amend zoning map by removing the above properties from the RB zone and designating them R 1-5000. Complete description for proposed use: The proposed zoning change(from RB to R1-5000)would allow the combining of the two lots into one property allowing for the construction of a new synagogue for Chabad Lubavitch of Utah and associated administrative functions. Presently the lot at 1433 South 1100 East contains a former office building which functions as a worship space while the adjacent lot at 1435 South 1100 East has children's classrooms in a converted residence and an accessory structure at the rear of the lot, a mikvah. A mikvah is a ceremonial bathing house integral to the religious tenets of Judaism and the classrooms are used for Hebrew school which children attend twice weekly. The existing office and classroom buildings would be demolished for new construction, the mikvah would remain. The proposed building will one level above grade and one below. The proposed lot size is approximately 12,500 square feet and the proposed building footprint would not exceed 6000 square feet. The massing of the structure will be such that the above grade level will be broken down into two primary forms which will reduce the visual scale. The current zoning prohibits lots over ten thousand square feet in order to avoid structures which overwhelm the residential neighborhood and the design intent is to present a building which recognizes the existing scale of the area. Materials common to the area will be used. The portion of the structure containing the worship space will take advantage of most of the thirty foot height allowance,the administrative zone will be one story. Given the location on the block and the nearby properties a partial height approaching thirty feet is not out of scale. The zone directly across the street allows for a height of thirty five feet. All setbacks and landscape buffers will be complied with. This project requires no variances or other relief • outside of the zoning change. The synagogue is a conditional use in both its existing zone(RB)and the proposed R1-5000. The conditional use process will allow community input and design review by the planning commission. The proposed use improves the space(in both amount and quality)that houses existing functions and does not add any additional impact on the site. Normal growth of the congregation is expected to occur, however this would cause no noticeable impact. An important component of this re-zoning application lies in the laws of the religion. Jews are prohibited from driving on the Sabbath and the members of this orthodox congregation do not drive to Services. The congregation was established in its present location ten years ago and those who have joined have moved within walking distance of the synagogue in order to keep the laws of the Sabbath. Moving the house of worship out of the neighborhood would cause undue hardship to the congregants as they would all be forced to relocate. A search for a suitable lot within the neighborhood has been done over a period of several years to no avail. The existing zoning(RB)purpose statement is as follows: "....to provide for limited commercial use opportunities within existing residential areas located along higher volume streets while preserving the attractiveness of the area for single-family residential use." The purpose statement for the proposed RI-5000 zone states: "....to provide for conventional single- family neighborhoods on lots not less than five thousand square feet in size." The Zoning Amendment application requests a statement describing why the present zoning is not appropriate for the area. We feel the RB zone may be appropriate for 1Jre area,however it prohibits the assemblage of lots necessary to replace an existing,inadequate synagog tie. The proposed synagogue would be in keeping with the existing area and would not detract from the residential aspect. The • Pace Pollard Architects Page I of I Chabad Lubavitch of Utah Zoning Amendment Application combined lot size would be a twenty-five percent increase over the allowable lot size in the RB zone. The project has the potential to improve the streetscape as the building at 1433 South is incompatible in scale, massing and form with any residential structure. In Salt Lake City"conventional single-family 1111 neighborhoods"almost always contain one or more houses of worship,thus the use is compatible with the RI-5000 zone. Changing the zone to allow a lot larger than ten thousand square feet would not change the intent and purpose of the zone and the conditional use process would provide design review necessary to ensure compatibility. A single-family dwelling(the primary structure in the R1-5000 zone)is a permitted use in the RB zone,therefore the zone change would not allow for uses not already permitted. The current lot configuration contains lots of approximately 4700 square feet and 7800 square feet. In the current RB zone the minimum lot size for any structure is 5000 square feet. The lot could receive hardship relief for its substandard size but with a lot width of only thirty seven feet the available footprint after setbacks would be twenty one feet which is inadequate for a residence or commercial/institutional structure. The inability to combine the lot with an adjacent one leaves the neighborhood with the risk that the lot may become unusable and a blight prospect. Summarizing use changes resulting from the change in zoning,uses that are currently permitted in the RB zone but would become a conditional use in the R1-5000 zone are: Assisted living center,small Daycare Bed &Breakfast Offices&reception centers Uses which are currently permitted,either outright or conditional in the RB zone which would no longer be allowed in the R1-5000 zone are: Residential health care facility Group home,large Boarding house • Medical&dental offices Dance studio Restaurant Off-site parking Retail establishments Schools Since the purpose statement for the RB zone mentions"limited commercial use opportunities"the loss of these uses on the specific lots in question would not have a detrimental effect on the existing RB zone. The addition of several uses to the conditional use category improves the level of public input in an area that is of interest to the community. Response to specific standards for a zoning amendment: 1) Is the proposed amendment consistent with the purposes,goals,objectives and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City? The purpose of the RB zone is to recognize an established commercial district with arterial traffic in the heart of a residential area. The lot size limitation was included in the zone as a way to prohibit out-of-scale development that had previously occurred in the area. This application is sensitive to the restrictions and is seeking a zoning change as a remedy for a situation that was not anticipated when the zoning ordinance was enacted. The goal we are trying to achieve is consistent with an objective mentioned numerous times in the Sugar House Master Plan,that objective being pedestrian oriented communities. The synagogue needs to expand in place in order to keep its pedestrian orientation. Should this amendment be granted,the conditional use Pace Pollard Architects Page 2 of 2 Chabad Lubavitch of Utah Zoning Amendment Application application that would follow will not propose a massive structure that overwhelms the neighborhood. • The Sugar House Master Plan does not refer specifically to houses of worship. It does however, open the door to resolution of a unique problem such as the one presented by this application. Page thirty-two of the document addresses non-conforming commercial properties. While our issue is slightly different,the objectives are the same. In a discussion about using performance zoning techniques to deal with certain properties the master plan states: "...In some cases these nonconforming businesses have been present and operating for many decades and have served the surrounding residential area without undue harm to that neighborhood. However rezoning the property to commercial bestows upon that property significant values and rights including allowing the possibility that the current use could be replaced with any use permitted in the commercial zone. Therefore the City should be cautious in rezoning these nonconforming properties to commercial. Each one should be considered on its own merits with the public and surrounding residents given the opportunity to provide input into the decision making process."(Italics added) This application requests that the property and its use be looked at as a unique situation worthy of performance zoning. The request for down-zoning is an attempt to allow these to properties to circumvent a prohibitive joining of lots while not allowing the language that prohibits such conjoining to be removed from the zoning ordinance. 2) Is the proposed amendment in harmony with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property? The requested R 1-5000 designation is in harmony with the primarily single-family neighborhood surrounding the property. 3) To what extent will the proposed amendment adversely affect adjacent properties? The proposed amendment will not change the current use of the property. The synagogue is an established entity and the creation of an adequate structure will have no additional impact on the area. 4) Is the proposed amendment consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards? The properties are not in an overlay zone. 5) Are public facilities and services adequate to serve the subject property...? As the use and the demand on the properties will not increase it is anticipated at this time that all services and infrastructure will meet future conditions. • Pace Pollard Architects Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT 2 SITE PLAN, ELEVATIONS, SECTIONS s Planning Commission StaffReport Petition 410-628 c•-0.14.. -;?•.1-4.'1'717:4 -:?-,-- -.::„.-1.,'-;.-,.47,,- -.::i.- S-'.-;:::::-i-,•:' ,A, , •,.,,:-4,,__•:•4:4,,ws .f.Tg.-;5-V"P -'7•;i'-,l'. •'-'. -*VII•J-.1 1.-iilf-f':'")k-'1-'-'40.4*--g-44:-• ; ;,-ig-,4'51I4ii -'..--1.-f••:4;t-g4 t1.4k14,..,t-,,v. :!..47, :t..4,.. .•:.;.. . .fo,„.,,, --444141(467-tit...O.Ak4e!!X;-4-a4-.14,--'';'4•2'. -'1KIT.4t..-ir--*T64414:4-'Z-%4•15.4:' ,•.-4.---:"':„--,-.f.,::::•:::- ....• ---'-"'?A',-----Z,?,i,*-'4:7--..il','•:-;4- 4--,:„-...l'>='---_-- -41:•44g.T.Q:-W4--,!714'.?NA--,:11:444:474i-ft;'--Ze5.:'-'-44*-;?•:--i'.444-'4in',4i,1:'-''' .......-•:,.:'.:-- - - • --'-•'...---'-....•...--....,::,-,.--, ----..':'----.24 -54-F'.4-4Vf-:.'i.:;-f..:: .-- -4....g-. .;74--.4 -g0-41-47.-',.4 .--4ti.f4.,!-444.-31 .'--4-,"-',--Ae--.4-4,- .-•.:*'4,--4,--- -,•-;.,..-...-.--4...i.:-.--,...tit---744-'-'•*,:-.-..---,-.4,4,.--:„•..-.'.,. ',. ,"'-t'",:.--F:-',-,--,,s,','-',t'.3::*-'-'-'';'-''' '-:'''''',''''':''''.1s ,--;-'-;A,:•:;.;%''-':- Iiin.--`'.-Atfr!r-i0`,1-t'..,:i . ..„'''' .:;--."---,-,•'..--:--.i--i-::;.i- --'-'t:..,---:- .--•'-:'1,'-'-',--::.,-'I*ill;1.:71'..g.:1-,-t,-.:.-. :''.';11.4,-,---:: • • . . .....,..2,1-:;,--i=ly..:;--0: :-'-- : ilif... - illii-"111-..-.'..-- .. ,.1‘1:;.1,-;:."--'13, ,. -,...--,.1,Ni .:=:;','i;:':!--,:?_::-'.,:g-Z1---.4_,M4VIV.-.4''. -'-''''' --'7-::..---'-'''''--'-':-- , ,....----'-',. . -':!.---$....;^--1--'--. - ' -- :''''': "''''''''' .--4='"''''''' __..,,.:„. _ -.. . . - .g,1,:ii, ,,,p„,„:=4:..:--".....:4- . • •:_-- - --- ._...."._,_....___,..,._.."..,..:,,,."...",...,.__:._..._,..,__,,.,:_.:".,__ ... ,,,,,.., .. ,. . . ._ . .. _.. _ ._ . __ . . ..._._. • , ...A .. - ....... • _,...... .•:::-.,,- --' . .• ..., -zi-, -:!...7.-_.:.-.:-,.:54 ::-,-i:,: .-k.E:,,.:.:.,..-.i.: . .. . . _........ ....._. -......_. .... .. . -: --• iii --....-..,:-:v--4- ,..,:,,..--:-,;.';-:'.. .--,-----':.C.,--',..-',:-------•-;',4-T':-:-1--:,-. ' ..,.-:,.... .._;_.:„;„:.„.-..__ .-:..--11_ .., ,q-J,14.•._,21!..4 :-;-„, ,;,:::.-„,-..:.:,.,,, ,,-.,,,,,,,.-..„,1,,,,-_,4,...,-,.,..,-,, .. . - - „alio fl ..:,,:„....... :...„,„:„. .,.._„_,,..,-,::,,,J, -.F:.,;,,,,,,,:::::.„.47,:::: :: :-_,,?:„_,:,.,:_:-_,.:. - - . : ----'.- •' . . _.... ••......_,....• ...... _.."._._:, . ......„,,.___ ___„,,,,,.......„...„...„...„.___...._,„__,,...:. !t...---,ireriovit4t7.4.,,,,,,m4-14,:it_ki,-%,":, - - tif,L.7.71-4-14.1),,)-tf#47'7-.... ,.-..,:.:._:,,,„-r.::=,_::;:.;:_i- r;st..c._.tk-.,.;or-,zt:,.r.tz,."_ ,_-_-,-,i7,:yi:---;-:---.;,-,--_-, ,,.i:..:,.::,_',,v.f:: - ,3:::„..,..,•,,-;'.4 ---- ,- -',7.44;:'-f 4'',--4-'''-•'-'''-' .. -... -4444',---'-'-',:-. - ‘.. *N4.--- ,•,:b -,..., -.--,,--f.;:.z.z.,..--.4-<,,--,-.•_,.-!. .f` --:': .---., '.- ,.,- .,._.----, ' A.47,'''''''!.. ',.Vas,t'-'-4,-. .,'''' - ---'.:t4i,:.-4Vii:'_;: :::'„. ‘. ;,..:--''';:;„,.:4-i,:,---,.,-7,-,.,..,',:.'4.4-...4--.7.*;;351ftzt,,- :--_ :-•:' ,-. ., '.---;',..,,,--M-7.--- 1:_'5... .--:MV•4.74-.: - -+'-----,-,---:-.:::- .: '- -- :,---,-,:-..,g,.7-,4-114f...,:iz•-:- s,--,--,-----:-'.1...-:.:',;,-.. ,---1.%,.. , : ._.....:2,..:-..,,.,....:-....T.:Ar..,„,.,...,:r.;=-,...-7,--:II' '-' -. -:-- -: In-JAI.Mi: -: .•-. : - • - 1%.• .-,-4,, • ,.'t.7-- •-----•,--- --.. .-,--..:os,..4.--,Lvm-r-•,---, _---, :--:_-:.,_,.--.--.---T-.-:--:-----, - ,i"41.T'--.. •--,-*"=,---',' ''''` ,'4, 4,AV2-Vi- •-• -- .---..-:---,,'-.--':,,Z4, - :.,7*-15,-f"---7,,,,4,-;... 4."..--.7..'ft.'•'...-:4-•,--4k.:0..,04-X4X-V•4:-.:z44 4.,!7-Tt-,..--4.--',•'T--,,-l--•---..-1----- ,A-•-•q.',171:4,.•_',....-...• 4r--,•444=-.=-...‘-_,.,.74'.:- ,....„..,..t,---:-A-414.-41 :---•,-,„...„..„..........._ •4•44-,414-,4--.4f-- ,.--4,,Q..--,,,,,N,-,.--,,,z.,--F,A-...::„ -,---;--, 1,... .,.....-..-- •-,--- ,-,:04...,:,,7,.F.,,ic,-,qa.,•,,,... • .,„..,,,,-_, • .„.. - _...-.,,,,:-:-..--:--'----•-;-' • --.::.-:.:-'-,-:•:.-,.--::.14,,,„-,',...--.-' -•-------- ----4 --'-'4''''''''''-"'---''-'-.'- - ,:•1*--f..- 4:55 ir ____,..._-_„:„t __.. ..... • _ _________ _ ,,.... ._,__. • • .... ,,T;:i ,,,,,:: .. _ . .,.,..,,:.:_;:,_ _ .---..:-,-.4 .„,. .„.„.•-, „ . . gli"'-v"-'--- ---'' Z-v., :':'-., 12- • - -- ',....1:''-.:-1- ...7-ii:.„--:-,z,..'-gr-P-VP, `:-.,,,_,Ii 't.,- .,. ..- ?.. • ...„. 4 ::.,:f,...:;::::,.;-.-,":-..rrt77.f-;17-: . - .1, , ... .....5 .... .- _...-, . „, ,_,,,,„ . _ '. '-- i .3. ai '' -.2::7*.:11::;-7., . :_,.,,-,..'%,_-M:t':,:ii,•:-5,,-. ..;* ...•. ... 1 ... .,,..„,.._:„:„._.i.,,,.,.„.„ , _ ,...., .. ,. ,,.. - -- — _._,,..„.,..,_..„......._„..........,_,,„,,_ ...,...,..* ,.......,. ........ . ,...... . .- -swa ,:-.„...-....,„,::::.„.:::..i7,_„,.....„;.,±,„,.._...:.„.....„..._..,._.: .. ..,. : i . „... ..„_,_... ...... ..„..... . ._....„ .„......,...„.....,_.,....„.....„,..,.,........„,..,. .._...,_,..„.......___......,__,.....,„_.,,,,....... ___„,.....„_,..,„_.„..,,,,,...•..,....„..„.,_,..,... , _..,.„,. ,. ...,.---;--;,..:-,---t-:-----7-----:.,z-,-.-,-,-:---:-::-..,-::::,-:„.:::„:,:,;.iz._.:.„..,:,::,:::,,,,-..:._...:!.-:,„,f„.,,.,:!;:!:::.,::- :.,-::::;::f:.:;:: ._ ,..„ . : _. , .. „...„,,k-,.---..I.4.,,,..,.4.,:t .44401,11,,,.:,4„..„,:v.-.v,-_.„..z.,,,„.,,,,,:4,„,„:„..,:..-;„„,..,:„..,:„E„,-,.,,-1,.,..tok.-„,.-.0..-.4-;,:4.k,zs...-".,„.. ,,.._ , ,45.:,.:..,,,. --„,...k.....„-.._._,x,-T,r,.,-„,..,:,--4.,-,. .,,,z_:,::,.,,ik.-;:n5v-ft,-..'.-4: -.e;,.),?-:,,,, i4-,T;04-ign--x-re-FQ-g-A‘,.7.:P4r:,.!::f•T-,- ,5';'... jj:!---;"1.41';1'-----'' -'..'...ige'its,-*y.,AF;.:,e4,:,. .%.,7 .4if."='-'1';-44,'Aie;'4A-100.;*T1',.;,----,,-1t,'-U-V,Z.;1.,1;.,,,:-.;:-. --.,,:-,-:',..,- -----4-,,44-W-S.24'441--5-.,F--W--I4--4"•-';',-..'?.'--...-'-..-.,.-4.-..:',V0*-44F4.4.,.-"zw7z.;-.4-Iv.44--4;',4K,Ifi45f...--,=;.::4:4-4.- -4.-t,,'-,4.4.--_'..,-4:',4-44,44'.-.!:-...1,i..?.•,':4'..4-'•f-I,1'.-.L'.4-!•44';'..-- Xs,4--,".- -- ----','44,4-N,4,1:.':4•44---f-:4-44,4,44844--AU.,•_`,§•-• ?,M4.1.f4-- --A•li4P-k-f---- --•;'-.14-:--- -47-4:',• -'--..*'-'Af''',-.11%•;''4•.'t:4:-,--:::-.-,4Z4 - • .. ....,.:.;.,-,,•.,,..:,.,•,.:.....,....,:._:.,..,. ....: ..,,: ...,.....,.... . . . . . .. . ..... , . .. . . . . ----"--'44"•4'4.. .4.•=3-,44-:- .44, --F--.4.-,34t,;:•4: 44-,T4. -4.,vgi.."Ai;n-44iV.;4-i.,-.4.-ii .,-• ';-.4 ..• ,-,:4-- .. . , . . ... . Amh ,?,..•.....-••,......-- - - - • - - -- W -.•,---------.:----1 -•---•- --'---f------ _....,•,•,,,,•;-4,i4m17.•,.4;;.-rt4-4t5,:t'V14 --;--.4-- -C-'-'-'-'-'-r&; '''''tgt4-1-'-'4'.92Z.*:4---4t.-1.4•-.Z.4,,nivits-t-4.;g4,-,,,,„.,....._ ••....-.......,..4_,..,,.,,,,,,.....,,_, :P4:-,V.N•A..4-,PNWi.3,---44-44.4A..M-6474.,,-.A4.4-t.:p-el*-:• 14,44-44444---:...... _...,...„,,„_,..„.---, •'-... .--:.''....--.---....,--.---=•.....•.-:. ---:•.:. ::: . - .. . . . ... . . ... 4 4,.*4-41%.444. -P0.4-.1,4t.;,44X---?-7271-7-3,-Z14,44: .444-.i4-V24a.41,44--,t14-;;.,.. -._•„,._ -4---4-i...,v-,4.44 ::-..ri. ,,...,,,,-.44t,-,m4:-.4,T44-4141,i.zu:V444.44- ,4-_.-, •.---'4.4'-i.-int--..,._ .-7-q-AA-414V..-e4g44.1-44k..44t4T-±4441: 4$4.4s-14-0:4.,4444,4,14.41-4=r4N4 -4-4-411.444.---. .1!4.444.4447---7,---.-.4-,-.. .,.,..-•... .., - - •:.--. - -,.-.- - . . - - . '-.'"'IVF'-'"-k -k*--W4W1----1- A-'-':Y444*-'40:-41'4;4--:-Mr.-.1-t44V;44.1.14-'4V-4:-..4'4:-Rgatk.,,i4:4•k.z4.-4:7s-4.;.5k,-;.„-.... -:-..---- ..-...--...,i.- ---- .•:- . .. . --,44.4:'--i--4:4,4R-44,4%3Z4,q454'.44V.14.-7K-,%4",F.444.ii,t4•Z::•'014.-4,1,4.'M.44ir4-%•::•-.434-, i-a- ..4,-;', 41.-.'•14•444v4X44.,,,,,,----- _ -",..4•.4,0,-.44.A-4.4;.1..V. :4.**444,t.'"Ita7:4,V44.7t44.4-1',..44---44-,'"4-'-'--- - --44'•?,-4.;-4?ii!- --•."'-',4-'----- - .....,.., ....:-. - •. •-,, • PACE POLLARD ARCHITECTS Architecture, :: 1 . Architecture, Planning, Landscape an -------,-2-,',-, ----:-.-_-1-7;''.-- - -- ,--, ,-, .=:-: :::•4=:.-1-7----'-- - ` -.,T-,,:,-,.:::___,•-_-_ .,,,,- _-..,..-,_ -_, , - - - •--- ', ,' =- . - - - - - -- ti--:ci,-__!-_-----::: --,-..-_ri't-q•-l'_-_ ,.-='-,1-_:;--,,-;-,..,--"--'=:-.•-:-t-•,.,_;---i''47.--_,-:_-_--;---------4 _ ''':-::-•-=:f--:-.,-,r-_--:- =I _--_. _ —` -_, - -- - _ - , .. ,,;„.„-! ,, _ i. , - -•-- -- is. • = .- I •'-‘"'-- - ''-' H - ' -' ---- - = - - -- - men ' --- .-:-:::1 I -- - • -_ pi A - - ' - - •. • .., PACE POLLARDOLLARu MM , ARCHITECTS mo m Architecture, Planning, Landscape and Interior Design gi . � -trs� , _ ;` -� z Sim • • \ Y 3 /F jrrE _ P f ,�p "2 �' -' E - - E - ttltI}E{ g :' g - - j - � i _ gg _ F • PACE POLLARD ARCHITECTSMI Architecture, Planning, Landscape and Interior Design _ ,_-1-.: 17--7;------:-N r ------rj. .--:;.-i---1-1-_.,,--:::;5_,..t„..-:-:-..i'.......::::). ..),:q , II E,__ Q s.� - 4 r"�--yam s o — w `'.1 t m'.o- isoff x< ao o CO-IF as o KM rAxo0. ;� a ':-.' trill - II i1 , ,_ ,,i, , ,;,.„ i ., ,..;,4,. .i.fe.-: ,-,:., ,fcr,„?,.4....:, . . '-.' '`I IIIII31 __,.:-.-r, ..:: ,:ii .__--. -, >. I --:- I NEW BUILDING- ii::ai:.11 -b 1 _ _ - e I..:•:: 1� 6147sr ��6 I s E, _.; a s c _� <s t. Iii S !F��f , Jiii.•' 3.7 ^bJ' _.� k J . ..r / i 1ERE [xlSiNCBUlioR I AERIAL VIEW RLBWLDIND f00TFRWT PION33 -%/{a' ::-:>: nA n s::•: PROJECT DATA 9iE co RAa PROPERLY AREA 11,500 SF _ NEW BUILDWC(NOBS COVLRA(S F197 Cx1571NG f9JRDING GROSS COVCRACi 576 4 54 l0 74 BUILDING CROSS COVERACf.- = 6713 SE _ PRCPERIY AREA 11500 SF - PPRIU_NG .. PARKING REQUIRED FOR CHURCH USE 1 SPACE PER 5 SEALACES _ SP 60 SEALS x 5 4AT5 11 PARKING SPACES REQUIRED ON-SHE 1 SPACES I VAN ACCESSIBLE SPACE 5 SPACES 101AL of-SR SHPRING ACRIEMENI NCH ADJACENT PROPERLY OWNER) - SPACE 5 IOTCR1 SPACES(PER AVNPARKINGLABLE 'o 12 SPACES E YARDS fKIRI YARD REQUIRED 70 FTI. FRON1 YARD PROVIDED 70 rl ROOSEVELT REAR YARD R WIRED 20 ElREAR YARD PROVED18-0 N SIDE YARDS REQUIRED 9 11 ANO 10 Fl • SITE PLAN SIDE YARD PROVIDED 4 ET AND 10 11 'o CD PACE POLLARD SHEET NUM S-1 0 1 Chabad Lubavitch of Utah L Architecture,Planning6.koala,D.*. aTe 5/12/03 Synagogue ""� m-,v—" 0 • • y---ALLOWOBLE HEIGHT ENVELOPE I I 416 11:1,t- I � I ED SITE ELEVATION • SHEET NUMBER A-305 Chabad Lubavitch of Utah PACE El POLLARD Architecture,Paroling&Interior Design B�E 1•=20' b..0,.. DATE 5/12/03 Synagogue • rift E ,;; 0 0 ® ® ® CD) ® Q (G) ® ® C) ® ® ® t5'-6"/ 16' / 16' / 16' / 16' /5'-6"t /5'-6'/ 16' / I b' / 16' t 16' /5'-64 1 I I L I I I 1 1 LI I CO r - -I - 2 2 io x,,- . --,/,-, . . N c-ssRom 1 * -jo-4 / ii 1 1 1 t 4 II i 1 \ 1 / .4. \ 1 i ' /a.,,,„,, - u //,, � CJJ --I - 1--______-- t — f 3 I I I / I \ I I I I I I I 6- I. I I I / I e i � � � ref / ` ■ �� . I r� 1 _ _ 4 \ Cq) C4} y O L— L i I I I i i I I � � 1 • ® V C i I --_,i ® C}-- it i_ 0 - i r_., IP la 3 i 1 -., ?, S I�� I I 4 I 1 = I i>HfX I 4 1 _ 1.3 -ixI I I �'� ��l 11• "© DARTI�FAi I _ 1 21111 O, a 0,�1. 'WRY. I ( hAVIASE _ I i i uo I Mill i 1 1 - 1 1 ii Nvfm i II - Arno+ w�nreu "F I I w'm 1 I I"o w '7 A'A° ' sTavcEi i11 7 - I I - -I -�- - I i i I 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I E ® 4 ® U CE ® ® CAC13) ® ® ® ® ® Ni MAIN LEVEL l_iiO LOWEER LEVEL - • ,,.6 � SHEET NUMBER A-101 Chabad Lubavitch of Utah PACE ::POLLARD Architecture,Planning&Interior Design 5/12/03 Synagogue 0 0 O 15 O ii,129'-0"" o V TOP OF VAULT a o jk12`i-0" Y TOP OF ELEVATA 119'-6" TOP OF ROOF 111 II l_II = ifil LC II . 111111I" ' CC III III I � C� -IF I I • II OVERHANG all li Ii j7 I, ' 0 0 0 011 d III I I 1 • ►e I — I` - = F NOSH FLOOR o SECTION THROUGH SHUL&SOCIAL HALL( E O * • SHEET NUMBER A-201 Chabad Lubavitch of Utah PACE::POLLARD erchaecnve,Planning h Interior Design ' 1/8•=1'_O" ...jai.w0S111 °^TE 5/12/03 Synagogue ,;;•- • o o Ai I21'-0 1 JL____l _.JL _JI _11-1( 11 J_ T ION of ROOF a - Jf �� __IL_ Ir - ►11 ti • (ik 110'-0" 12 CEILING HEIGHT / 1 /Ili II d}1oo'-0 Y FINISH FLOOR o I g J 1 SECTION THROUGH SOCIAL HALL&LOBBY E • e SHEET NUMBER A-202 Chabad Lubavitch of Utah PACE::POLLARD BcwtE: .18�_1 t_O. Arcltitechtm Planting Q interior Design f° Loa or.urn.w "WHIT "'E; 5/12/03 Synagogue ,.,. 0 2. LE 13 ii lu'1 IIIVTOP OF ELEVATOR r -Ty- --n M �}, IZI'•V E - -Ca -- Y TOP OF ROOF �P � — ____ = . _ OA 2 1 _ _..e..,.� _ - _ -�.` • • 11111111 rx R�YL3S �Y_�L: a E �_ leas==fir=_= OVERHANG HEIGHT l Jy —s N ITTE-3=i_- ____:S __rSs _- _ ._______- ______ ___ ___ ___________ __ _____ __ -z°a'—__- � i� - �};•iQs-= . lvsss'�°�a I FINISH FLOOR 15 u. iD WEST ELEVATIONa. SCALE 1/8--1•—O" __. n E GI •4. 40 SHEET NUMBER A-301 Chabad Lubavitch of Utah PACE ::POLLARD Architecture,Planning h Interior De ign SCALE: 1/8n=1'-0• .� .w.«,,, Synagogue .;;p DATE 5/12/03 0 • E TOP OF ROOF o 'a�, __ =•a as, I10-0 � •a a•-f', - a' _ . Tr OVERHANGE{EIGHT • �.� �, , ,• ll xt �z _4_ - -- --- ; •c_;' ________________ _FlNI FLOOR EAST ELEVATION oF o _ I SCALE 1/8'•=1'-0'. _ E SHEET NUMBER A-302 Chabad Lubavitch of Utah PACE ::POLLARD ArchttecMq Planting E Interior Design 6" 1/8"=1'—O" r..r.00 M..� DATE' 5/12/03 Synagogue ..,`..'a°" "r 04111 • 0 O yl if II c}h, lu'-o' Y TOP OF ELEVATOR c E r e 6 I TOPOFROOF — J -- • ----IliffITISW— essisonjwimaj IOVERHANG HEIGHT ___________ ____ - _=te a- -___ =_== T_ _-- -----------_ �- z= ==_- -----= �_____t�.�_ _� s_��sc��i====a�=_R�__==___- = __==== x=vim,.=Era___ _==_ =_�_ z=_-a_�_z _ _ -_t. --BEY-t�'s=i-S3T=Y--------------i --—S_YS-E_�.- --_----_-------_---- -7.5c=sraIira' rs3C_£+_---_=i_=_----_----yrii--%1= =_ r.m.1 r __3_=_F--- — --y-_— r2.1 i :•{r� SL}ACT;-LC VSYi'YS—== �� --rrS�—J'L3ti=vS%i8P2ii4fLZ_T_SRTT_df�---S=— -_----_ �L�.dL —_— ?. _ `II1 SrsaaS — — s-- � ssrssi--S-------_-- — ---r___—} -}�i= _---- 3 _.isa_x_se_ rr_-sil�.i'—�+'--------------------- ------ 2--Ez-isi-y=== =:47.*- ---�s�Tt aas.-ssaasear=___—__=rrrr=___=___r_-- _ ___— '1 __------ — — r=----------------------- - _ ,..,- ----- ===s=-�== 100 FLOOR FINISH NORTH ELEVATION SCAI-F ,ice.._1._0.. o. o _) E * < • SHEET NUMBER A-303 Chabad Lubavitch of Utah PACE ::POLLARD Architecture,Planning&InterforDesfgn SCALE 1/s.-1-o• Synagogue 0 • A 119'-6' Y TOFU ROOF .ffiss -42 ff • s==_s_=s' ==`__ _== ___=Sr- $_-fi=la_r_ S�_-�v-su- _£==y y_�S{= __________ _ _-_- =rr-- _ . ____ ' 3R'1fS�_?3�9=�=53'S�___SY'i9L__ S;i'FHpt natfattiggEW :HINI s s s -_-I .4 rem Fasu+asv+rL__—_ 3R-FItL 1 sE= ____S-L7 - Y-ii17- __----_— ___ _ " -- sI°s+a�`��=== �_grN__=_____ _��tea.= W__ - -- ='�==s f II�� -_---AW-- - __.�...�___-- - - r _ = 1-1 RNISH FLOOR SOUTH ELEVATION •- n SCALE 1/8"=1'—O" • 45 • # SHEET NUMBER A-304 Chabad Lubavitch of Utah PACE ::POLLARD Architecture,Planning h InterforDeslgn Synagogue "`a R16. 111 MTE 5/12/03 ""' """. • ATTACHMENT 3 MINUTES, EAST CENTRAL COMMUNITY COUNCIL BOARD MEETING, FEBRUARY 19, 2003 • Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 410-628 EAST CENTRAL COMMUNITY COUNCIL Board Meeting Minutes February 19, 2003 — Approved March 19, 2003 Our Lady of Lourdes Parish Conference Center Chair Carol Goode called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. In attendance: Chair Carol Goode, Treasurer Chrissie Driscoll, Secretary Kathy Scott, Past Chair Dennis Guy-Sell, Land Use Coordinator Cindy Cromer, Douglas Neighborhood Representative Cathey Dunn, and Maha Barrani of the Bryant Neighborhood. 7. Rabbi Benny Zippel of Chabad Lubavitch of Utah (1433 S. 1100 E.) reported on proposed plans for his facility which was established in Utah in 1992. Precepts of Torah dictate that members of his congregation are permitted only to walk on the Sabbath. Many families have become observant and bought homes in the synagogue area. The congregation needs a larger synagogue and it would be cheaper to buy new site in valley but the implications for the many members of the congregation who live around the 1100 East location would be unsettling. In 1997, the synagogue bought 1435 South 1100 East for 2 reasons: 1) the lot is bigger than the synagogue lot, and 2) the congregation needed it to build a mitzvah in the 576 sf detached garage on the property. Rabbi Zippel got a conditional use from the Planning Commission to build the mitzvah and replaced the garage with a 2 car driveway. At this time, the congregation has outgrown the 2500 sf synagogue at 1433 South and the 1300 sf Hebrew School located in 1435 South 1100 East_ Sue Anderson and Ken Pollard have designed new building that would span both properties and would replace both existing structures. Together, the lots would total 12, 501 sf. Currently the RB lot limit is 10,000 sf. It was observed by a Board member that RB doesn't work long 1100 East in the way intended because the RB zone on 1100 East is too long in length. Rabbi Zippel explained that synagogues are a conditional use in a residential area; the congregation had looked at other locations in the area that did not work: Dairy Queen— would not work because churches are not an allowable use in a CN zone and the DQ location is too close to Kyoto Restaurant which has a liquor license. Salt Lake Costume and every other location within walking distance were explored. Maha asked about neighbors' sentiments. Rabbi Zippel indicated that they are very supportive; this is community, not outsiders. Carol asked about other uses of the proposed building. Rabbi explained that the 5,987 sf per level building would be used for worship, meetings, and Hebrew School. Cindy Cromer suggested supporting zoning change as one of the tools necessary to send message that RB is not working. This would break up the long expanse of RB. Much-of_the RB is in ECCC. Regarding parking: Rabbi Zippel explained that 1 spot for S pews is required. There would be seating for 60 in the worship space — there are 6 spots for parking and Kosta's will provide a letter offering to share their parking with the synagogue. Motion: Cindy Cromer made a motion that the ECCC Board supports a zoning change from RB to RI-5000 that would allow for rebuilding of the synagogue and school because of problems with the RB that would deter the proposed development. The ECCC Board feels that recommending a zone change from RB to (11-5000 would be a way to address some of the problems with the RB zone. Kathy Scott seconded the motion. The motion was approved. ECCC will provide this motion in writing to Rabbi Zippel and Pace-Pollard Architects. They will take our recommendation10 to the Planning Commission for the zoning change and then to City Council. If they get that, then they go through another process for Planning Commission conditional use of synagogue in the R1-5000 zone. S • ATTACHMENT 4 DEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS • Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 410-628 SALT` r.\, a M ORPORA ►:I.ON TIMOTHY P. HARPST, P.E. �. � ., . -� � � RO55 C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON • SDRT ATION DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR DIVISION OF TRANSPORTATION April 3,2003 Joel Paterson Planning Division 451 South State St,Rm.406 Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 Re:Pet 410-03-12 Request to Rezone a Residential Business(RB)to a R-1-5000 District-Located at 1433 So.and 1435 So. 1100 East.. Dear Joel: The Division of Transportation review comments and recommendations are as follows: The parking calculations indicate five stalls on site and seven leased from the property to the north as shared parking for the required twelve parking stalls. We see no impact to the 1100 East minor arterial roadway per the proposed zoning change. Please feel free to call me, at 535-6630 if you have any further questions. • Sincerely, , r- TI. q Du Juz- , _.__,_ ,_., Barry D. Walsh. Transportation Engineer Assoc. cc: Kevin J.Young,P.E. Scott Weiler,Engineering Craig Smith,Engineering Ken Brown,Permits file • • 349 SOUTH 200 EAST, SUITE 450,SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE: 801-535-6630 FAX:801-535-601 9 0 Rcc.�,eR>.>cR Paterson, Joel From: Stewart, Brad Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 1:34 PM To: Paterson, Joel Cc: Garcia, Peggy; Cowles, Vicki Subject: Petition to down zone 1433 S and 1435 S 1100 East Categories: Program/Policy Joel, Salt Lake City Public Utilities has no objection to changing the zoning on the above-mentioned properties from RB to R!- 5000 prior to petitioning for a conditional use for a church. As site/utility plans are developed for the new structure Public Utilities will review for compliance with the appropriate standards for water, sewer and drainage for the property. Brad • • 5/7/2003 Paterson, Joel From: Smith, Craig ISent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 11:31 AM To: Paterson, Joel Subject: petition 400-03-12 Categories: Program/Policy Der Mr. Paterson I have carefully reviewed petition 400-03-12 requesting to rezone 1433 South and 1435 South 1100 East from RB to R-1- 5000. Engineering has no issues with this request providing that a pre-inventory of the public way that fronts these addresses be performed by our department, as well as any safety concerns regarding the alley to the East. I am assuming the property line indicated on the site plan will be removed and properties combined, however, this is a planning issue, as you are well aware of. The inventory should be performed and comments submitted by Friday, May 9, by 4pm. Sincerely, Craig • • 5/7/2003 Paterson, Joel From: Kirkwood, Brendon Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 7:09 PM To: Paterson, Joel Cc: Ewell, Lamar; Orgill, Alicia Subject: PETITION 400-03-12 Categories: Program/Policy MR. PATERSON, UPON REVIEWING THE SITE PLANS AS WELL AS THE LOCATION IT SELF I CAN NOT FORE SEE ANY UNUSUAL PROBLEMS THAT MIGHT ARISE. FROM A CPTED STAND POINT ALL APPEARS TO BE OKAY. I DON'T THINK THE POLICE DEPT WILL HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THE RE-ZONING. IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT ME AT ANY TIME (799-3203) . THANKS, DET BRENDON KIRKWOOD. 4111 1 Paterson, Joel From: Larson, Bradley Sent: Wednesday,April 30, 2003 2:50 PM To: Paterson, Joel Subject: Petition 400-03-12 Rezoning request of 1433 S and 1435 S 1100 E from RB to R-1-5000 Joel, Please consider this note as Fire Department approval for the above referenced request. Please contact me should you have any questions. Thank you, Brad Larson Deputy Fire Marshal III .. 5/7/2003 • ATTACHMENT 5 PUBLIC COMMENT Planning Commission Staff Report Petition 410-628 /44.9.4- I - D 3 gc R, PATER So a A \tP . 'REFERtNfr TC oUR ptIo CALL of mAy • lo3 ABour RUOI'ItNG- ? PTt AT / 33 - /' 3S (too fAS? CD -rrto- REcruRANT NEXT Coo AVMs CIa"7Z'� G i rrcE PARk ! AND iis maSTaMERs ARt RI ppL 'hva, ouToAt A4qs/jvg CONy6S TNCr ant? STREE7' AS (s , TN /5 71lEW cHRtjt#I HAc No P'41?kl,V(r Aa iri Otoptvg- dN ThIR Lo . D sc '47Ferj BE ADP / LTh Po2LM iN'tS(G- wAy j Hof*. Sowteo NE o N THis 5 ,LF • Piiv ro^'trn ,rsoK U�iL� � UE NE&8RI.IO&' A t- re7Yt Tfr "4,.V4D 1►1 t/OWQ pYAN�N4, = PztRSt ,-tMNK ,joH —�'� 14 '""� • EXHIBIT 5c 5c. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDAS/MINUTES Transmittal of Petition 400-03-12 i NOTE: The field trip is schedule0o leave at 4:00 p.m. AGENDA FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City&County Building at 451 South State Street Wednesday, May 14,2003, at 5:30 p.m. ill The Planning Commission will be having dinner at 5:00 p.m., in Room 126. During the dinner, Staff may share planning information with the Planning Commission.This portion of the meeting will be open to the public. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Wednesday,April 23,2003 2. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 3. CONSENT AGENDA—Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters: 4. LONG RANGE PLANNING ISSUES a. Presentation by Envision Utah and UDOT on the Mountain View Corridor(Previously called The Western Transportation Corridor). (Staff—Brent Wilde at 535-6180) 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:00 p.m.—Petition No.400-03-10, by Shaw Homes Inc. requesting an amendment to the West Salt Lake Zoning Map to rezone the property located at approximately 1551 West 200 South from R- 1/5,000(single- family residential district)to CG(general commercial district).This request would also require an amendment to the West Salt Lake Master Plan. (Staff—Marilynn Lewis at 535-6409) b. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:20 p.m.—Petition No.400-03-06 by Asset Management Services requesting to rezone property • located at 1341 South State Street from a Corridor Commercial (CC)and Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential (RMF-35)to a Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential (RMF-45)Zoning District including approval of a 2-lot Subdivision Plat Amendment,Amending lots 1 through 17 and Lots 26 through 46 and a portion of lots 18 and 25 of the Nye's Addition Subdivision. (Staff—Ray McCandless at 535-7282) c. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:40 p.m.—Petition No.400-02-05, by Thomas A. Duffin requesting to rezone the property at 2275 South Green Street from R-1-7000,single-family residential to SR-1, Special Development Pattern Residential Zoning District, to facilitate the construction of a two family dwelling. (Staff—Melissa Anderson at 535-6184) d. PUBLIC HEARING at 7:00 p.m.—Petition No.410-632, by Johansen Thackeray Commercial Real Estate Services requesting a conditional use and planned development permit at the southwest corner of 2100 South McClelland Street. The proposal involves demolition of an existing building to construct a new, single story commercial structure for retail and restaurant use, in the C-SHBD Zoning District. (Staff—Melissa Anderson at 535-6184) e. PUBLIC HEARING at 7:30 p.m.—River Glen Subdivision Phase II, by Iverson Homes to create nine Single Family Dwelling lots at 1345 South Utah Street in an R-1-7000 Zoning District. (Staff—Jackie Gasparik at 535-6354) f. PUBLIC HEARING at 8:00 p.m.—400-03-12, by Chabad Lubavitch of Utah, requesting to amend the zoning map for the property located at 1433 and 1435 South 1100 East from a RB Residential Business district to a R-1-5000 Single Family Residential district. (Staff—Joel Paterson at 535-6141) g. ISSUES ONLY PUBLIC HEARING at 8:30 p.m.—Scott Turville is requesting preliminary subdivision approval for the Carrigan View 2 Subdivision;a redesigned proposal of a 3-lot,single-family residential subdivision located at approximately 1977 South Lakeline Drive(2950 East)in a Foothill Residential"FR-2"Zoning District. No decision will be made at this meeting. (Staff—Greg Mikolash_at 535-7932) Salt Lake City Corporation complies with all ADA guidelines. If you are planning to attend the public meeting and,due to a disability,need assistance in understanding or participating in the meeting,please notify the City 48 hours in advance of the meeting and we will try to provide whatever assistance may be required. Please call 535-7757 for assistance. IIIPLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES AND PAGERS BEFORE THE MEETING BEGINS. AT YOUR REQUEST A SECURITY ESCORT WILL BE PROVIDED TO ACCOMPANY YOU TO YOUR CAR AFTER THE MEETING. THANK YOU. COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT•PLANNING DIVISION•451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 406•SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111 TELEPHONE:801-535-7757•FAX:801-535-6174 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 1/416 In Room 326 of the City & County Building 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Wednesday, May 14, 5:30 pm Present from the Planning Commission were Chair Jeff Jonas, Kay (Berger) Arnold, Tim Chambless, Robert "Bip" Daniels, John Diamond, Arla Funk, Peggy McDonough, Prescott Muir, Laurie Noda, Kathy Scott, and Jennifer Seelig. Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Louis Zunguze; Deputy Planning Directors Brent Wilde and Doug Wheelwright; Planning Program Supervisor Cheri Coffey; and Planners Marilynn Lewis, Jackie Gasparik, Ray McCandless, Greg Mikolash, Melissa Anderson, Joel Paterson, and Deputy City Attorney Lynn Pace. A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Jonas called the meeting to order at 5:41 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased Petition No. 400-03-12, by Chabad Lubavitch of Utah, requesting to amend the zoning map for the property located at 1433 and 1435 South 1100 East from a RB • Residential Business district to a R-1-5000 Single Family Residential district. This hearing began at 9:33 p.m. Planner Joel Paterson presented the petition as written in the staff report. He referred to an aerial site map to show the Commission where the boundaries of the RB and R-1-5000 zoning are in the area. The proposal is to construct a new synagogue at the site. The two current buildings on the lot consist of an old brick office building which acts as a place of worship, and a single-family residential structure that houses the administrative functions for the synagogue. To better serve their congregation, the applicants are proposing to combine the two parcels of land into a single lot of 12,500 square feet and build a new synagogue that would house all of their functions in a single building with a footprint of about 6,000 square feet in size. The RB zoning district has a maximum lot size of 10,000 square feet. The proposed combined lot would be 12,500 square feet, so a rezoning is necessary. Staff looked at other potential processes besides a rezoning process, specifically the plan development process where the Planning Commission can wave or modify standards of the zoning ordinance. However, the zoning ordinance requires a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet for it to be able to go through the plan development process. The purpose of the new synagogue is not to generate new membership. All the members of the synagogue live within walking distance of the site. Orthodox Judaism does not allow its members to drive cars on the Sabbath..They may have other functions at the site on different nights of the week where driving would be allowed, but Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 May 14, 2003 those services are generally after hours. There is some concern about traffic and parking in the area, mostly pertaining to other commercial businesses in the area. 1110 A place of worship is a conditional use in both the RB and R-1-5000 zone. R-1-5000 is more restrictive. The 1974 Central Community master plan recommends low density residential on the east side of 1100 East (density of 3.3 units per acre). The plan calls for 5.5 units per acre on the west side of 1100 East. The rezoning request is not considered spot zoning, it is compatible with the master plan, and is contiguous with other R-1-5000 zoning. The East Central Community Council reviewed the petition and voted in support of it. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to change the zoning from RB to R-1-5000. Mr. Jonas mentioned at this point that Commissioner Kathy Scott had seconded the motion to support the petition at the East Central Community Council meeting. She wished to bring that before the Commission in case that raised any concern for potential conflict. Ms. Arnold said if Ms. Scott voted for it in the Community Council meeting, she would not be able to vote against it at this hearing. Mr. Jonas said Ms. Scott could hear new information at the public hearing tonight. Mr. Daniels said he was satisfied that Ms. Scott made such a declaration and brought it before the Commission. If Ms. Scott feels that she can render a fair vote, he was willing to allow her to do so. Ms. Scott believed she could be fair. No other Commission members expressed concern. Mr. Muir thought it would be helpful for the people in the audience who may not have S read the staff report to know that the proposed plan meets the parking requirements of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Paterson said currently the petitioners have six parking stalls behind the facility and they also lease space at Kostas restaurant. Mr. Jonas invited the applicant to come forward and speak. Rabbi Benny Zippel, Executive Director of Chabad Lubavitch of Utah, 1433 South 1100 East, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84105, spoke next. His personal residence is at 1140 East Harvard Street. He thanked Mr. Paterson for a good job in explaining their situation within the parameters of Judaism. Chabad Lubavitch of Utah is the Utah branch of the world's largest Jewish outreach organization. Rabbi Zippel has lived in the community for 11 years. The northern property in question was purchased in 1994. One of the fundamental precepts of the Jewish faith is that members of the Jewish faith not drive on the Sabbath. Many of the congregation have purchased or rented homes in the area for that reason. The congregation has grown and has now outgrown the current facility. The southern property was purchased in 1997 and turned into a Hebrew school. A ritual baptismal font is located in the back of this property. He referred to a wooden model of the proposed site to show the Commission how they plan to combine the lots to build one new and bigger building. He made his request to amend the zoning to R-1-5000 and thanked the Commission for their time. • Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 May 14, 2003 Ms. Susan Deal, Pace Pollard Architects, 256 East 100 South, Salt Lake City, Utah '• 84111, spoke next. She is the architect for the applicant, and first passed around photographs of the inside of the current facility. Because the applicants do not drive to church, they define sustainable, pedestrian oriented communities. She briefly went over the project for the Commission. Should the zoning amendment pass, the applicant will have to come back for conditional use. The new building is 6,000 square feet, and built with brick and concrete. Half the building will have a roof garden on it. It is well below the height envelop allowed. The building has to face Jerusalem. It is not residential in look, but matches the material pallet and works well along 1100 East. Mr. Muir asked why the applicant did not couple conditional use with the zoning amendment. Mr. Paterson said the applicant chose to separate the two. Mr. Jonas asked if anyone from the Community Council wished to speak. Mr. Dennis Guy-Sell, 436 South 1200 East, Salt Lake City, Utah 84102, spoke next. He is a past Chair of the East Central Community Council. The Rabbi came to speak to the Council last Fall. He came back in February with the plans, the Community Council listened and endorsed the plans. Mr. Guy-Sell encouraged the Commission to allow Chabad Lubavitch to proceed with the project. Mr. Jonas opened the hearing to the general public. Mr. Dave Richards, 1126 Browning Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84105, spoke next. He has lived in the neighborhood for 20 years and has offices within a couple of blocks of his home. He said the synagogue has • been a great neighbor. They have not increased the parking issues in the neighborhood. He is in favor of the proposed plan and believed most of the other neighbors had similar feelings. Mr. Arthur Reilly, representing the Grand Lodge, Free & Accepted Masons of Utah, spoke next. They are in favor of the proposed plan. Any house of worship is an asset to any neighborhood. It complies with the master plan encouraging a walkable community, and gives the Commission an opportunity to make a strong statement regarding tolerance and diversity. Chabad Lubavitch are excellent neighbors. Mr. Jim Stice, 1094 East Roosevelt Avenue, Salt Lake City, Utah 84105, spoke next. He owns a fourplex in the neighborhood. As a landlord, he is happy to see the community growing. In his opinion, parking issues are not a problem, and Chabad Lubavitch is an asset to the neighborhood. He urged the Commission to endorse the plan. Mr. Nathaniel Hoffelmeyer, a member of the Chabad Lubavitch congregation, spoke next. He recently celebrated his bar mitzvah. There was not enough room in the current synagogue so the event had to be moved to Westminster College. He would appreciate more space to practice his religion. Ms. Cindy Cromer spoke next. She thinks the most dysfunctional zone to come out of • the 1995 zoning ordinance is the RB zone. Chabad Lubavitch's situation is another Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 May 14, 2003 example of how the RB zone constrains development that would support residential fib) use. She supports the application for a rezone. She appealed to the Commission to look comprehensively at the RB zone. The purpose of a conditional use is to address potential adverse impacts. She argued that a conditional use is site specific, and the Commission could not make a conditional use finding by looking at a requirement based on square footage in the ordinance. What the ordinance says based on square footage is, in her opinion, irrelevant. Mr. Jonas invited Rabbi Zippel to rebut any comments. Rabbi Zippel repeated that this project is very important to him and his congregation. Once approval is given to unite the two parcels, they will move forward to pursue an aggressive fund raising endeavor to build the new building. Mr. Jonas closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Commission for discussion and a decision. Mr. Wilde clarified for the record that the off-site parking proposed for Kostas is also a conditional use in the RB zone. That will come back to the Commission as a part of the conditional use process. Mr. Zunguze had a couple of issues to discuss. He said all processes and ordinances are supposed to facilitate good development and uses that add value to the community. He was concerned with the process here in the ordinance with respect to this project. He has talked to Staff and the Deputy City Attorney about it, and will be coming back to the Commission to address it. The project is before the Commission because it does not meet the lot requirement. In his view, it is excessive and overkill to have to make a • zoning change simply because of not meeting a lot requirement. He said they needed to find a way to address issues such as this that do not rise to the level of having to invoke the most sacred of processes -- a zoning change. That process should be reserved for those uses that deserve it. This petition will go all the way to City Council which could take six months or so, and then come back to the Planning Commission for conditional use review. Mr. Zunguze felt this was excessive. Mr. Zunguze then addressed the issues raised by Ms. Cromer. He appreciated that she has issues with the RB zone. However, from a conditional use perspective first and foremost the Commission must find that the application for land use does meet the requirements of City ordinances. Then apply other standards over and above that, as required by the conditional use process. Motion Mr. Daniels moved to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve Petition 400-03-12 to amend the zoning map by changing the zoning designation on 1433 and 1435 South 1100 East from RB to R-1-5000, based on the analysis of the findings of fact listed in the staff report. Ms. Seelig seconded the motion. • Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 May 14, 2003 Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Ms. Noda, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Ms. Seelig, (II Mr. Muir, Ms. McDonough and Ms. Scott voted "Aye". Mr. Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried. Findings of Fact: A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. Findings: The proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Findings: The proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties. Findings: The proposed zoning map amendment will not adversely affect adjacent properties • D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Findings: The proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of the Groundwater Source Protection Overlay zoning district. E. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems, water supplies, and waste water and refuse collection. Findings: Salt Lake City can provide adequate public services to the Douglas School site. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the analysis and the findings presented in this report, the Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve Petition 400-03-12 to amend the zoning map by changing the zoning designation of 1433 and 1435 South 1100 East from RB Residential Business to R-1-5000 Single Family Residential. II This hearing ended at 10:00 p.m. Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 May 14, 2003 • • EXHIBIT 6 6. PUBLIC COMMENT Transmittal of Petition 400-03-12 m .4- i - 03 SLC one. PATE/4540 (4 q \C,P . 'REFeR[NG "tb e412 PHOME CALc! of mAy • l03 ArouT RfZO'tt '* ?RoPeR1A'T / d33hh/i3S (too EAST m -rygic REnuRAKT NOT Coo R IfA S t h*LE PARk nJ¢ BIND His muc'Ib.aERS AJi� R? PPLrn'& OuT au ertwiwj A .c4zsiA 'j cows77i ddR STREET' IFS IDS ; 14l4i CHRLit#i b/Ac No P'4k1VI- ON Th ,eR Lor. ISo 77fe y ��u. Be ADP1Jjm -rztE PoGL.GM iN h BfCr WAY: j HOPE somFarvE oN TYris s ,(s • P rniv ro^trnicoK &i . 02- Uc' Ti4iv NE&ecRc&' A L'er'TLt T ' #ID t') yow2 K,4NiV . 5e4sE 74v)64.;4A, 4 • EXHIBIT 7 7. ORIGINAL PETITION i • Transmittal of Petition 400-03-12 PETITION NO. / (XO ' 0 " f A-• PETITION CHECKLIST Date Initialls Action Required 3/b/0.3 `-' • Petition delivered to Planning /a/f45 (XI Petition assigned to: /i W/0 3 p Planning Staff or Planning Commission Action Date v°, Return Original Letter and Yellow Petition Cover 1f &/,/t3 Chronology 143 L % Property Description (marked with a post it note) 11(2 r7 3 Affected Sidwell Numbers Included t(,-,-- o -60S • y72 3 �!�� � Mailing List for Petition, include appropriate Community Councils '7/Z97os `!j�� Mailing Postmark Date Verification 3/ /off Planning Commission Minutes 37/M/ 3 Planning Staff Report Cover letter outlining what the request is and a brief description of what action the Planning Commission or Staff is recommending. /44 _ Ordinance Prepared by the Attorney's Office /O(O Ordinance property description is checked, dated and initialed by the Planner. Ordinance is stamped by Attorney. _lot- ( 124-P4•5ch--• Planner responsible for taking calls on the Petition • 535-eAft joel.pkfeif-son & 5(c 90 v• c t Date Set for City Council Action Petition filed with City Recorder's Office FOR OFFICE USE ONLY 4t -•_jlrt.N. Patton No. y v40 - —/c- _ - } Revel Zoning Amendment peioab04/�/3A nt$ , • qg Date Received 3 41 �► Reviewed by • ", ;y,�•1 Date March 4, 2003 Name of Applicant Pace Pollard Arch i 1-PPr-ts Phone ern!W� 531 -1 1 33-.- t, rM„ Address of Applicant 2 5 6 Fast 1 0 0 �Q»i h SL UT 8 41 1 1 i;jf,.',:°,t•.° 1 E-mail a±ress of Applicant Susan@pacepo1 1 aril coin Ct11/Fax 8b5 369-4/531 1 2--1-- Applicant's Interest in Subject Property architer-t/owner 's represent ; _ Name of owner;-Chahad T.uhavI t Phone 467 7777 Property ch_of Utah >I Address of Subject Property 1 4 R 1 4 S ni i h 1 1 00 Fast y ,f‘i County'l'ax Pace1# (Sid+e11 #) 1 6-1 7-2 0.8 0-0-4 0 0 0 0 (.11 wing of Property RB Edsting Use ofProperty 16-17-208-005-0000 ‘gleigiSt 4t, y ape7ue .y,.yM 'A.,?:, ^,i oAmend the text of the Zoning Ordinance by aby mending section: "" '` `• p Amend the Zoning Map by reclassifying the following property: 1 4'I 3 & 1 4.,5 S_ 11-0-0 E. F cnta RR c1aSGificatiaxa to a R1 -5000 clAgGificaticn. Please include with the application: :;+r`::,,� 1. A star t of the text artenchetlt or nip amandnent describing the purpose for the auaafirut and the ; ° }` exact language, boundaries and zcnin3 +' 2. A aarplete c ri icn of the propped use of the property vinere i t ws '4�:;''� '4, 3. Reasons why the present zoning is r prc far the area. "' 6;{ice 4. The names and address of al antlers withinth three hundred (300) feet of the ._...., subject parcel.- '.,. occlusive of streets and alleys. 'Ile mare, address and Sill amber of each property owner mast be • / k typed or clearly printed on gunned mai nailing 1 atrls. Please e irz yourself and the appropriate anantrumr ty Could Chair. The cost of first class postage for each address Is due at time of application. Please "".t`' _ do not provide postage stamps. 4.. 5. legal dmoraption of the property. I 6. Six (6) oopies of site plans dawn to cr-a1e (whae a 3cab1e)- " 7. A signed statan nt that the petitioner has rret with and c lain d the proposal to the appropriate Camp -u Y • ''? Candi. 7.Related materials or data supporting the application as say be determined by the Zcning Aclninistratrr. 8.Filing fee of$500.00 plus$100 for each acre over one acre,due at time of application. i� h ! If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this petition,please contact a member of k ti"' °' the Salt Lake City Planning staff(535-7757)prior to submitting the petition. Sidwell maps and names of property owners are available at: Salt lake County Recorder ?' ( 2001 Swath State Street, Room N1600 riBt'/ s I Salt LakeCity, UT 84190-1051 ' ,t • Telephone: (801) 468-3391 1/, - i 7-- 'LOB - (4 14,p I (O.JI Rat - File the complete application at: �L t�' Z° - tso�, I4 3 t z (i'•1g4c) &a1 t Lake 4 ty Flaming 451 South state Suceet, Roan 406- �* Silt lake City, UT 84111 ;; Telephone: (801) 535-7 r r Signature of Applicant ' or authorized agent Title of agent • 1/26/2001 Chabad Lubavitch of Utah Zoning Amendment Application Application for Zoning change 1433 South 1100 East 1435 South 1100 East Amend zoning map by removing the above properties from the RB zone and designating them R1-5000. Complete description for proposed use: The proposed zoning change(from RB to R1-5000)would allow the combining of the two lots into one property allowing for the construction of a new synagogue for Chabad Lubavitch of Utah and associated administrative functions. Presently the lot at 1433 South 1100 East contains a former office building which functions as a worship space while the adjacent lot at 1435 South 1100 East has children's classrooms in a converted residence and an accessory structure at the rear of the lot,a mikvah. A mikvah is a ceremonial bathing house integral to the religious tenets of Judaism and the classrooms are used for Hebrew school which children attend twice weekly. The existing office and classroom buildings would be demolished for new construction, the mikvah would remain. The proposed building will one level above grade and one below. The proposed lot size is approximately 12,500 square feet and the proposed building footprint would not exceed 6000 square feet. The massing of the structure will be such that the above grade level will be broken down into two primary forms which will reduce the visual scale. The current zoning prohibits lots over ten thousand square feet in order to avoid structures which overwhelm the residential neighborhood and the design intent is to present a building which recognizes the existing scale of the area. Materials common to the area will be used. The portion of the structure containing the worship space will take advantage of most of the thirty foot height allowance,the administrative zone will be one story. Given the location on the block and the nearby properties a partial height approaching thirty feet is not out of scale. The zone directly across the street allows for a height of thirty five feet. All setbacks and landscape buffers will be complied with. This project requires no variances or other relief • outside of the zoning change. The synagogue is a conditional use in both its existing zone(RB)and the proposed R1-5000. The conditional use process will allow community input and design review by the planning commission. The proposed use improves the space(in both amount and quality)that houses existing functions and does not add any additional impact on the site. Normal growth of the congregation is expected to occur, however this would cause no noticeable impact. An important component of this re-zoning application lies in the laws of the religion. Jews are prohibited from driving on the Sabbath and the members of this orthodox congregation do not drive to Services. The congregation was established in its present location ten years ago and those who have joined have moved within walking distance of the synagogue in order to keep the laws of the Sabbath. Moving the house of worship out of the neighborhood would cause undue hardship to the congregants as they would all be forced to relocate. A search for a suitable lot within the neighborhood has been done over a period of several years to no avail. The existing zoning(RB)purpose statement is as follows:"....to provide for limited commercial use opportunities within existing residential areas located along higher volume streets while preserving the attractiveness of the area for single-family residential use." The purpose statement for the proposed R1-5000 zone states: "....to provide for conventional single- family neighborhoods on lots not less than five thousand square feet in size." The Zoning Amendment application requests.a statement describing why the present zoning is not appropriate for the area. We feel the RB zone inay be appropriate for Ole area,however it prohibits the assemblage of lots necessary to replace an existing,inadequate synagogue. The proposed synagogue • would be in keeping with the existing area and would not detract from the residential aspect. The Pace Pollard Architects Page 1 of I Chabad Lubavitch of Utah Zoning Amendment Application combined lot size would be a twenty-five percent increase over the allowable lot size in the RB zone. The project has the potential to improve the streetscape as the building at 1433 South is incompatible in scale, massing and form with any residential structure. In Salt Lake City"conventional single-family neighborhoods"almost always contain one or more houses of worship,thus the use is compatible with the • ) RI-5000 zone. Changing the zone to allow a lot larger than ten thousand square feet would not change the intent and purpose of the zone and the conditional use process would provide design review necessary to ensure compatibility. A single-family dwelling(the primary structure in the R1-5000 zone)is a permitted use in the RB zone,therefore the zone change would not allow for uses not already permitted. The current lot configuration contains lots of approximately 4700 square feet and 7800 square feet. In the current RB zone the minimum lot size for any structure is 5000 square feet. The lot could receive hardship relief for its substandard size but with a lot width of only thirty seven feet the available footprint after setbacks would be twenty one feet which is inadequate for a residence or commercial/institutional structure. The inability to combine the lot with an adjacent one leaves the neighborhood with the risk that the lot may become unusable and a blight prospect. Summarizing use changes resulting from the change in zoning,uses that are currently permitted in the RB zone but would become a conditional use in the RI-5000 zone are: Assisted living center,small Daycare Bed&Breakfast Offices&reception centers Uses which are currently permitted,either outright or conditional in the RB zone which would no longer be allowed in the RI-5000 zone are: Residential health care facility Group home,large Boarding house II/ Medical&dental offices Dance studio Restaurant Off-site parking Retail establishments Schools Since the purpose statement for the RB zone mentions"limited commercial use opportunities"the loss of these uses on the specific lots in question would not have a detrimental effect on the existing RB zone. The addition of several uses to the conditional use category improves the level of public input in an area that is of interest to the community. Response to specific standards for a zoning amendment: 1) Is the proposed amendment consistent with the purposes,goals,objectives and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City? The purpose of the RB zone is to recognize an established commercial district with arterial traffic in the heart of a residential area. The lot size limitation was included in the zone as a way to prohibit out-of-scale development that had previously occurred in the area. This application is sensitive to the restrictions and is seeking a zoning change as a remedy for a situation that was not anticipated when the zoning ordinance was enacted. The goal we are trying to achieve is consistent with an objective mentioned numerous times in the Sugar House Master Plan,that objective being pedestrian oriented communities. The synagogue needs to expand in place in order to keep its pedestrian orientation. Should this amendmept be granted,the conditional use • Pace Pollard Architects Page 2 of 2 Chabad Lubavitch of Utah Zoning Amendment Application application that would follow will not propose a massive structure that overwhelms the neighborhood. • The Sugar House Master Plan does not refer specifically to houses of worship. It does however, open the door to resolution of a unique problem such as the one presented by this application. Page thirty-two of the document addresses non-conforming commercial properties. While our issue is slightly different,the objectives are the same. In a discussion about using performance zoning techniques to deal with certain properties the master plan states: "...In some cases these nonconforming businesses have been present and operating for many decades and have served the surrounding residential area without undue harm to that neighborhood. However rezoning the property to commercial bestows upon that property significant values and rights including allowing the possibility that the current use could be replaced with any use permitted in the commercial zone. Therefore the City should be cautious in rezoning these nonconforming properties to commercial. Each one should be considered on its own merits with the public and surrounding residents given the opportunity to provide input into the decision making process."(Italics added) This application requests that the property and its use be looked at as a unique situation worthy of performance zoning. The request for down-zoning is an attempt to allow these to properties to circumvent a prohibitive joining of lots while not allowing the language that prohibits such conjoining to be removed from the zoning ordinance. 2) Is the proposed amendment in harmony with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property? S The requested R1-5000 designation is in harmony with the primarily single-family neighborhood surrounding the property. 3) To what extent will the proposed amendment adversely affect adjacent properties? The proposed amendment will not change the current use of the property. The synagogue is an established entity and the creation of an adequate structure will have no additional impact on the area. 4) Is the proposed amendment consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards? The properties are not in an overlay zone. 5) Are public facilities and services adequate to serve the subject property...? As the use and the demand on the properties will not increase it is anticipated at this time that all services and infrastructure will meet future conditions. • Pace Pollard Architects Page 3 of 3 Page 1 of 1 OPEN ••". Salt Lake City Corporation Invoice#: 062004613 :••'ti \ y'- CED Planning Division Date: 3/20/2003 M Mr, ,c�1-� 451 South State Rm 406 `, ,� = .kr Salt Lake City UT 84111 •,,c.I �,••': 801-535-7757 ••.....till Received From: Prepared by: CHABAD LUBAVITCH OF UTAH Lucille Taylor 1433 South 1100 East Salt Lake City, UT 84105 Description No C. Center Object ProjectActivity Amount Zoning Map Amendment for the property located at 1433 & 1435 South 1100 East to 1 0600100 125111 - - $500.00 be reclassified from RB to a R1-5000, Check No. 4452 Postage for Zoning Map Amendment 2 0600900 1890 - - $19.98 TOTAL AMOUNT $519.98 PAYMENT TYPE CHECK http://slcnet/web_apps/apps/cashonline/olcarp_receipt view.asp?rec_key=12888&user id... 3/20/2003 REMARKS Petition No. 400-03-12 By Chab Lubavitch of Utah Is requesting a Zoning Map Amendment for the property located at 1433 and 1435 South 1100 East from a RB class. ification to a R1-5000 classificatic . I i Date Filed Address • • • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: June 27,2003 SUBJECT: Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund Ordinance Amendment AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: Citywide STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears,Budget&Policy Analyst ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. AND CONTACT PERSON: Community and Economic Development,HAND,LuAnn Clark KEY ELEMENTS: The Administration is proposing that the City Council amend the Salt Lake City Code sections 2.80.080 and 2.80.120. • Section 2.80.080 relates to the meetings of the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board and 411 currently requires a minimum of ten meetings per year with four meetings required to discuss applications for funding. Because there are several months where no applications for funding have been submitted,the Administration is recommending that the Code be amended to require quarterly meetings with additional meetings being held as needed. • Section 2.80.120 relates to powers and duties of the Housing Trust Fund Board.The Administration is recommending that the Code be amended to allow different terms of affordability for projects funded from the Housing Trust Fund.The proposed period of affordability for new construction/rehabilitation and acquisition would be 5 years for projects costing under$15,000,10 years for projects costing$15,000 to$40,000 and 15 years for projects costing over$40,000.These periods of affordability match the standards established by the U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development under their HOME Investment Partnerships Program. MATTERS AT ISSUE OPTIONS: 1. Forward the ordinance to a future Council meeting for consideration. 2. Request additional written information or refer to an additional Council work session. 3. Do not advance the ordinance. > POLICY CONSIDERATIONS AND ANALYSIS IIThe proposed amendments to the Housing Trust Fund Ordinance will not affect the policy objectives of the City with regards to Housing.The changes improve the efficiency of the Board and align the City's process with other funding providers on a state and national level.The proposed ordinance has provisions to address additional meetings,if meetings are needed outside of the standard funding rounds. Proposed revisions to the period of affordability terms • are also recommended so that the City can be consistent with federal funding guidelines and so that developers are more easily able to secure financing for their housing projects and manage the properties within one set of guidelines.As noted in the transmittal from the Administration, it is very difficult for developers to monitor a homeownership unit for 55 years as required by the current ordinance.The current ordinance treats multi-family projects and homeownership projects the same.Because most multi family projects have tax credit financing as a component of their project and requirements on the tax credits state that the units must be maintained as affordable for 99 years,it is not difficult to monitor the units for 55 years.Financing for homeownership units do not have long-term monitoring requirements and are treated differently by funding organizations.The requested amendment will address the differences between multi-family and homeownership housing projects. > BUDGET RELATED FACTS The proposed ordinance revision will not affect the Housing Trust Fund.Each developer that receives funding from the fund may be able to develop projects that conform to standard guideline for all funding sources.The effect of standard affordability guidelines should be increased project development and ease of management cc: Rocky Fluhart,Cindy Gust-Jenson,David Nimkin,Alison Weyher,David Dobbins, LuAnn Clark,and Sandi Marler File location: Michael\Staff Reports\Housing Trust Fund • S jU'' 1. 7 2003 ALISON WEYHER S.�.F` , A\a 'lett@.HMOMS RDSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON • DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart, Cl-ief Administrative Officer DATE: June 10, 2003 FROM: Alison Weyher RE: City Council briefing on Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund Ordinance Amendment STAFF CONTACT: LuAnn Clark DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: The Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board (HTFAB) and the HAND staff have found two requirements in the Housing Trust Fund Ordinance that need some clarification and/or need to be changed. The first issue is the section of the ordinance that requires the HTFAB to meet a minimum of ten times per year with four meetings required to discuss • applications for funding. During the past year the Board has met this requirement by scheduling training events and reviewing applications for funding as they have been filed with the City. There have been months where no applications have been submitted and no training has been scheduled and the HTFAB needed to meet in order to fulfill the requirement of the ordinance. The attendance at HTFAB is very high at meetings where a funding application is being discussed. The HTFAB is recommending the ordinance be amended to require quarterly meetings with additional meetings being held as needed. This change would make the HTFAB meetings more compatible to the other two major affordable funding housing agencies—The Utah Housing Corporation and the Olene Walker Housing Trust Fund (OWHTF). The Utah Housing Corporation has two competitive rounds for funding - one in April and the other in October. The OWHTF meets four times a year— March, June, September and December. The change would also group the tax credit projects approved in each of the rounds to be reviewed at the same time rather than throughout the year. The HTFAB also understands that there will be times throughout the year when additional meetings may need to be scheduled to accommodate funding needs of a particular project. Those meetings would be scheduled under the requirements currently outlined in the ordinance under Special Meetings. The second issue is the term of affordability for projects funded from Housing Trust Fund. The ordinance requires that a project funded by the Trust Fund remain affordable for the remainder of the life of the housing units (a minimum of 55 years) as long as a good faith effort is made to maintain and rehabilitate it as necessary. This requirement works well for multi-family projects because most have tax credits where the project is required to be maintained as affordable for 99 years. The ordinance does not have a separate affordability requirement established for homeownership projects. If the 55- year requirement were used for these projects, it would create a huge burden on project developers. 110 Even the nonprofit agencies that receive federal funds and are required to follow the HUD HOME requirements of up to 15 years would find it very difficult to monitor a homeownership unit for 55 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-6230 FAX: 801-535-6005 is 4: E. Eo Pnrew years. The requirement would also make the unit more difficult to sell because it would limit the amount of equity an owner would receive if they sold the unit. The Board is recommending that the • required period of affordability for home ownership projects be changed to match the standards established by HUD under their HOME Investment Partnerships Program as follows: New Construction/Rehabilitation/Acquisition Period of Affordability Under$15,000 5 years $15,000 to$40,000 10 years Over$40,000 15 years Affordability under the HOME Program is based upon how much money is put into the project and most projects require 15 years. However, many of the nonprofit and for-profit developers may find the 15-year requirement still very burdensome. If there were no federal dollars in the project, it would require them to establish a tracking system as well as have cash available to repurchase the property to guarantee that the next owner would meet the affordability guidelines. S S • SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2003 (Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board Amendments) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2.80.080,SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO MEETINGS OF THE HOUSING TRUST FUND ADVISORY BOARD; AND AMENDING SECTION 2.80.120,SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE HOUSING TRUST FUND ADVISORY BOARD Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Section 2.80.080, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to meetings of the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 2.80.080 Meetings: A. The board shall convene for regular quarterly meetings to be held at least four(4) • times each year. Additional meetings may be held as needed in order to conduct the business of the Housing Trust Fund. To the extent that meetings of the board are governed by title 52, chapter 4, Utah Code Annotated, 1953, as amended, or its successor, said meetings shall be conducted in compliance with said state law. Meetings shall be held at the city and county building, or at such other public place as may be designated by the board. Six (6)members of the board shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of holding meetings. The board may act officially by an affirmative vote of a majority of members present. B. Special meetings may be called by a majority of the board, the chairperson, or the mayor. The call for a special meeting must be signed by the member calling such meeting and, unless waived in writing, each member not joining in the order for such special meeting must be given not less than three (3)hours'notice. Said notice shall be served personally or left at the member's residence or business office. Meetings shall be held at such public place as may be . designated by the board. C. The board shall cause a written record of its proceedings to be kept which shall be available for public inspection in the office of the director. The board shall record the yea and nay votes of any action taken by it. The director shall make available a secretary to the board when required. D. The board shall adopt a system of rules of procedure under which its meetings are to be held. The board may suspend the rules and procedures by unanimous vote of the members of the board who are present at the meeting. The board shall not suspend the rules of procedure beyond the duration of the meeting at which suspension of the rules occurs. SECTION 2. That Section 2.80.120, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to powers and duties of the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as • follows: 2.80.120 Powers and Duties: The board shall have the following powers and duties: A. Determine and establish such rules and regulations for the conduct of the board as the members shall deem advisable; provided, however, that such rules and regulations shall not be in conflict with this chapter or its successor, or other city, state or federal law. B. Recommend the adoption and alteration of all rules, regulations and ordinances which it shall, from time to time, deem in the public interest and for the purposes of carrying out the objects of this chapter; provided,however, that such rules and regulations shall not be in conflict with this chapter or its successor, or other city, state or federal law. 2 C. Consult with experts in areas such as finance, real estate, and affordable housing development to obtain advice on specific projects. D. Advise and make recommendations to the city administration and the city council on affordable housing and special needs housing issues which may include,but not be limited to: 1. The means to implement the policies and goals of this chapter and the city's community housing plan and policies; 2. Criteria by which loans and grants should be made, using the city's consolidated plan as a guide to determine housing gaps; 3. The order in which projects and programs should be funded; 4. The distribution of any monies or assets contained in the fund according to the procedures, conditions, and restrictions placed upon the use of those monies or assets by any • government entity; 5. The distribution of all other monies from the fund according to the following guidelines: a. Sufficient fund monies shall be distributed as loans to assure a reasonable stream of income to the fund from loan repayments. These may range from short-term construction loans to long-term acquisition loans; b. Loans shall be recommended in accordance with the borrower's ability to pay,but no more than fifty percent(50%) of the per unit costs shall be recommended; c. Fund monies and assets not distributed as loans shall be distributed as grants; • 3 d. All fund monies and assets shall be distributed to benefit households • earning one hundred percent(100%) or less of the area median income; e. Not less than one-half(1/2) of all fund monies and assets shall be distributed to benefit households earning fifty percent(50%) or less of the area median income; f. The board may recommend that the mayor, with the consent of the council, grant or lend fund monies or assets to housing sponsors. Housing sponsors must assure long-term housing for the target population and provide evidence of continued affordability of the assisted housing throughout the remaining life of the housing unit as long as a good faith effort is made to maintain and rehabilitate it as necessary. The term of affordability for rental multi-family housing units will be 55 years. The term of affordability for home ownership housing units is as follows: New Construction/Rehabilitation/Acquisition Period of Affordability • Under$15,000 5 years $15,000 to $40,000 10 years Over$40,000 15 years The single family required affordability period has been established based on the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development HOME Investment Partnerships Program. g. Fund monies and assets may be recommended by the board to be used to obtain matching funds from government entities or other sources, consistent with the intent of this chapter. E. The board may recommend fund monies or assets be provided to any of the following activities: 4 1. Acquisition, leasing, rehabilitation, or new construction of housing units for ownership or rental, including transitional housing; 2. Emergency home repairs; 3. Retrofitting to provide access for persons with disabilities; 4. Down payment and closing cost assistance; 5. Construction and gap financing; 6. Land acquisition for purposes consistent with the purposes of this chapter; 7. Technical assistance; 8. Other activities and expenses incurred that directly assist in providing the housing for eligible households in the city, consistent with the intent of this chapter. F. Fund monies shall not be used for administrative expenses. G. The board shall develop an application process to be recommended to the mayor and council for approval. Said process may be reviewed from time to time by the council. H. The board and HAND shall review and monitor the activities of recipients of grants and loans issued under this chapter on an annual basis, or more often as may be deemed necessary, to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions imposed on the recipient by the mayor and the council under this chapter and under any and all instruments and documents entered into between the city and the recipient pursuant to this chapter. 1. Entities receiving grants or loans shall provide to the board and HAND an annual accounting of how the monies or assets received from the fund have been used. 2. An annual report shall be prepared by the board and HAND which shall contain information concerning the implementation of this chapter. The report shall include, but is not 5 limited to, information regarding the location and numbers of units developed or preserved,the numbers and incomes of households served, and detailing the income to and assets in the fund, • and the expenditures and uses of fund monies and assets. 3. The annual report shall include the board's and HAND's assessment of housing needs in the city,barriers to affordable and special needs housing development and reservation, and barriers to the implementation of this chapter. 4. The annual report shall be submitted to the mayor and the council for review by March 31 of each calendar year. 5. Appropriations by the council to the fund shall be considered as part of the budget process. I. Serve as a coordination body and resource for organizations interested in affordable and special needs housing issues affecting the city including,but not limited to,the • housing authority of Salt Lake City, the Salt Lake City redevelopment agency, the housing and neighborhood development division, and other city departments as appropriate, as well as nonprofit and for-profit housing developers. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of 2003. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: • 6 • CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER • (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO M Salt Lake t Attorneys Office Bill No. of 2003. Date 6--' "°/ 3 Published: By "14/ u— G:\Ordinance 03\Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board amendments 05-28-03 clean • 7 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE • No. of 2003 (Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board Amendments) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2.80.080,SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO MEETINGS OF THE HOUSING TRUST FUND ADVISORY BOARD;AND AMENDING SECTION 2.80.120,SALT LAKE CITY CODE,RELATING TO POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE HOUSING TRUST FUND ADVISORY BOARD Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah: SECTION 1.That Section 2.80.080,Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to meetings of the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board be,and the same hereby is,amended to read as follows: 2.80.080 Meetings: ,{Deleted:ten A. The board shall convene for regular quarterly meetings to be held at least fou>:(4� _:::.- {Deleted:to times each year.Additional meetings may be held as needed in order to conduct the business of the Housing Trust Fund. To the extent that meetings of the board are governed by title 52, chapter 4,Utah Code Annotated, 1953,as amended,or its successor,said meetings shall be • conducted in compliance with said state law.Meetings shall be held at the city and county building,or at such other public place as may be designated by the board.Six(6)members of the board shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of holding meetings.The board may act officially Deleted: At least four(4)meetings byan affirmative vote of a majority of members resent B. Special meetings may be beta each year shah incline making .l �' present, recommendations regarding allocation or distribution of assets from the fund.¶ called by a majority of the board,the chairperson,or the mayor.The call for a special meeting must be signed by the member calling such meeting and,unless waived in writing,each member not joining in the order for such special meeting must be given not less than three(3)hours' • notice.Said notice shall be served personally or left at the member's residence or business office. Meetings shall be held at such public place as may be designated by the board. III C. The board shall cause a written record of its proceedings to be kept which shall be available for public inspection in the office of the director.The board shall record the yea and nay votes of any action taken by it.The director shall make available a secretary to the board when required. D. The board shall adopt a system of rules of procedure under which its meetings are to be held.The board may suspend the rules and procedures by unanimous vote of the members of the board who are present at the meeting.The board shall not suspend the rules of procedure beyond the duration of the meeting at which suspension of the rules occurs. SECTION 2.That Section 2.80.120,Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to powers and duties of the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 2.80.120 Powers and Duties: The board shall have the following powers and duties: III A. Determine and establish such rules and regulations for the conduct of the board as the members shall deem advisable;provided,however,that such rules and regulations shall not be in conflict with this chapter or its successor,or other city,state or federal law. B. Recommend the adoption and alteration of all rules,regulations and ordinances which it shall,from time to time,deem in the public interest and for the purposes of carrying out the objects of this chapter;provided,however,that such rules and regulations shall not be in conflict with this chapter or its successor,or other city,state or federal law. 2 • C. Consult with experts in areas such as finance,real estate,and affordable housing IIdevelopment to obtain advice on specific projects. D. Advise and make recommendations to the city administration and the city council on affordable housing and special needs housing issues which may include,but not be limited to: I.The means to implement the policies and goals of this chapter and the city's community housing plan and policies; 2.Criteria by which loans and grants should be made,using the city's consolidated plan as a guide to determine housing gaps; 3.The order in which projects and programs should be funded; 4.The distribution of any monies or assets contained in the fund according to the procedures,conditions,and restrictions placed upon the use of those monies or assets by any government entity; 5.The distribution of all other monies from the fund according to the following guidelines: • a. Sufficient fund monies shall be distributed as loans to assure a reasonable stream of income to the fund from loan repayments.These may range from short-term construction loans to long-term acquisition loans; b.Loans shall be recommended in accordance with the borrower's ability to pay,but no more than fifty percent(50%)of the per unit costs shall be recommended; c.Fund monies and assets not distributed as loans shall be distributed as grants; 3 • d.All fund monies and assets shall be distributed to benefit households earning one hundred percent(100%)or less of the area median income; • e.Not less than one-half(1/2)of all fund monies and assets shall be distributed to benefit households earning fifty percent(50%)or less of the area median income; f.The board may recommend that the mayor,with the consent of the council,grant or lend fund monies or assets to housing sponsors.Housing sponsors must assure long-term housing for the target population and provide evidence of continued affordability of Deleted:(a minimum of 55 years), ) the assisted housing throughout the remaining life of the housing unitAs long as agood faith effort is made to maintain and rehabilitate it as necessary. The term of affordability for rental multi-family housing units will be 55 years. The term of affordability for home ownership housing units is as follows: New Construction/Rehabilitation/Acquisition Period of Affordability Under$15,000 5 years $15,000 to$40,000 10 years Over$40,000 15 years • The single family required affordability period has been established based on the U.S. Depait►:ient of Housing and Urban Development HOME Investment Partnerships Program. g.Fund monies and assets may be recommended by the board to be used to obtain matching funds from government entities or other sources,consistent with the intent of this chapter. E. The board may recommend fund monies or assets be provided to any of the following activities: 4 • • 1.Acquisition,leasing,rehabilitation,or new construction of housing units for 1111/ ownership or rental,including transitional housing; 2.Emergency home repairs; 3.Retrofitting to provide access for persons with disabilities; 4.Down payment and closing cost assistance; 5.Construction and gap financing; 6.Land acquisition for purposes consistent with the purposes of this chapter; 7.Technical assistance; 8.Other activities and expenses incurred that directly assist in providing the housing for eligible households in the city,consistent with the intent of this chapter. F. Fund monies shall not be used for administrative expenses. G. The board shall develop an application process to be recommended to the mayor and council for approval.Said process may be reviewed from time to time by the council. H. The board and HAND shall review and monitor the activities of recipients of • grants and loans issued under this chapter on an annual basis,or more often as may be deemed necessary,to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions imposed on the recipient by the mayor and the council under this chapter and under any and all instruments and documents entered into between the city and the recipient pursuant to this chapter. 1.Entities receiving grants or loans shall provide to the board and HAND an annual accounting of how the monies or assets received from the fund have been used. 2.An annual report shall be prepared by the board and HAND which shall contain information concerning the implementation of this chapter.The report shall include,but is not 5 • limited to,information regarding the location and numbers of units developed or preserved,the numbers and incomes of households served,and detailing the income to and assets in the fund, III and the expenditures and uses of fund monies and assets. 3.The annual report shall include the board's and HAND's assessment of housing needs in the city,barriers to affordable and special needs housing development and reservation, and barriers to the implementation of this chapter. 4.The annual report shall be submitted to the mayor and the council for review by March 31 of each calendar year. 5.Appropriations by the council to the fund shall be considered as part of the budget process. I. Serve as a coordination body and resource for organizations interested in affordable and special needs housing issues affecting the city including,but not limited to,the housing authority of Salt Lake City,the Salt Lake City redevelopment agency,the housing and neighborhood development division,and other city departments as appropriate,as well as nonprofit and for-profit housing developers. • SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah this day of , 2003. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: 6 • • CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2003. Published: • G:\Ordinance 03\Honsing Tmst Fund Advisory Board amendments 05-28-03 draft 7 • • HOUSING TRUST FUND ADVISORY BOARD Meeting of May 15, 2003 The following board members were in attendance: Curtis Anderson, Ed Barbanel!, Karen Cahoon, John Francis, Cara Lingstuyl, Peter Morgan, Geneva Powell and Richard Tyler. Staff members in attendance were LuAnn Clark, Director of Housing and Neighborhood Development, Sandi Marler, CD Programs Administrator, Jan Davis, Administrative Secretary and City Council staff Marge Harvey. Chairperson Cara Lingstuyl called the meeting to order at 12:07p.m. Approval of Minutes Peter Morgan motioned to approve the April 17, 2003 minutes. Geneva Powell seconded the motion. All voted "Aye." The motion passed. Reconsider the Request by Morse Health & Housing, Inc. for funding for rehabilitation of the Laurelwood Apartments located at 1341 South State Street. Morse Health & Housing, Inc., in partnership with Utah Nonprofit Housing Corporation, is proposing to renovate the Laurelwood Apartments located at 1341 South State Street. It was determined by the Board at the April 17th meeting that before approving the loan additional details were required pertaining to loan cost inconsistencies. • Jonathan Morse, President/CEO of Morse Health & Housing, Inc., Mr. Marion Willey and Mr. David Baus of Utah Nonprofit Housing Corporation were present to respond to the Board's concerns regarding the inconsistencies. Mr. Baus explained that he was the one that put the rehab costs together and apologized for the cost inconsistencies. Mr. Baus said that by eliminating the fitness center this created a cost savings of approximately$120,000, and the duplication error of the contractor's fee resulted in a reduction of approximately $80,000/$90,000. Mr. Baus said that these costs were basically where the gap was in the project budget. Mr. Baus stated that the syndication/financing costs did go up and that was due to negative arbitrage as part of the bond agreement with HUD. Mr. Baus explained the negative arbitrage monies obligation and how it applies to the project. Mr. Baus outlined the agreement with Valley Mental Health for 20 units. Mr. Willey said that the requirement for the bond is 10 units but they would provide 20 units for Valley Mental Health. In the event of vacancies, Valley Mental Health will have first priority to place its clients within a reasonable time frame. If Valley Mental Health does not have a client on their waiting list at the time of a vacancy, the applicants may fill the unit with other tenants. New Valley Mental Health clients will then be placed at the top of the waiting list for the next available unit until the set- aside units have been filled. Mr. Baus stated that if it is a requirement by the HTF Board, it can be specified in the loan documents that Valley Mental Health will be entitled to 20 units instead of the 10 required for the bond, that the first priority on the waiting list will go to Valley Mental Health clients and they will be provided 36 hours or a reasonable amount of time to respond. The Board expressed concern that the current tenants are uneasy believing that the building • may possibly be in jeopardy and that they could be displaced. The Board feels that Morse Housing needs to submit a letter to the tenants informing them of the renovation plans with the assurance that their residency is not at risk, and that Morse Housing and Utah Nonprofit should schedule a meeting with the residents to lessen their fears. Both Mr. Baus and Mr. Willey • assured the Board this request would be accomplished in the next three weeks. The applicants provided the requested letter of support from the People's Freeway Community Council, as well as a copy of the appraisal. Peter Morgan motioned to approve the loan request for$200,000 at 3% interest for 40 years subject to the following conditions; 1) that 10 units, in addition to the 10 units required by the bond, be guaranteed to be set aside for Valley Mental Health with first priority on the waiting list and they be provided a reasonable amount of time to respond; 2) a meeting be scheduled with the residents of the Laurelwood Apartments outlining the renovation. Ed Barbanel) seconded the motion. All voted "Aye." The motion passed. Discuss amendment to the Housing Trust Fund Ordinance Ms. LuAnn Clark referred to the proposed amendments to the HTF Ordinance regarding scheduled meeting changes as shown on page 5 of the ordinance. Language requiring ten meetings per year will be changed to reflect four meetings on a quarterly basis with additional meetings being held as needed. Ms. Clark referred to the change of housing sponsors providing continued affordability in maintaining the life of rental multi-family housing. Ms. Clark said for single family homeownership projects, it is almost impossible for a nonprofit to monitor the housing unit for 55 years, therefore, it was recommended to change the required period of affordability as established by HUD under their HOME Program. Ms. Clark stated that affordability is based upon how much money is put into the project and that most of the projects require 15 years. A discussion followed between the Board and Staff in relation to projects that would be applicable to the ordinance change, and how the change will influence future Board recommendations for funds relating to the term of affordability as recognized by HUD. Ed Barbanell motioned to approve the amendments to the HTF Ordinance as established by HUD's HOME Investment Partnerships Program. Richard Tyler seconded the motion. All voted "Aye." The motion passed. Finalize funding recommendations for Housing Trust Fund Ms. Clark stated the recommended funding sources previously discussed and agreed upon by the Board will now be presented to the City Council. Ms. Clark advised the Board that it would not be until after the first of July before the Council would be able to discuss the Board's funding recommendations. Ms. Clark advised she will keep the Board informed. Monthly HTF Update by LuAnn Clark Ms. Clark said that Peter Corroon's Second West Apartment project is in the process of closing and will be starting construction. Ms. Clark advised that the City qualified for federal Housing Opportunities for Persons with Aids (HOPWA)funding and that the counties of Davis, Weber and Salt Lake will have to apply to Salt Lake City for funds. Ms. Clark informed the Board that the City Council wanted a City board to review all applications that will be submitted in September 2003. Under the current process, the • HOPWA applications are reviewed by the entitlement cities in the tri-county eligible area as well as a board established by the State of Utah familiar with HIV/AIDS issues. From this point 2 forward, the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board will also review these applications along with the HOME Investment Partnerships Program applications. These applications will be reviewed sometime between November and January each year. It was agreed between Staff and the Board that no meeting will held on June 19th if no applications have been received. Ms. Sandi Marler will notify the Board by June 12th if there will be a meeting. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 1:08 p.m. • • 3 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: June 27,2003 SUBJECT: Amendments to the Criteria for Considering Private Activity Bonds AIIEC t Ell COUNCIL DISTRICTS: Citywide STAFF REPORT BY: Gary Mumford ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Community&Economic Development AND CONTACT PERSON: LuAnn Clark KEY ELEMENTS: On December 13,2001,the Council adopted an ordinance establishing review criteria for evaluating applications for private activity bonds. The ordinance required that all private activity bonds be secured by a direct-pay letter-of-credit from a financial institution with at least a"AA"rating. The ordinance also established a fee schedule for issuance of the bonds. The amendment proposes three changes: 1. Allows publicly offered bonds to be secured by either a letter-of-credit or by bond insurance from a"AAA" rated municipal bond insurer. • 2. Waves the requirements for letter-of-credit or bond insurance for privately placed bonds once the City has received written confirmation from the investor that it understands the risks associated with this type of investment and that under no circumstance will non-payment or a default on the bonds constitute any financial obligation or liability for the City. 3. Sets fees so that the City's financial advisor can be formally involved in the review process to ensure that the City's interests are protected. MATTERS AT ISSUF/QUESTIONS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION: Private activity bonds are tax-exempt bonds issued by municipalities but backed solely by a private entity on whose behalf the bonds are issued. No real or implied guarantee or obligation for payment of the bonds is assumed by the municipality. Entities that qualify for such tax-exempt financing include nonprofit organizations that provide health care or educational services. Certain small manufacturing firms also qualify,under IRS regulations, as potential beneficiaries of this type of financing. Small manufacturing is defined as entities with a maximum of$15 million total debt including the requested bonds. In Utah,qualified manufacturing entities must receive a"volume cap" allocation from the Utah Private Activity Bond Authority before such bonds can be issued. Health care and educational borrowers are exempt from volume cap requirements. The IRS has established"volume caps"for each state as a way of controlling the maximum amount of tax-exempt financing that can occur for small manufacturing entities. Private activity bonds for manufacturing entities are also referred to as"industrial development revenue bonds." If the City Council decides to issue bonds,the Council will adopt an inducement resolution, • conduct a hearing under the Tax Equality and Fiscal Responsibility Act(TEFRA),and authorize issuance of the bonds. The main advantage of private activity bonds is the lower interest cost for the private entity due to the tax-exempt feature. Local Governments generally issue private activity bonds to encourage the location of new or expanded facilities within their boundaries. These facilities increase the tax base,improve employment opportunities,or expand health care and educational opportunities for residents. Credit enhancement- Under the City's current criteria, the only acceptable credit enhancement for such bonds is a direct-pay letter-of-credit. In the municipal bond industry, however,another generally acceptable form of credit enhancement is bond insurance from a municipal bond insurer. The Administration proposes that bond insurance be added as an additional option for credit enhancement purposes. Sophisticated investor letter-The reasons for requiring credit enhancement include protecting the City's name,its investment-grade bond ratings as well as shielding small individual investors. Under a private placement scenario,however,a"sophisticated investor" has evaluated the risks associated with the private entity and understands that the City doesn't have any obligation or liability relating to the bonds. The Administration is proposing that in the case of a private placement,credit enhancement would not be required if the investor provides the City with a"sophisticated investor letter" which generally provides the following: (1)the investor will hold the bonds in its own portfolio, (2)the investor routinely purchases similar investments, (3)the investor has researched the financial condition of the private entity,(4)the investor understands the risks,(5) the investor will only look to the private entity for repayment of the bonds,and(6) the investor covenants not to look to the City for payment in case of default. The exact language of the sophisticated investor letter will be negotiated between bond counsel and the City Attorney's Office. Fees-The City currently charges a non-refundable application fee of$1,000 for a new issue or $500 for a refunding issue. At the time of closing,a fee of$15,000 to$25,000 is charged to cover administrative costs for acting as a conduit issuer on private activity bonds. The amount of the fee is$7,500 plus a portion relating to the principal face amount of the bonds. In addition to these fees,the Administration is proposing that a fee of$1.75 per$1,000 par amount of the bonds be paid to the City's financial advisor with a minimum of$7,500 per transaction. Should the proposed bond issue not close for any reason,the private entity would owe nothing besides the small application fee that they would have already paid to the City. Under the proposal,the City's financial advisor would become formally involved in the process to help it move smoothly and ensure that the City's interests are fully protected. The fee is consistent with amounts in the City's current financial advisory contract relating to bonds issued by the City. The Council may wish to ask representatives of the Administration about whether they have researched best practices by surveying criteria and fees set by Salt Lake County,neighboring • Utah cities, and additional local governments in other states. • OPTIONS: The Council may wish to advance this ordinance to a future Council Meeting for consideration. There is not an urgency to adopt the amendment since there have not been any contacts with entities that may be contemplating submitting an application for private activity bonds. The Council may wish to give the Administration more time to research best practices for setting criteria for private activity bonds. cc: Rocky Fluhart,David Nimkin,Alison Weyher,LuAnn Clark,JD Baxter • MAY 1 3 2003 • ALISON WEYHER -` i � Q-er v11 �e v'+'-' .�- j - -A. 1 — ° . ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMI- L e TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer DAT ': May 8, 2003 FROM: Alison Weyher \/= RE: Amendments to the criteria for co ' ' g private activity bonds. STAFF CONTACT: LuAnn Clark, HAND Director DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution BUDGET IMPACT: N/A DISCUSSION: The City Council adopted Resolution No. 91 of 2001 to establish review criteria for the approval of private activity bonds. It provided that all revenue bonds be secured by a direct-pay-letter-of-credit from a financial institution with at least a 'AA' rating, established a fee schedule for issuance of the bonds, and outlined factors to consider in evaluating an application. • The attached resolution makes two amendments to Resolution No. 91 of 2001. First, it permits publicly offered revenue bonds to be secured by either a letter-of-credit as referenced above or bond insurance from a `AAA'-rated municipal bond insurer. In the case of private placements, it also provides a mechanism to waive the above requirements. These changes are intended to accommodate the needs of applicants for private activity bonds and maintain the security of the City. Second, it includes a fee to be paid by the applicant to the City's Financial Advisor for services provided to the City associated with issuance of the bonds. In the past the City's Financial Advisor has not been formally involved in private activity bond financings but, given the increased activity and requests for such financings, it makes sense to have the City's Financial Advisor more formally involved in the process to help it move smoothly and ensure that the City's interests are fully protected. The fee is consistent with the amount identified in the City's Financial Advisory Services contract for various revenue bond issues. It will be incorporated into the cost of issuance of the bonds and paid by the entity on whose behalf the City issues the bonds. • 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH S41 1 1 TELEPHONE: S01-535-6230 FAX: 801-535-5005 '�'r aeevceo PAPEa RESOLUTION No. OF 2003 • AMENDING RESOLUTION No. 91 OF 2001 PRIVATE ACTIVITY BONDS WHEREAS, Salt Lake City established review criteria for the approval of private activity bonds and related matters in Resolution No. 91 of 2001; and WHEREAS, the City now desires to amend the aforementioned review criteria for private activity bonds; and WHEREAS, Salt Lake City is authorized pursuant to the provisions of the Utah Industrial Facilities and Development Act, Title 11, Chapter 17, Utah Code Annotated 1053, as amended (the "Act"), to issue its revenue bonds to finance, for the benefit of a private entity("Private Entity"), the costs of any"project" (as defined in the Act) constructed by that Private Entity within the boundaries of the City; and WHEREAS, revenue bond financing under the Act may qualify for tax- exempt status under the Internal Revenue Code, and provide other significant benefits to the Private Entity owning the project; and WHEREAS, revenue bonds issued under the Act do not constitute or impose 411 upon the City any financial obligation or liability; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to encourage the location of new or expanded facilities within the City, of the type and nature described in the Act, for the purpose of facilitating business development, increasing the tax base, improving employment opportunities and achieving the other public purposes enumerated in the Act; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to establish criteria for considering applications for revenue bond financing under the Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1. Credit Enhancement. All publicly offered revenue bonds issued by the City on behalf of a Private Entity under the Act shall be credit enhanced be either a bond insurance policy issued by a `AAA'-rated municipal bond insurer, or by a direct-pay- letter-of-credit from a financial institution with at least a 'AA' rating. Evidence of the availability of such bond insurance or letter-of-credit shall be provided to the City prior to the adoption of the final bond resolution. In the case where the proposed bonds are to be sold on a private placement basis to a sophisticated investor or group of sophisticated investors (a"Sophisticated Investor"), the City's credit enhancement requirement will be waived once the City has received written confirmation from a Sophisticated Investor that III iit understands the risks associated with this type of investment and that under no circumstance will non-payment or a default on the bonds constitute or impose upon the City any financial obligation or liability. 2. Fee Schedule. A fee shall be payable to the City by the corporate entity on whose behalf the revenue bonds are to be issued, which fee shall be calculated as follows: (a) Payable to the City at the time of application: non-refundable $1,000 for a new issue, or$500 for a refunding issue; and (b) Payable to the City at Closing: $7,500 plus .15% of the principal face amount of the bonds for the first $5,000,000, .10% for the second $5,000,000, .075% for the third$5,000,000, and .05% for the fourth$5,000,000 principal face amount of the bonds; provided that the minimum fee for any issue shall be $15,000, and a maximum fee for any issue shall be $25,000; and (c) Payable to the City's Financial Advisor at Closing: $1.75 per $1,000 par amount of the bonds, with a minimum of$7,500, for financial advisory services associated with the issuance of the proposed bonds. Should the proposed bond issue not close for any reason, the Private Entity would owe nothing to the City's Financial Advisor. • 3. The applicant shall address each of the following to the satisfaction of the City Council: • Will the project have a positive economic impact on the community? • What social and physical benefits will be realized by the City? • How many new jobs will be created, at what levels, and at what percentage of the applicant's total payroll will they comprise? • Does the project contribute to the development of underutilized property in the City? • Does the project serve unmet needs of City residents? • Does the project generate synergies for the development of surrounding properties? • What is the current vitality of the proposed applicant and what impact will the proposed expansion have in the applicant? • Does the direct pay letter of credit ensure terms and conditions that are acceptable to the City? • Has the applicant's financial performance remained relatively • stable for the past three years? • Has the applicant clearly identified the sources and uses of funds? • Does the applicant's finance plan identify how the bond will be repaid? Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2003. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: CHAIR ATTEST: _- Chief Deputy City Recorder Cc„--"4. • JUN 2 4 2003 ' °r A\a art �N�'°�e' I,O ALISON WEYHER -�. o�s ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON_ DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer DATE: April 29, 2003 FROM: Alison Weyher RE: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to accept the Utah State Dep.'.tnient of Transportation (UDOT) grants awarded to Salt Lake City's Fire Department and Police Department. STAFF CONTACT: Sherrie Collins, 535-6150 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council consider the resolution DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution BUDGET IMPACT: The City will receive a$90,000 grant • DISCUSSION: The Salt Lake City Fire Department and Police Department, partnering with UDOT, applied for and received a grant from the Federal Highway Administration. This grant was awarded to UDOT, which is sub-granting the funds to the City's Police and Fire departments. The Fire and Police departments have each been awarded funds separately in the amounts of$45,000 each. These funds, totaling$90,000, will be used for the purchase and installation of a Computer Aided Dispatch(CAD) system. The CAD system, integrating with Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technologies, will enable seamless sharing of information between highway traffic management and public safety responders, enhancing emergency response. It is expected that a significant enhancement of public safety operations by providing field personnel and first and second responders with accurate, real-time operational data through the use of mobile data computers will improve public safety. Through information sharing across organizations and jurisdictions, equipment and personnel can be more efficiently deployed, incidents can be cleared faster, and incidents scenes can be made safer for the responders and traveling public. Integrating highway traffic management with public safety systems will accomplish this goal. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-6230 FAX: 601-535-6005 RECYCLED PAPER • RESOLUTION NO. OF 2003 AUTHORIZING SALT LAKE CITY TO ACCEPT THE GRANT AGREEMENT FROM THE STATE OF UTAH, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13 Utah Code Ann. , as amended, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, the attached grant agreement has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1 . It does hereby authorize and approve of SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION accepting the two grants in the amounts of $45, 000 . 00 each, totaling $90, 000 . 00 of grant funding described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, from the State of Utah, Department of Transportation, to expend for the purposes of : The purchase and installation of the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system, which will enable seamless sharing of information and enhanced emergency response by sharing information across organizations and jurisdictions, transportation, law enforcement, fire and emergency medical personnel to improve public safety. 2 . Ross C. Anderson, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby authorized to receive said grant award and execute any and all subsequent agreements between the City and other entities resulting from the said Award on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation, so long as such subsequent agreements do not depart substantively from the grant award approved herein. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day day of , 2003 . Salt Lake City Council By Chairperson ATTEST : Ak✓rpoV AS /CI forTR tr Es& !.Apia 4-4v Mterr.�v ..7..Jag Salt Lake City Corporation CAMP DOCUMENT ROUTING FORM CITY SIGNATURE AND ACTIVATION PROCESS • April 25,2003 Contract Number: 06-5-03-7192 Project: Contractor: 18971 UTAH STATE DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION UDOT Contract Title: MOA-SALT LAKE CITY CORP&UDOT Monitor: SHERRIE COLLINS Please complete your Step and forward to the next Step. rf STEP I ' ACCOtJIVTSNG D YISIoN-Encumber Funds " . I certify that funds are available. OR Accounting Signature Date I certify that no encumbrance is required at this time and any future encumbrance will be checked against available budget by the accounting system. Accounting Signature Date 9 Funding Source: - - 4� Dept Cost Center Object Code\AA) . 0,1/11\\ $ Attach additional paperwork if more funding sources are needed. Limit$ ,TA.1 CITY A,TTORNEY'S OFFICE-Final Approval 1;,'; Attorney: ( / Insurance Required: y Perf Bond Required: N Pmt Bond Required: N This document has been approved as to form. Attorney's Signature Date STEP,3 ( MAYOR'S OFFICE-Sign"Dactynerii° 1 INSTRUCTIONS: Sign ALL documents/4 Authorized Signer: / U-L- en Name Dept/Div Forward ALL Signed documents to the Recorder's Office 1 I " - 1 RECORDER'S OFFICE-Activate INSTRUCTIONS: • When activated,keep 1 signed e fument, send other signed document(s)to: Name Department or Division Phone /O,�'',OF Tgs p •0 ; Sao 40, Jr..NA 41 Michael O.Leavitt State of Utah John R.Njord,P.E. Governor Department of Transportation Executive Director March 24, 2003 Mr. John Vuyk Salt Lake City Fire Department 315 East 200 South Salt Lake City UT 84111 Dear Mr. Vuyk: Subject: Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) Enclosed is an executed copy of the agreement between Salt Lake City and UDOT in support of the CAD System Integration -Traffic Management Center- Field Operation Test, awarded to UDOT under FHWA Cooperative Agreement number DTFH61-03-X-00023. • This copy is for your files. When submitting project correspondence or invoices in association with this MOA, please specify that it is for the fire department and include the following contract information to ensure prompt processing: Contract No. 03-8461 Project No. ITS-9999(333) CID No. 4002630H Address project correspondence to: Richard Manser, ITS Deployment Engineer Traffic Operations Center 2010 South 2760 West Salt Lake City UT 84104-4592 Through this agreement,the city will receive a total of$90,000 to accomplish the project goals. The fire department and the police department will each receive a total of $45,000, to be invoiced as the work progresses, for their respective services. A copy of this agreement will also be sent to the contracting office of the Salt Lake City Police Department. • Utah! Where ideas connect" Calvin L.Rampton Complex 4501 South 2700 West • Salt Lake City,Utah 84119-5998 • Telephone(801)965-4000 • Fax(801)965-4338 • www.utah.gov • John Vuyk Salt Lake City Fire Department Page 2 We look forward to working with you on this project. Please call me at 964-4564 if you have any questions, or you may contact Richard at 887-3718. Sincerely, • Sharon Briggs ITS Planner • Enclosure Cc: Richard Manser File • 0361 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT • BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY AND THE UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Project No. f l 5 c99O(9 (.3:35) Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD)—Traffic Management Center Integration Field Operational Test (FOT) 1400 FHWA Cooperative Agreement Number DTFH61-03-X-00023 This Memorandum of Agreement is made and entered into by and between Salt Lake City and the Utah Department of Transportation(UDOT)beginning February 1, 2003, through January 31, 2005. PURPOSE: The general purpose of this agreement is to establish an understanding between the two parties concerning project management and disbursement of funds awarded to UDOT and administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) through solicitation number DTFH61-02-X-00062 for a Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD)—Traffic Management Center Integration—Field Operational Test (FOT). 4111 BACKGROUND: Through the Request for Applications (RFA) process, the USDOT Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Joint Program Office requested proposals from public safety and transportation agencies to integrate ITS technologies and CAD systems from multiple vendors across organizational boundaries. UDOT and partnering agencies, including Salt Lake City, proposed and were selected to accomplish this project. The project will include incorporating ITS standards and developing procedures to enable seamless sharing of information and enhanced emergency response. A significant enhancement to public safety operations by providing field personnel and first and second responders with accurate, real-time operational data through the use of mobile data , computers is expected. By sharing information across organizations and jurisdictions, transportation, law enforcement, fire, and emergency medical personnel can improve public safety. Equipment and personnel can be more efficiently deployed, incidents can be cleared faster, and incident scenes can be made safer for the responders and the traveling public. Integrating highway traffic management with public safety systems, while following a regional ITS architecture and incorporating ITS standards,will accomplish this goal. The FOT(s)will integrate traffic management information systems and public safety dispatch information systems to enhance emergency response. The FOT(s)will be • structured around the capability to manage multi-agency emergency incidents with • significant multi-modal transportation challenges, ranging from automobile crashes to disaster response. Further,the FOT(s)will enable benefits of enhancing field operations related to locating and responding to the incident, on-scene activities, and documenting the incident to be realized. PROVISIONS: 1. Salt Lake City and their subcontractors, Versaterm Inc., and FDM Software Ltd., will adhere to all Federal statutes, executive orders and their implementing regulations. 2. Salt Lake City and their subcontractors, Versaterm Inc., and FDM Software Ltd., receiving funds under this agreement shall abide by attachment#1 "General Provisions for TCSP Agreement". 3. Salt Lake City will oversee the activities and will be responsible for operations and maintenance of the integrated CAD system installed on their systems. 4. Salt Lake City will submit a quarterly report to the UDOT detailing project status. This information will be included in the report submitted by the UDOT to FHWA. 5. Funding is to be provided to Salt Lake City for this specified ITS project for actual expenses up to a maximum of$90,000.00. 6. The UDOT will act as a conduit through which all funds under this Agreement will pass to Salt Lake City. 7. The UDOT will pay all invoices submitted by Salt Lake City pursuant to this Agreement by inter-agency transfer within 30 days of receipt. 8. Each invoice submitted by Salt Lake City will identify the percent of work completed, and monthly expenses broken down by in-house expenses, contractor expenses, and contractor's fee, and total dollars spent to date on the project INDEMNITY CLAUSE: The parties to this agreement are governmental entities pursuant to the Governmental Immunity Act, chapter 30, title 63,Utah Code Annotated. Nothing in this agreement limits, restricts or waives any of the Governmental Immunity Act provisions. Consistent with the terms of the Act, each party is responsible for its own negligent acts which it commits or which are committed by its agents, officials or employees. SEPARABILITY CLAUSE: In the event any court, or any other binding legal source shall declare that any provision of this Agreement is illegal and void, such declaration shall not affect the legality and enforceability of any other provision hereof, unless • provisions are mutually dependent. 03MF4 RENEGOTIATION OR MODIFICATIONS: This Agreement may be amended, 411 modified, or supplemented only by written amendment, executed by the parties hereto, and attached to the original signed copy hereof. TERMINATION: Unless otherwise stated herein, this Agreement may be terminated, with or without cause, in advance of the specified expiration date, by either party, upon 90 days prior written notice being given the other party. On termination of this Agreement, all accounts and payments will be processed according to the financial arrangement set forth herein for approved services rendered to date of termination. SALT LAKE CITY By: ? Signature Date K to re UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION By: David Miles ,� �/ y -I 73 "a 3 Operations Engineer Signature Date APPROVED AS TO FORM: 4 By: James H. Beadles 41 t -a .3/�l c/ 7" Legal Counsel Signature Date atillth) CIVAdd110s CONTRACT A RATOR COMPTROLLERS OF E • DOT Administered . t GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR TCSP AGREEMENT 1. General Provisions: The State will comply with all Federal laws and requirements which 8. Access to Records: All negotiated contracts(except those of$10,000 or less)awarded are applicable to grant agreements,and imposed by the Federal Highway Administration by recipients shall include a provision to the effect that the recipient, FHWA, the ' (FHWA) concerning special requirements of law, program requirements, and other Comptroller General of the United States, or any of their duly authorized administrative requirements. representatives,shall have access to any books,documents,papers and records of the 1,1 contractor which are directly pertinent to a specific program for the purpose of making odification: This agreement may be amended at anytime by a written modification audits,examinations,excerpts,and transcriptions. properly executed by both the FHWA and the State. 9. Civil Rights Act: The recipient shall comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 3. Retention and Custodial for Records: 1964(P L.88-352).and in accordance with Title Vi of that Act,no person in the United (a) Financial records,supporting documents,statistical records;and all other records States shall on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from pertinent to this instrument shall be retained for a period of three years, with the participation in,be denied that benefits of,or be otherwise subjected to discrimination following exception: under any program or activity for which the recipient received Federal financial assistance and shall immediately take any measures necessary to effectuate this (I) If any litigation, claim. or audit is started before the expiration of the 3-year Agreement. It shall comply with Title V[of the Civil Rights Act of 1964(42 U.S.C. period, the records shall be retained until all litigation claims, or audit findings 2000d)orohibiting employment discrimination where: involving the records have been resolved. (a) The primary purpose of the instrument is to provide employment,or (2)Records for non-expendable property.if any,required with Federal funds shall be retained for three years after its final uivosnion. (b) Discriminatory employment practices will result in unequal treamtent of persons who are or should be benefiting from the grant-aided activity. (3)When records are transferred to or maintained by FHWA,the 3-year retention requirement is not applicable to the recipient. 10. Nondiscrimination: The applicant/recipient hereby agrees that, as a condition to receiving any Federal financial assistance from the Department of Transportation, it (b) The retention period starts from the date of the submission of the final expenditure will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964(78 Stat.252,42 U.S.C. report. 2000d), related nondiscrimination statutes,and applicable regulatory requirements to the end that no person in the United States shall,on the grounds of race,color,national (c) The Secretary of Transportation and the Comptroller General of the United 12.5 a .=sin.sex.handicap or age.be excluded from participation in,be denied the benefits any of their duly authorized representatives, shall have access to any pertinent of:or otherwise ae subjected to discrimination under any program or activity for which books, documents, papers, and records of the recipient, and its contractors and the applicant/recipient receives Federal financial assistance. The specific requirements subcontractors,to make audits.examinations,excerpts,and transcripts. of the United States Department of Transportation standard Civil Rights assurances with regard to the States'highway safety programs(required by 49 CFR 21.7 and on 4. Equal Employment Opportunity: file with the U.S.DOT)are incorporated in this grant agreement. (a) The application/recipient agrees to incorporate in all contracts having a value of over $10,000, the provisions requiring compliance with Executive Order 11246, as 11. Rehabilitation Act: The recipient shall comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation amended,and implementing regulations of the United States Department of Labor at Act of 1973,as amended(29 U.S.C.794,P.L.93-112),and all requirements imposed 41 CFR 60, the provisions of which. other than the standard EEO clause and by or pursuant to the regulations of the Department of Health,Education,and Welfare applicable goals for employment of minorities and women,may be incorporated by (45 CFR,Parts 80,81.and 84),promulgated under the foregoing statute. It agrees that, reference. in accordance with the foregoing requirements, no otherwise qualified handicapped person,by reason of handicap,shall be excluded from participation in,be denied the (b) The application/recipient agrees to ensure that its contractors and subcontractors, benefit of,or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving regardless of tier, awarding contracts and/or issuing purchase orders for material. Federal financial assistance,and that it shall take any measures necessary to effectuate supplies, or equipment over$10,000 in value will incorporate the required EEO this Agreement. • provisions in such contracts and purchase orders. 12. Government Rights(Unlimited): FHWA shall have unlimited rights for the benefit (c) The applicant/recipient further agrees that its own employment policies and practices of the Government in all other work developed in the perfomtance of this Agreement, will be without discrimination based on race,color, religion,sex,national origin, including the right to use same on any other Government work without additional cost handicap or age;and that it has or will develop and submit to FHWA by August I an to FHWA. affirmative action plan consistent with the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Section Procedures,29 CFR 1607,and the Affirmative Action Guidelines,29 CFR 1608. 13. Accountability of equipment acquired in prior years will be transferred to the current year Grant. An updated inventory list will be provided by FHWA. 5. Copeland Act: All contracts in excess of$2,000 for construction or repair awarded by recipient and its contractors or subcontractors shall include a provision for compliance with 14. This Grant is subject to the conditions specified in the enclosed Negotiation Document. the Copeland"Anti-Kick Back"Act(18 U.S.C. 874)as supplemented in Department of Labor regulations(29 CFR,Part 3). This act provides that each contractor or subcontractor 15. Drug-Free Workplace: By signing this agreement,the recipient certifies that it is in shall be prohibited from inducing,by any means,and person employed in the construction, compliance with the Drug-Free Workplace Act(41 U.S.C. Sec. 701 et sea.) And completion,or repair of public work,or give up any part of the compensation to which he implementing regulations (49 CFR Part 29), which require, in part, that grantees is otherwise entitled. The recipient shall report all suspected or reported violations to prohibit drug use in the workplace, notify the FHWA of employee convictions for FHWA. violations of criminal drug laws occurring in the workplace, and take appropriate personnel action against a convicted employee or require the employee to participate in 6. Davis-Bacon Act: When required by the Federal program legislation, all construction a drug abuse assistance program. contracts awarded by the recipient and its contractors or subcontractors of more than $2,000 shall include a provision for compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act(40 U.S.C.276a 16. Limitation on Use of Federal Funds for Lobbying for Grants in Excess of to a-7)and as supplemented by Department of Labor regulations(29 CFR,Part 5). Under 5100,000:By signing this agreement the recipient declares that irsin compliance with this act,contractors shall be required to pay wages to laborers and mechanics at a rate not 31 U.S.C. Sec. 1352, which prohibits the use of Federally aMsepriated funds to less than the minimum wages specified in a wage determination made by the Secretary of influence a Federal employee,officer,or Member of Congress in connection with the Labor. In addition,contractors shall be required to pay wages not less than once a week. making or modification of any Federal grant,loan,contract,or cooperative agreement. The recipient shall place a copy of the current prevailing wage determination issued by the Unless the payment of funds is otherwise reported to FHWA,signing this agreement Department of Labor in each solicitation and the award of a contract shall be conditioned constitutes a declaration that no funds, including funds not Federally appropriated, upon the acceptance of the wage determination. The recipient shall report all suspected or were used or agreed to be used to influence this grant. Recipients of subgrants in reported violations to the G/CAO. excess of$100,000 must make the same declarations to the grant recipient. With respect to the payment of funds not Federally appropriated by the recipient and 7. Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act: Where applicable, all contracts subrecipiettts,the recipient must report to the FHWA the name and address of each awarded by recipient in excess of$2,500 that involve the employment of mechanics or person paid or performing services for which payment is made,the amount paid,and laborers, shall include a provision for compliance with sections 103 and 107 of the the activity for which the person was paid. Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act(40 U.S.C.327-330)as supplemented by Department of Labor regulation(29 CFR,Part 5). Under section 103 of the Act,each contractor shall be required to compute the wages of every mechanic and laborer on the basis of a standard workday of 8 hours and a standard workweek of 40 hours. Work in excess of the standard workday or workweek is permissible provided that the worker is compensated at a rate of not less than I—'''Atimes the basic rate of pay for all hours worked 0 excess of 8 hours in any calendar day or 40 hours in the workweek. Section 107 of the t if applicable to construction work provides that no laborer or mechanic shall be required to work in surroundings or under working conditions which are unsanitary, hazardous,or dangerous to his health and safety as determined under construction safety and health standards promulgated by the Secretary of Labor. These requirements do not apply to the purchases of supplies or materials or articles ordinarily available on the open • market,or contracts for transportation or transmission of intelligence. 50036 2.M-346 Salt Lake City Corporation CAMP DOCUMENT ROUTING FORM CITY SIGNATURE AND ACTIVATION PROCESS . April 25,2003 Contract Number: 06-5-03-7191 Project: Contractor: 18971 UTAH STATE DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION U D O T Contract Title: MOA-SALT LAKE CITY&UDOT Monitor: SHERRIE COLLINS Please complete your Step and forward to the next Step. , "° ` " STEP.1,- $, - ACCOUNTING-DIVISION-Encumber Funds I certify that funds are available. OR Accounting Signature Date I certify that no encumbrance is required at this time and any future encumbrance will be checked against available budget by the accounting system. 1f.) SA,Arlei 1_1 rna Accounting Signature Date Funding Source: - - 4 Dept Cost Center Object Code $OP Attach additional paperwork if more funding sources are needed. Limit$ STE15:2 CITYATTORNEY'S=OFFICE-Final Approyal' Attorney: Insurance Required: y Perf Bond Required: N Pmt Bond Required: N This document has been approved as to form. Attorney's Signature Date 1NAYOR'S OFFICE-Sign Document - _ 1 INSTRUCTIONS: Sign ALL documents. Authorized Signer: / C{ S ">, 4 / Name Dept/Div Forward ALL Signed documents to the Recorder's Office k-t14 �. �. RECOR R'S:OFFICE-Activate� 1 INSTRUCTIONS: ,. When -activated,keep 1 signed ocument,send other signed do�cu/ment(s)to: TA 61? J Name Department or Division Phone :77 ®y 1O to tS�.JI A ,fttC�r J f0yd1�1 • Michael O.Leavitt State of Utah John R.Njord,P.E. Governor Department of Transportation Executive Director March 24, 2003 Ms. Krista Dunn Salt Lake City Police Department 315 East 200 South Salt Lake City UT 84111 Dear Krista: Subject: Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) Enclosed is an executed copy of the agreement between Salt Lake City and UDOT in support of the CAD System Integration - Traffic Management Center- Field Operation Test, • awarded to UDOT under FHWA Cooperative Agreement number DTFH61-03-X-00023. This copy is for your files. When submitting project correspondence or invoices in association with this MOA, please specify that it is for the police department and include the following contract information to ensure prompt processing: Contract No. 03-8461 Project No. ITS-9999(333) CID No. 4002630H Address project correspondence to: Richard Manser, ITS Deployment Engineer Traffic Operations Center ab 0 .2-9-1-8'South2760 West Salt Lake City UT 84104-4592 Through this agreement, the city will receive a total of$90,000 to accomplish the project goals. The police department and the fire department will each receive a total of $45,000, to be invoiced as the work progresses, for their respective services. A copy of this agreement will also be sent to the contracting office of the Salt Lake City Fire Department. • Utah! Where ideas connect" Calvin L.Rampton Complex 4501 South 2700 West • Salt Lake City,Utah 84119-5998 • Telephone(801)965-4000 • Fax(801)965-4338 • www.utah.gov 4 Krista Dunn Salt Lake City Police Department Page 2 We look forward to working with you on this project. Please call me at 964-4564 if you have any questions, or you may contact Richard at 887-3718. Sincerely, 5 /7-1 Sharon Briggs ITS Planner Enclosure Cc: Richard Manser • File • • MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY AND THE UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Project No. -11S- 619O CS Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD)—Traffic Management Center Integration Field Operational Test(FOT) LfOb21• 0 FHWA Cooperative Agreement Number DTFH61-03-X-00023 This Memorandum of Agreement is made and entered into by and between Salt Lake City and the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) beginning February 1, 2003, through January 31, 2005. PURPOSE: The general purpose of this agreement is to establish an understanding between the two parties concerning project management and disbursement of funds awarded to UDOT and administered by the Federal Highway Administration(FHWA) through solicitation number DTFH61-02-X-00062 for a Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD)—Traffic 410 Management Center Integration—Field Operational Test (FOT). BACKGROUND: Through the Request for Applications (RFA)process, the USDOT Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Joint Program Office requested proposals from public safety and transportation agencies to integrate ITS technologies and CAD systems from multiple vendors across organizational boundaries. UDOT and partnering agencies, including Salt Lake City,proposed and were selected to accomplish this project. The project will include incorporating ITS standards and developing procedures to enable seamless sharing of information and enhanced emergency response. A significant enhancement to public safety operations by providing field personnel and first and second responders with accurate, real-time operational data through the use of mobile data . computers is expected. By sharing information across organizations and jurisdictions, transportation, law enforcement, fire, and emergency medical personnel can improve public safety. Equipment and personnel can be more efficiently deployed, incidents can be cleared faster, and incident scenes can be made safer for the responders and the traveling public. Integrating highway traffic management with public safety systems, while following a regional ITS architecture and incorporating ITS standards,will accomplish this goal. The FOT(s)will integrate traffic management information systems and public safety • dispatch information systems to enhance emergency response. The FOT(s)will be 0361 RENEGOTIATION OR MODIFICATIONS: This Agreement may be amended, • modified, or supplemented only by written amendment, executed by the parties hereto, and attached to the original signed copy hereof. TERMINATION: Unless otherwise stated herein, this Agreement may be terminated, with or without cause, in advance of the specified expiration date,by either party, upon 90 days prior written notice being given the other party. On termination of this Agreement, all accounts and payments will be processed according to the financial arrangement set forth herein for approved services rendered to date of termination. SALT LAKE CITY By: Signature Date it• r 5 1-v .ciY`Y/t ��GG I.vLY.." 1111 UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION By: David Miles t v .�-/3-4 3 Operations Engineer Signature Date APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: James H. Beadles 4/P144 3 1 7-c `J 3 Legal Counsel t, Signature Date 6ikthita 3 Iti.3 CONTRACT S TOR COMPTROLL CE DOT Administered GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR TCSP AGREEMENT 1. General Provisions: The State will comply with all Federal laws and requirements which 8. Access to Records: All negotiated contracts(except those of$10.000 or less)awarded are applicable to grant agreements,and imposed by the Federal Highway Administration by recipients shall include a provision to the effect that the recipient. FHWA. the : (FHWA) concerning special requirements of law, program requirements, and other Comptroller General of the United States, or any of their duly authorized administrative requirements. representatives,shall have access to any books,documents,papers and records of the • contractor which are directly pertinent to a specific program for the purpose of making Modification: This agreement may be amended at anytime by a written modification audits,examinations.excerpts,and transcriptions. properly executed by both the FHWA and the State. 9. Civil Rights Act: The recipient shall comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 3. Retention and Custodial for Records: 1964(P L.88-352),and in accordance with Title Vi of that Act no person in the United (a) Financial records,supporting documents,statistical records,and all other records States shall on the ground of race, color, or national origin. be excluded from pertinent to this instrument shall be retained for a period of three years, with the participation in,be denied that benefits of,or be otherwise subjected to discrimination following exception: under ally program or activity for which the recipient received Federal financial assistance and shall immediately take any measures necessary to effectuate this (1) If any litigation, claim, or audit is started before the expiration of the 3-year Agreement. It shall comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964(42 U.S.C. period, the records shall be retained until all litigation claims, or audit findings 2000d)prohibiting employment discrimination where: involving the records have been resolved. (a) The primary purpose of the instrument is to provide employment,or (2)Records for non-expendable property,if any,required with Federal funds shall be retained for three years after its final disposition. (b) Discriminatory employment practices will result in unequal treatment of persons who are or should be benefiting from the grant-aided activity. (3)When records are transferred to or maintained by FHWA,the 3-year retention requirement is not applicable to the recipient. 10. Nondiscrimination: The applicant/recipient hereby agrees that, as a condition to receiving any Federal financial assistance from the Department of Transportation, it (b) The retention period starts from the date of the submission of the final expenditure will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964(78 Stat. 252.42 U.S.C. report. 2000d),related nondiscrimination statutes, and applicable regulatory requirements to the end that no person in the United States shall,on the grounds of race,color,national (c) The Secretary of Transportation and the Comptroller General of the United States or origin,sex,handicap or age,be excluded from participation in,be denied the benefits any of their duly authorized representatives, shall have access to any pertinent of,or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity for which books, documents, papers, and records of the recipient, and its contractors and the applicant/recipient receives Federal financial assistance. The specific requirements subcontractors,to make audits,examinations,excerpts,and transcripts. of the United States Department of Transportation standard Civil Rights assurances with regard to the States'highway safety programs(required by 49 CFR 21.7 and on 4. Equal Employment Opportunity: file with the U.S.DOT)are incorporated in this grant agreement. (a) The application/recipient agrees to incorporate in all contracts having a value of over $10,000, the provisions requiring compliance with Executive Order 11246, as 11. Rehabilitation Act: The recipient shall comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation amended,and implementing regulations of the United States Department of Labor at Act of 1973,as amended(29 U.S.C.794,P.L.93-112),and all requirements imposed 41 CFR 60, the provisions of which, other than the standard EEO clause and by or pursuant to the regulations of the Department of Health,Education,and Welfare applicable goals for employment of minorities and women,may be incorporated by (45 CFR,Parts 80,81,and 84),promulgated under the foregoing statute. It agrees that, reference. in accordance with the foregoing requirements,no otherwise qualified handicapped person,by reason of handicap,shall be excluded from participation in,be denied the (b) The application/recipient agrees to ensure that its contractors and subcontractors, benefit of,or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving regardless of tier, awarding contracts and/or issuing purchase orders for material, Federal financial assistance,and that it shall take any measures necessary to effectuate supplies, or equipment over$10,000 in value will incorporate the required EEO this Agreement provisions in such contracts and purchase orders. 0 12. Government Rights(Unlimited): FHWA shall have unlimited rights for the benefit (c) The applicant/recipient further agrees that its own employment policies and practices of the Government in all other work developed in the performance of this Agreement, will be without discrimination based on race,color,religion,sex,national origin, including the right to use same on any other Government work without additional cost handicap or age;and that it has or will develop and submit to FHWA by August 1 an to FHWA. affirmative action plan consistent with the Unifomi Guidelines on Employee Section Procedures,29 CFR 1607,and the Affirmative Action Guidelines,29 CFR 1608. 13. Accountability of equipment acquired in prior years will be transferred to the current year Grant. An updated inventory list will be provided by FHWA. 5. Copeland Act:All contracts in excess of$2.000 for construction or repair awarded by recipient and its contractors or subcontractors shall include a provision for compliance with 14. This Grant is subject to the conditions specified in the enclosed Negotiation Document. the Copeland"Anti-Kick Back"Act(18 U.S.C. 874)as supplemented in Department of Labor regulations(29 CFR.Part 3). This act provides that each contractor or subcontractor 15. Drug-Free Workplace: By signing this agreement,the recipient certifies that it is in shall be prohibited from inducing,by any means,and person employed in the construction, compliance with the Drug-Free Workplace Act(41 U.S.C. Sec. 701 et seq.) And completion,or repair of public work,or give up any part of the compensation to which he implementing regulations (49 CFR Part 29), which require, in part, that grantees is otherwise entitled. The recipient shall report all suspected or reported violations to prohibit drug use in the workplace, notify the FHWA of employee convictions for FHWA. violations of criminal drug laws occurring in the workplace, and take appropriate personnel action against a convicted employee or require the employee to participate in 6. Davis-Bacon Act: When required by the Federal program legislation, all construction a drug abuse assistance program. contracts awarded by the recipient and its contractors or subcontractors of more than $2,000 shall include a provision for compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act(40 U.S.C.276a 16. Limitation on Use of Federal Funds for Lobbying for Grants in Excess of to a-7)and as supplemented by Department of Labor regulations(29 CFR.Part 5). Under $100,000:By signing this agreement the recipient declares that itl§in compliance with this act,contractors shall be required to pay wages to laborers and mechanics at a rate not 31 U.S.C. Sec. 1352, which prohibits the use of Federally aprtupriated funds to less than the minimum wages specified in a wage determination made by the Secretary of influence a Federal employee,officer,or Member of Congress in connection with the Labor. In addition,contractors shall be required to pay wages not less than once a week. making or modification of any Federal grant,loan,contract,or cooperative agreement. The recipient shall place a copy of the current prevailing wage determination issued by the Unless the payment of funds is otherwise reported to FHWA,signing this agreement Department of Labor in each solicitation and the award of a contract shall be conditioned constitutes a declaration that no funds, including funds not Federally appropriated, upon the acceptance of the wage determination. The recipient shall report all suspected or were used or agreed to be used to influence this grant. Recipients of subgrants in reported violations to the G/CAO. excess of$100.000 must make the same declarations to the grant recipient. With respect to the payment of funds not Federally appropriated by the recipient and 7. Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act: Where applicable, all contracts subrecipients,the recipient must report to the FHWA the name and address of each awarded by recipient in excess of$2,500 that involve the employment of mechanics or person paid or performing services for which payment is made,the amount paid,and laborers, shall include a provision for compliance with sections 103 and 107 of the the activity for which the person was paid. Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act(40 U.S.C.327-330)as supplemented by Department of Labor regulation(29 CFR,Part 5). Under section 103 of the Act,each contractor shall be required to compute the wages of every mechanic and laborer on the basis of a standard workday of 8 hours and a standard workweek of 40 hours. Work in excess of the standard workday or workweek is permissible provided that the worker is compensated at a rate of not less than 1—%:times the basic rate of pay for all hours worked Ilkexcess of 8 hours in any calendar day or 40 hours in the workweek. Section 107 of the t if applicable to construction work provides that no laborer or mechanic shall be required to work in surroundings or under working conditions which are unsanitary, hazardous,or dangerous to his health and safety as determined under construction safety and health standards promulgated by the Secretary of Labor. These requirements do not apply to the purchases of supplies or materials or articles ordinarily available on the open market,or contracts for transportation or transmission of intelligence. 50036 2-M-346 Dunn, Krista From: Sharon Briggs [SBRIGGS@utah.gov] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 4:18 PM • To: john.vuyk@ci.slc.ut.us; krista.dunn@ci.slc.ut.us; glancaster@vecc9-1-1.com Subject: Address Correction / CAD Grant MOA In the cover letter accompanying your agency's copy of the MOA with UDOT for the CAD System Integration, I have an incorrect mailing address for Richard Manser. Please note the correct address is: Richard Manser Traffic Operations Center 2060 South 2760 West Salt Lake City UT 84104-4592 Sorry for any inconvenience. Please call if you have any questions. Thanks ! Sharon Briggs ITS Planner Phone (801) 964-4564 Fax (801) 965-3882 sbriggs@utah.gov 1 • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET AMENDMENT #1 - FISCAL YEAR 2003-04 DATE: June 27, 2003 SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Budget Amendment #1 STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rocky Fluhart, David Nimkin, Steve Fawcett, Chief Dinse, Chief Querry,Alison Weyher, Scott Folsom, David Dobbins,Jerry Burton,John Vuyk, Michael Stever, Chris Dunn, Gordon Hoskins, Elwin Hellmann, Stan Gibson,Jean Robison,Tim Harpst, Gordon Haight, Krista Dunn, Shannon Ashby, Sherrie Collins, Laurie Dillon, Susi Kontgis, and Kay Christensen The briefing and discussion of the first budget amendment of the fiscal year 2003-2004 budget is scheduled for July 1, 2003. The proposed amendment includes several state and federal grants relating to public safety, emergency management and police and fire functions. There is not a request for use of General Fund balance. All other proposed amendments relate to the CIP and Miscellaneous Grants Funds. At a future Council • Meeting the Council may wish to set a date for a public hearing. In an effort to make the review of the budget openings more expedient, Council staff has attempted to categorize budget opening items as follows where possible: • "Housekeeping" -- those items that are strictly accounting actions and do not have policy implications. These include transfers internal to the City. • "Donation" -- those items that are donations that require Council appropriation to be used, are consistent with previous Council discussions, or do not have policy implications. • "Grant providing additional staff resources" - those grants that provide additional staff positions and require a City match. These generally have policy implications; . because they may add a new service or create an expectation that the City will fund the position after the grant has expired. • "Grant requiring existing staff focus" -- those grants that will require the City's existing staff to complete a specific project. (Some of these could have policy implications, since employees involved with these projects have less time to focus on other projects within the scope of their work.) MATTERS AT ISSUE Issue #1: CIP - Light Pole Safety Study ($45,000 - CIP Fund Contingency) ("New • Item") The Administration is requesting funding to study the condition of installed streetlights, remove poles as necessary and install temporary lighting as needed. This request stems from an incident where a City owned streetlight was blown over onto a parked automobile. The toppled streetlight was rusted from the inside out. Because the lack of visible signs of rust on the streetlight a further investigation of poles in the area revealed that many poles have deteriorated to the point of potential failure. If the Council appropriates this study money, the Administration will be able to determine which of the over 4,000 streetlights on metal poles need to be replaced. Additional requests for funds may be made in future budget opening to replace the failing metal streetlights. The Council may wish to ask whether this was considered by the Administration for inclusion in the City's regular budget process and why it is being advanced now rather than with the regular budget. Issue #2: Police Evidence Room Expansion ($70,000 - Special Revenue Fund) ("New Item") The Administration is recommending that the City Council appropriate $70,000 from the Special Revenue Fund (73 Fund) to expand the current evidence room ($6,200) and to upgrade the property tracking software ($3,800) that is utilized by the Police Department. The expansion would consist of the removal of walls and lighting and the installation of 3 mobile shelving bays. The shelving bays will match the existing shelving and the anticipated cost ($60,000) is consistent with what was paid for the existing shelving. Issue #3: UDOT Traffic Center Management Center Grant ($90,000 - Misc. Grant Fund)("Grant requiring existing staff focus") The Salt Lake City Police and Fire Departments have partnered with the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) and applied for and received a grant from the Federal Highway • Administration to integrate Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technologies and Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) systems from multiple vendors across organizational boundaries. UDOT is the lead agency on this grant. The funds that the Police and Fire Departments have received will be used to purchase and install a CAD system. It is anticipated that the system will provide an enhancement to public safety operations. The system allows for the transfer of operational data through the use of mobile computers. 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 only Council action necessary for the facilitation of the grant is the adoption of the budget appropriation. No additional FTE's are associated with this grant. Issue #4: EMD Dispatch Training Grant ($5,369 - Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grant requiring existing staff focus") The Salt Lake City Police Department, Emergency Communications Unit has received state funds from the Utah Department of Health, Bureau of Emergency Medical Services. The funds will be used to send dispatchers to required continuing medical education (CEM) training for certification and/or continued certification. This grant is allocated on a per capita basis, based on the number of certified dispatchers state-wide. This is a grant that • the City applies for and receives annually. This grant does not have a new resolution for the Council to sign.. A resolution was • previously adopted that, authorizes the Mayor to accept this grant and sign any additional contracts or awards related to the grant. The only Council action necessary for the facilitation of the grant is the adoption of the budget appropriation. No additional FTE's are associated with this grant. Grant funding is paying for training for dispatchers in the Emergency Communications Unit in the Police Department. Issue #5: EMS medical Equipment and EMD Dispatch Equipment and Training Grant($95,841 -Misc. Grant Fund)("Grant requiring existing staff focus") • The Salt Lake City Fire Department has received state funds from the Utah Department of Health, Bureau of Emergency Medical Services. The funds will be used to purchase medical equipment, pharmaceuticals, health and personal safety supplies, storage equipment and training/certification. The local match for this grant ($7,500) is budgeted for within the Fire Departments'General Fund budget. The requested appropriation amount of $95,841 consists of two grants. The first grant is for the uses mentioned above; the second is for the purchase of monitors for the dispatch center and certification training as funding permits. The two grants amounts are $91,273 and $4,568. These grants do not have a new resolution for the Council to sign. A resolution was previously adopted that, authorizes the Mayor to accept these grants and sign any s, additional contracts or awards related to the grants. The only Council action necessary for 411 the facilitation of the grant is the adoption of the budget appropriation. No additional FTE's are associated with this grant. Grant funding is paying for training, certification and supplies for dispatchers in the Fire Department. Issue #6: FEMA - Hazard Mitigation Grant ($4,500 - Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grant requiring existing staff focus") Salt Lake City has received additional funds from the State of Utah, Division of Comprehensive Emergency management (CEM) to help defray the costs associated with the Emergency Managers position. This is a grant that the City receives annually. Because the state received additional funding from FEMA, and additional $4,500 is available to augment the $20,000 that has already been received for this position. This grant does not have a new resolution for the Council to sign. A resolution was previously adopted that, authorizes the Mayor to accept this grant and sign any additional contracts or awards related to the grant. The only Council action necessary for the facilitation of the grant is the adoption of the budget appropriation. No additional FTE's are associated with this grant. Grant funding is paying for salary and benefit costs for the existing Emergency Manager position. Issue #7: Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Grant ($43,744 -Misc. Grant Fund)("Grant providing additional staff focus") O In FY 01-02 and again in FY 02-03, the Salt Lake City Police Department applied for and received grants from the Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control Policy. Due to hiring delays associated with the 2002 Winter Olympics, there was an unused balance of funds remaining from the FY 01-02 allocation. The funds were recaptured by the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) and are • now available for appropriation at a reduced amount. The Police Department has applied for the funding and would like to hire a one additional officer for the Metro Narcotics Task Force, obtain a drug enforcement K-9 and purchase equipment. This grant will provide funding of$31,458 for the new officer for six months. It is anticipated that the department will receive continuations of this grant money at a later date. Additional funding will be requested during a future budget opening. This grant does not have a new resolution for the Council to sign.. A resolution was previously adopted that, authorizes the Mayor to accept this grant and sign any additional contracts or awards related to the grant. The only Council action necessary for the facilitation of the grant is the adoption of the budget appropriation for the new officer and changing the staffing document to show the new FTE. Issue #8 VOCA Crime Victim Reparations Grant ($39,272 -Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grant providing additional staff focus") The Administration is requesting that the Council approve the appropriation of$39,272 in grant funds for the Salt Lake City Prosecutor's Office Victim Advocate Program. This grant was applied for and awarded once in the past but was not accepted by the Council. The Administration has reapplied for this grant and has been awarded the grant again. Grant funds will by used to hire a Victim Coordinator. It is anticipated that the position will provide victims of domestic violence with advocacy services specific to the judicial process. The Council may wish to discuss the issues raised in the past regarding the City • Prosecutor's request for a victim advocate position and encourage the Administration to determine whether the additional resources provided by this grant can be used to fill any gap between the Prosecutor's Office and the Police Department's Victim Advocacy program. In the past the Council had indicated that this appeared to be a duplication of effort and the Prosecutor's Office and Police Department should enhance their collaboration using existing resources. The Prosecutor's Office indicates that they re-applied for this grant based upon a conversation with an individual Council Member. This grant will have a new resolution for the Council to sign. This Administration is not in receipt of the final grant award documentation but has indicated that the resolution and grant documentation will be transmitted to the Council Office before the Council sets the date of the public hearing on this budget amendment. Currently the paperwork is incomplete. If the resolution and grant documentation does not arrive, there are several options for the Council to consider with regards to the budget appropriation and resolution adoption. There will be one additional FTE hired with this grant. The Council will need to appropriate the budget and change the staffing document to reflect the increased staffing in the Prosecutor's Office. • • JULY 1, 2003 TO: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: COUNCIL MEMBER NANCY SAXTON SUBJECT: BUILDING AND HOUSING DEPUTY POSITION As we address issues in Budget Opening Number One, I would like to encourage the Council to consider restoring the funding for the Deputy Building and Housing Director for the following reasons: • The elimination of the deputy leaves the division without a deputy director position, and the City's Planning Division has two deputy directors. I think it is important to have equity between these two divisions to the extent possible. • Salt Lake City has only two positions devoted to the examination of plans. I understand that the deputy director has provided support in this role. • The Building and Housing Division deals with a complex array of issues and it is important that they have the necessary resources. • During the past two fiscal years, 3 positions were eliminated from the Building and Housing Division's budget, thus seriously hampering the Division's ability to provide adequate service: -One Planner II/Development Review position -Two Building Inspector II positions There is currently a vacant position in the City's Planning Division. I propose that we shift the funding and the FTE (full time equivalent staffing position) from Planning to Building and Housing. If at some future date the Planning Division determines that the planning position is needed, they could return to the Council during a budget opening to request consideration. • rArhium ALiSON WEYHER ..: I,off\a�l�J i1 l§J41! lj�'��t NTAV I 0 '.►�PME ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR MEMORANDUM To: Carlton Christensen, Chair June 30, 2003 Salt Lake City Council • From: Alison Weyher I` RE: Alternative Budget Adjustments for FY 2004 I have been asked to respond to a query from Council staff regarding a proposal to restore the position of the deputy director of BSL and eliminate the Principal Planner position in the Planning Division which will soon become vacant when Melissa Anderson's resignation becomes effective on July 10. This proposal would have devastating consequences to the City. The Planning position carries the responsibility for significant projects which are at critical stages of development. As you will recognize, many of these projects were initiated by the City • Council. The Sugarhouse Principal Planner is responsible for: 1. Sugarhouse Master Plan Update 2. Proposed Walkable Communities Ordinance 3. Westminster College Small Area Master Plan 4. Performance Zoning Business District grant 5. Redesign for Sugarhouse Monument 6. Evaluation of parking ratios for restaurants and deli-take out 7. NEA Design Competition for 1300 East 8. All planning and zoning issues for most of City Council Districts Six and Seven. I also strongly support the retention/reinstatement of the Deputy Director of Building Services and Licensing as outlined in Mayor Anderson's June 10 Memorandum to the Council. This position is responsible for budgets, computer programming, and general supervisory duties in BSL as well as providing additional support for the Building Permits counter. Please let me know if I can provide further information. Cc: Mayor Rocky Anderson Rocky Fluhart • 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801•535•6230 FAX: 801•535•6005 is ;�� RECYCLED PAPER JUN 2 4 2003 ROCKY J. FLU HARTill SAL - 1'`' tin!GOa" � 10 4 ,�,Q A-N' _ - �. _ P T- - --- BOSS C. ANDERSON CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER _ - ,.= MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Dave Buhler, Chairman Salt Lake City Council lici cl 6 FROM: Rocky J. Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer DATE: June 24, 2003 SUBJECT: Budget Amendment No. 1 Recommendation: We recommend that on July 8, the City Council set a date to hold a public hearing on August 7, 2003, to discuss Budget Amendment No. 1. • Discussion and Background: The attached amendment packet is transmitted to the City Council Office for the briefing on July 1. Legislative Action: The attached ordinance to amend this budget has been approved by the City Attorney. cc: Dan Mule, City Treasurer Shannon Ashby S 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 238, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535.5425 FAX: 801-535-81 9❑ ®Recvc�eo PAPEa FY 2004 Initiatives in Budget Amendment— July FY 2004 FY 2005 • Initiative Gen. Fund Gen. Initiative Name FTE Fund FTE Amount Impact Impact New Items 1. CIP - Light Pole Safety $45,000 Study 2. Police Evidence Room $70,000 Expansion Grants Requiring Existing Staff Resources 3. Utah Department of $90,000 Transportation Traffic Management Center Grant —Police and Fire Departments 4. EMD Dispatch Training, $5,369 Utah Department of Health Bureau of Emergency Medical Services Grant 5. Utah Department of Health, $95,841 Bureau of Emergency Medical Services Grants for EMS Medical Equipment and EMD Dispatch Equipment and Training 6. Federal Emergency $4,500 Management Agency, Hazard Mitigation Grant Grant Providing Additional Staff Resources 7. Rocky Mountain High $43,744 1.0 Intensity Drug Trafficking (HIDTA) Grant for Metro Narcotics Task Force Grant 8. VOCA Crime Victim $39,271 1.0 Reparations Grant - Prosecutor's Office Victim Coordinator Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • CED/Transportation FY 03-04 Department For Fiscal Year CIP-Light Pole Safety Study BA#1 01 Initiative Name Initiative Number Gordon Haight 535-7147 Prepared By Phone Number -New Item Type of Initiative Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change A.Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2003-04 CY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 1.General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4.Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 13.Expenditures'Impacted by Fund and Source: 41111 1.General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4.Other Fund FY 03 CIP Contingency (45,000) New CIP Cost Center-Street Light Pole Safety Study and 45,000 Emergency Pole Removal/Replacement Total $0 $0 $0 C.Ex•enditure Im•act Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 10,000 5. Capital Outlay 35,000 6. Other(Specify) Total $45,000 $0 $0 • BA#1 FY 04 Initiative#01-Street Light Study-Replacement6/20/20039:24 AM Salt Lake City Corporation M anagement and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases,it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. • Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: On Saturday, April 13, 2003, a streetlight pole was blown over onto a parked taxi at 250 South West Temple. The pole failure resulted from the corrosion of the pole just above the base. The pole rusted from the inside out, meaning there was no visible sign of the problem. The pole only caused property damaged to the taxi cab, however, this accident prompted futher invesigation of poles in the area and consideration of metal poles City-wide. It has been determined that a significant number of additional poles have deteriorated to the point of potential failure. • The City owns metal poles thoughout the City that appear to be susceptible to failure. This funding is requested to complete a study of the metal light poles owned by the City. Once this study is complete, a recommendation will be presented to prevent the failure of additional light poles. It appears that it will be necessary to remove some of the poles most prone to failure in order to ensure public safety. The breakdown of what we are requesting is $10,000 for the the study, $15,000 for pole removal, and $20,000 for installation of temporary lighting as _needed. The City has over 4,000 streetlights on metal poles, many of which have been in service for 40 years or more. Once the City has removed a streetlight as a preventative measure, the public expectation will be to have a new light installed quickly. Additional contingency funds may be requested in a future budget opening in order to address the permanent replacement of deteriorated poles. • Salt Lake City Corporation . Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for • Budget Development and Budget Amendment Police Department FY 03-04 Department For Fiscal Year Police Evidence Room Expansion BA#1 02 Initiative Name Initiative Number Stan Gibson 799-3041 Prepared By Phone Number New Item Type of Initiative 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 Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Special Revenue(73 Fund)for use for Evidence 70,000 • Room Expansion Total $70,000 $0 $0 B. Ex•enditures Im•acted b Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4.Other Fund Special Revenue(73 Fund)for use for Evidence 70,000 Room Expansion Total $70,000 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 70,000 6. Other(Specify) Total $70,000 $0 $0 IP Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions,structure and organization F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. it provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. in straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. if an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. it is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The Police Department requests the use of $70,000 from the Special Revenue Fund for expansion and remodeling of the Evidence Room. The Special Revenue Fund (the 73 Fund) is a repository for unclaimed funds and funds obtained from sales and auctions. When it has been deposited in the Special Revenue Fund for a year it can be disbursed. The intended use is to extend the size of the Evidence Room to accomodate demand. The proposal includes an estimate of $6,200 for wall removal and lighting, $60,000 for 3 additional mobile shelving bays (matching existing shelving), and $3,800 for property tracking software upgrades. The Department requests the recognition of this revenue and an increase in the corresponding capital expense budget. • Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • Salt Lake City Policeand Fire Departments FY 03-04 Department For Fiscal Year Utah Department of Transportation Traffic Management BA#1 03 Center Grant-Police and Fire Initiative Name Initiative Number Krista Dunn/John Vuyk/Sherrie Collins 799-3265/799-4210/535-6150 Prepared By Phone Grant Requiring Existing Staff Focus Contract#03-8461 Type of Initiative Federal High Way Pass through Funds 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 Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund-For Police 45,000 Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund-For Fire 45,000 - 1110 Total $90,000 $0 $0 B.Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0_ $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4.Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund-For Police 45,000 Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund-For Fire 45,000 Total $90,000 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay-Police 45,000 Capital Outlay-Fire 45,000 6. Other(Specify) Total $90,000 $0 $0 • BA#1 FY 04 Initiative#03-PD and FD UDOT6/20/20039:18 AM Salt Lake City Corporation M anagement and Fiscal Note Woiicsheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. in straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. in other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. if an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. it is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The City Police Department and Fire Department partnering with the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) applied for and received this grant from the Federal Highway Administration. This grant was awarded to UDOT and partnering agencies, which includes the City's Police and Fire Departments, to integrate Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technologies and Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) systems from multiple vendors across organizational boundaries. UDOT is the lead agency on this grant, and the City is the Subgrantee. The Police and Fire Departments have each received their own contract for their portion of the allocation. The funds will be used for purchase and installation of the CAD system. It is expected that this system will provide a significant enhancement of public safety operations by providing field personnel and first and second responders with accurate, real-time operational data through the use of mobile data computers, improving public safety. Through information sharing across organizations and jurisdictions, equipment and personnel can be more efficiently deployed, incidents can be cleared faster, and incident scenes can be made safer for the responders and traveling public. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the resolution for the City to accept the grant and appropriate the necessary budget to facilitate the Grant. ID • Salt Lake City Corporation M anagement and Fiscal Note Worksheet for • Budget Development and Budget Amendment G. Grant Criteria: A grant will satisfy one of the following four criteria. 1 - In some cases, the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for projects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2 - Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3 - Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4 - None of the above. Question 1 - Will this grant fund employee positions? No. Equipment. What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? This is a new grant and new program. It is believed that it will aid in the processing of emergency information across jurisdictions. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? NA - PD and FD will continue to apply if funding is available. Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? • NA. Question 4 - Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the grant funding time frame? Yes. Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds become unavailable? No. Question 6 - Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No. • Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • Salt Lake City Police Department FY 03-04 Department For Fiscal Year EMD Dispatch Training, Utah Department of Health BA#1 04 Bureau of Emergency Medical Services Grant Initiative Name Initiative Number Chris Dunn/Sherrie Collins 799-3541/535-6150 Prepared By Phone Grant Requiring Existing Staff Focus State Pass Through Funds Type of Initiative CFDA if 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 Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund-Post Certification 5,369 Total $5,369 $0 $0 B.Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4.Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund-Post Certification 5,369 Total $5,369 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 6.Other(Training Fees for Dispatchers) 5,369 Total $5,369 $0 $0 • BA#1 FY 04 Initiative#04-PDEMS6/20/20039:19 AM Salt Lake City Corporation M anagement and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The Police Department Emergency Communications Unit applies for and receives these funds annually from the Utah Department of Health, Bureau of Emergency Medical Services. These funds will be used to send the unit's dispatchers to required, continuing medical education (OEM) training for certification and/or continued certification. State law requires emergency dispatchers to be POST certified and to maintain their certification. A minimum of 40 hours training is required over a two year period to remain certified. The Communication Unit provides EMD dispatch operations which include pre-arrival instruction, call triage and dispatch of the EMD response unit. Currently, the Unit has 47 authorized slots for dispatchers. These funds will be used to train new hires as vacancies are filled. The grant amount is allocated on a per capita basis, based on the number of certified dispatchers state-wide. It is recommended that the City Council accept the grant and appropriate the necessary budget to facilitate the grant. The necessary resolution was previously passed, authorizing the Mayor to accept the grant and to sign all additional agreements pertaining to this particular grant. • Salt Lake City Corporation M anagement and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment G. Grant Criteria: A grant will satisfy one of the following four criteria. 1 - In some cases, the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for projects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2- Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3 - Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4 - None of the above. Question 1 - Will this grant fund employee positions? No. What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? These funds will be used for PD Dispatchers to receive the required training to become certified and/or remain certified. The PD currently has 47 authorized slots for dispatchers and will use these funds for new hires as vacancies are filled. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? It is very probable that the PD will receive these funds as long as State funding is available. Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? • NA - The PD will have to pay for the mandatory training from their General Fund budget or require the dispatchers to pay their own training costs. Question 4 - Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the grant funding time frame? Yes. Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds become unavailable? No. Question 6 -Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No. Grant is specifically for continued medical education training purposes and certification. • Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for • Budget Development and Budget Amendment Salt Lake City Fire Department FY 03-04 Department For Fiscal Year Utah Department of Health, Bureau of Emergency Medical Services Grants for EMS Medical Equipment and EMD BA#1 05 Dispatch Equipment and Training Initiative Name Initiative# John Vuyk/Sherrie Collins 799-4210/535-6150 Prepared By Phone Grant Requiring Existing Staff Focus State Pass-Through Funds Type of Initiative 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 Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund-Medical Equip 91,273 4111 Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund-EMD Dispatch Equipment 4,568 and Training(2 grants) Total $95,841 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund-Medical Equip 91,273 Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund-EMD Dispatch Equipment 4,568 and Training(2 grants) Total $95,841 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay-Medical Equipment and Dispatch Monitors 95,841 (2 grants) 6. Other(Specify) Total $95,841 $0 $0 • BA#1 FY 04 Initiative#05-FDEMS Training Equip6/20/20039:19 AM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The Fire Department applies for and receives these funds annually from the Utah Department of Health, Bureau of Emergency Medical Services. $88,773 of these funds were awarded on a per capita basis, and $2,500 was awarded on a competitive basis, for a total of $91,273. These funds will be used to purchase medical equipment, including pharmaceuticals, health and personal safety supplies, lock boxes to store pharmaceuticals and training/certification as funding will permit. This is an annual grant awarded based on the percentage of Fire Fighters who are EMT, EMD or paramedic The Grant Match of approximately $7,500 is budgeted for within the Fire Department's General Fund budget. The second grant, in the amount of $4,568, will be used to purchase monitors for the dispatch center and certification training as funding will permit. The Dispatch Unit provides EMD dispatch operations which include pre-arrival instruction, call triage and dispatch of EMD response units. Currently, the unit has 16 authorized slots for dispatchers. This grant amount is allocated on a per capita basis, based on the number of certified dispatchers state-wide. It is recommended that the City Council accept the grant and appropriate the necessary budget to facilitate these grants. The necessary resolutions were previously passed, authorizing the Mayor to . accept the grants and to sign all additional agreements pertaining to both grants. • Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • G. Grant Criteria: A grant will satisfy one of the following four criteria. 1 - In some cases, the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for projects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2- Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3- Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4- None of the above. Question 1 - Will this grant fund employee positions? No. What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? These funds will be used to purchase medical equipment, monitors for the Dispatch Center and for required certification training as funding permits. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? It is very probable that the Fire Department will receive these funds as long as State funding is available. Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? NA - The Fire Department would need to purchase the necessary equipment and pay for training from their General Fund budget. Question 4 - Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the grant funding time frame? Yes. Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds become unavailable? No. Question 6 - Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector?Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No. Grants are specifically for the purchase of equipment and/or continued medical education training purposes and certification. • Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal N ote Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • Management Services FY 03-04 Department For Fiscal Year Federal Emergency Management Agency Hazard Mitigation Grant BA#1 06 Initiative Name Initiative Number Sherrie Collins/Michael Stever 535-6150 Prepared By Phone Number Grant Requiring Existing Staff Focus 83.552 Type of Initiaive CFDA# 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 Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous Grant Fund 72-10302 4,500 Total $4,500 $0 $0 B.Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous Grant Fund 72 4,500 Total $4,500 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 4,500 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5.Capital Outlay 6. Other(Specify) Total $4,500 $0 $0 • Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal N ote Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization Major Impact. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management or personnel issues. Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: Emergency Management Services receives this grant annually from the State of Utah, Division of Comprehensive Emergency Management (CEM). It is awarded to Salt Lake City to defray the costs associated with the Emergency Managers Position. This amount is an increase to the state funds previously received and is due to the state receiving additional funding from FEMA. The original amount received was $20,000. These additional funds will be used to defray salary and benefit costs of the Emergency Managers Position. The Emergency Managers Position is responsible to design, implement and apply the Emergency Operating Procedure manual and to educate Salt Lake City Corporation, Community Groups, and local businesses of emergency procedures and policies in the event of a natural disaster, hazardous materials, bombing, terrorist attacks, etc. The Resolution was previously adopted. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary budget to accept and facilitate this grant. • Salt Lake City Corporation , M anagement and Fiscal Note Worksheet for - Budget Development and Budget Amendment • G. Grant Criteria: A grant will satisfy one of the following four criteria. This grant relates to 2. 1 - in some cases, the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for projects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2 - Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in iong-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3 - Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4 - None of the above. Question 1 - Will this grant fund employee positions? Partially, the other part of this position is budgeted within the Management Services General Fund Budget. What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? Salt Lake City's Emergency Management Program, consisting of 1 FTE and .50 FTE, is partially funded with these funds. These funds are to help defray the costs of the FTE. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? The City receives • this grant annually and will continue to apply as long as the State funding is available. Question 3 - is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? NA. Funds received partially fund a position. If Management Services were unable to absorb the$20,000., the position would be eliminated. Question 4 - Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the grant funding time frame? Yes. Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds become unavailable? No. Question 6 - Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No. • Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for • Budget Development and Budget Amendment Salt Lake City Police Department FY 03-04 Department For Fiscal Year Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking(HIDTA) BA#1 07 Grant for Metro Narcotics Task Force Grant Initiative Name Initiative Number Scott Folsom/Sherrie Collins 799-3805/535-6150 Prepared By Phone Grant Providing Additional Staff Resources 16.000 HIDTA Grant/Yr 2 Type of Initiative CFDA# 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 Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4.Other Fund Grant Fund 72-20213 43,744 • B.Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: Total $43,744 $0 $0 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Grant Funds 72-20213 43,744 Total $43,744 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 31,458 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 8,286 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 4,000 6. Other(Specify) Total $43,744 $0 $0 111 BA#1 FY 04 Initiative#07-PDHIDTA26/20/20039:20 AM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • .0.Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount 1 Officer Salary and Benefits-6 mos funding 501a 31,458.00 Total 31,458.00 • • BA#1 FY 04 Initiative#07- PDHIDTA26/20/20039:20 AM • Salt Lake City Corporation M anagement and Fiscal Note Worksheet for • Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect,cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The Police Department received a HIDTA grant in FY 01-02 which provided funding for 2 additional police officer positions. Due to Olympic hiring delays, an unused balance of funds remained in this grant. This remainder of funds was recaptured by HIDTA at the end of the grant period in December, and has recently been re-appropriated at a reduced level. (These 2 positions will continue to be III funded from the new 02-03 HIDTA grant which is also in this budget opening). It is proposed that the remainder of funds in the 02-03 grant be used to hire one additional officer for the Metro Narcotics Task Force, purchase a new employee kit, purchase a drug enforcement K-9 and provide K-9 supplies through 2003. If the position is approved by the Council, the new position would be filled in June, in order to facilitate usage of these funds within the next 6 months, or until December. It is anticipated that the Police Department will be awarded an additional year's funding, when these remaining grant funds have been spent. This action will reduce the current budget to the current amount appropriated, $43,744. It is recommended that the City Council approve the reallocation of remaining funds and increase federal staffing by 1 FTE. • Salt Lake City Corporation M anagement and Fiscal Note Worksheet for - Budget Development and Budget Amendment • G. Grant Criteria: A grant will satisfy one of the following four criteria. 1 - In some cases, the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for projects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2 - Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3 - Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4 - None of the above. Question 1 - Will-this grant fund employee positions? Yes. What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? These funds will be used to hire 1 additional Officer to be assigned to the Metro Narcotics Task Force, and will cover costs of the next 6 months or until December. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? It is anticipated that an additional grant or continued funding will be received for the following year. Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? Yes. • Question 4 - Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the grant funding time frame? Yes. Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds become unavailable? Very Probable. High community impact when city loses Officer positions. However, If funding is not awarded, the Chief will make an evaluation based on the value of the Officer and either request for this position to be put in GF budget, or fill position through attrition. Question 6 - Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No. Allocation is geared specifically toward drug enforcement. Other enforcement agencies receive same grant for same uses. . Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • Salt Lake City Prosecutors Office FY 03-04 Department For Fiscal Year VOCA Crime Victim Reparations Grant-Prosecutor's Office Victim Coordinator BA#1 08 Initiative Name Jean Robison/Sherrie Collins Enter Phone#of Contact Person Prepared By 535-7960/535-6150 Grant Providing Additional Staff Resources State pass through funds Type of Initiative 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 Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 39,271.23 Total $39,271.23 $0 $0 • 8.Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 39,271.23 Total $39,271.23 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 36,400.00 2. Employee Benefits 2,871.23 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay- Dispatch Monitors 6. Other(Specify) Total $39,271.23 $0 $0 • BA#1 FY 04 Initiative#08-ProsVOCA6/20/20039:21 AM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • D.Personnel Service Detail: tTTE Grade/Step Amount New Position-Victim Coordinator 1 17.50 36,400 • BA#1 FY 04 Initiative#08- ProsVOCA6/20/20039:21 AM Salt Lake City Corporation M anagement and Fiscal Note Worksheet for • Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. in straightforward cases,it can be an ordinance or policy. in other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between•the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The Prosecutor's Office applied for and received this grant from the State Office of Crime Victim Reparations. These funds will be used to hire a Victim Coordinator who will compliment other crime victim services within the City, by helping to fill a current service gap. The VOCA funded victim • coordinator will provide victims of domestic violence, with advocacy services specific to the judicial process. These services are not currently provided by the SLC PD Victim Advocate Program or other local agencies. In addition to direct provision of court advocacy services, the Victim Coordinator can provide victims with referrals to local service agencies that address needs such as housing, financial assistance, medical assistance, legal assistance and personal safety plans. Grant funds were for this purpose were received from the State and proposed for approval in the June 2002 budget amendment. The Council chose to not approve appropriation of these funds at that time. Subsequent to that amendment, in a meeting with Councilwoman Saxton, staff from the Prosecutor's office clarified the scope of the position, as well as a the pressing need for such a position within the Prosecutor's Office. Since it was felt that there is now a better understanding of the function of the position, the Prosecutor's Office again applied for and recieved this grant for the purpose of hiring a victim advocate coordinator. Several support groups, including the YWCA and the Safe Women's Coalition, support having such a position in place within the Prosecutor's Office. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the resolution authorizing the Mayor to accept the grant and sign all additional agreements pertaining to this particular grant and appropriate the necessary budget to facilitate the Grant. 411 Salt Lake City Corporation , M anagement and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • G. Grant Criteria: A grant will satisfy one of the following four criteria. 1 - In some cases, the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for protects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2- Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3- Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4 - None of the above. Question 1 - Will this grant fund employee positions? Yes. What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? Currently there are not performance measures. This is a new grant for a new purpose. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? It is very probable that the Prosecutors Office will receive these funds as long as State funding is available. Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? Yes. • Question 4 - Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the grant funding time frame? Yes. Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds become unavailable? No. Question 6 - Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector?Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No. Although the SLC PD has a victim advocate program, they do not help clients through the court process of prosecuting their abusers. The prosecutors office is in the prime position to do this which will/could increase the prosecution rate. i 3 • SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2003 (Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 32 of 2001 which adopted the Final Biennial Budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE NO. 32 OF 2001 WHICH APPROVED, RATIFIED AND FINALIZED THE BIENNIAL BUDGET OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, INCLUDING THE EMPLOYMENT STAFFING DOCUMENT, FOR THE FISCAL YEARS BEGINNING JULY 1, 2001 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 2002 AND BEGINNING JULY 1, 2002 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 2003. PREAMBLE On June 14, 2001, the Salt Lake City Council approved, ratified and finalized the 411 biennial budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the employment staffing document, for the fiscal years beginning July 1, 2001 and ending June 30, 2002 and beginning July 1, 2002 and ending June 30, 2003, in accordance with the requirements of Section 118, Chapter 6, Title 10 of the Utah Code Annotated, and said biennial budget, including the employment staffing document, was approved by the Mayor of Salt Lake City,Utah. The City's Policy and Budget Director, acting as the City's Budget Officer, prepared and filed with the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted biennial budget, including the amendments to the employment staffing document, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and inspection by the public. The City Council fixed a time and place for a public hearing to be held on , 2003 to consider the attached proposed amendments to the biennial • budget, including the employment staffing document, and ordered notice thereof be published as required by law. Notice of said public hearing to consider the amendments to said biennial budget, including the employment staffing document, was duly published and a public hearing to consider the attached amendments to said biennial budget, including the employment staffing document, was held on , 2003, in accordance with said notice at which hearing all interested parties for and against the biennial budget amendment proposals were heard and all comments were duly considered by the City Council. All conditions precedent to amend said biennial budget, including the employment staffing document, have been accomplished. . Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the biennial budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 32 of 2001. SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The biennial budget amendments, including amendments to the employment staffing document, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the biennial budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the employment staffing document, for the fiscal years beginning July 1, 2001 and ending June 30, 2002 and beginning July 1, 2002 and ending June 30, 2003, in accordance with the requirements of Section 128, Chapter 6, Title 10, of the Utah Code Annotated. 2 • SECTION 3. Certification to Utah State Auditor. The City's Policy and Budget Director, acting as the City's Budget Officer, is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said biennial budget amendments, including amendments to the employment staffing document, with the Utah State Auditor. SECTION 4. Filing of Copies of the Biennial Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said biennial budget amendments, including amendments to the employment staffing document, in the office of said Budget Officer and in the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection. SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on its first publication. • Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2003. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER • 3 .fr Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved Vetoed MAYOR ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER • • z — (SEAL) Bill No. of 2003. Published: • GAOrdinance 03\Amending budget.doc 4