The URL can be used to link to this page

06/18/2002 - Minutes (2) PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, DUNE 18 , 2002 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah met in Work Session on Tuesday, June 18, 2002, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 326, Committee Room, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance: Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Eric Jergensen, Nancy Saxton, Jill Remington Love, Dave Buhler, and Dale Lambert. Also In Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Mayor Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson; Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer; David Nimkin, Mayor' s Chief of Staff; Gary Mumford, Council Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Michael Sears, Council Budget and Policy Analyst; Janice Jardine, Council Planning and Policy Analyst; Sylvia Jones, Council Constituent Liaison; Margaret Hunt, Community and Economic Development Director; Jerry Burton, Police Department; Laurie Dillon, Budget Analyst; Susi Kontgis, Budget Analyst; Kay Christensen, Budget Analyst; Roger Cutler, City Attorney; Susan Roberts, City Economist; Nancy Tessman, Library Director; Stephen Goldsmith, Planning Director; Steve Fawcett, Management Services Deputy Director; Charles Querry, Fire Chief; Kevin Bergstrom, Public Services Deputy Director; Brenda Hancock, Human Resource Management Division Director; Vic Blanton, Classification and Compensation Program Manager; Ray Grant, Salt Lake Organizing Committee; and Scott Crandall, Deputy Recorder. Councilmember Buhler presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:34 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. View Attachment Susan Roberts briefed the Council regarding the judgment levy. She said the levy had been in effect for approximately seven years. She said the levy was instituted to collect money to pay judgments awarded to large taxpayers. She said taxes were collected in error and needed to be refunded. Councilmember Lambert asked if an actual refund was made or if a lower amount would be collected from the taxpayer. Ms. Roberts said it was a refund. Council Members expressed concerns about receiving late notification regarding judgment levies. Ms. Roberts said current laws allowed minimal notification. She said even though judgments were posted on the State's website, only the State and County received a breakdown. She said Salt Lake City was aware of the judgments but was unable to determine their portion of the refund. Ms. Roberts said the calculation of the certified rate was based on actual revenues received at the final closing of the previous tax year. She said the law stated the City was entitled to receive the same amount of revenue as the previous year. She said when assessed values increased, the tax rate decreased and when assessed values decreased, the tax rate increased, so the City received the same amount of money as the previous year. Councilmember Buhler said he understood a growth rate of one or two percent was included in the certified tax rate. Mr. Fluhart said 1% was allowed. Councilmember Jergensen said he was concerned because the rise and fall of the certified tax rate was transparent to taxpayers. Councilmember Lambert said a judgment levy was a tax increase. Ms. Roberts said large taxpayers were centrally assessed by the State. Councilmember 02 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, DUNE 18 , 2002 Jergensen asked for an explanation of centrally assessed. Ms. Roberts said centrally assessed properties were properties which extended over jurisdictional boundaries. She said they were large companies such as utilities, railroads, mining, and transportation. Ms. Roberts said they were assessed by the State because their properties were so large. She said the State tried to divide the value based on jurisdictional boundaries. She said the County only made assessments for business and residential properties located within their jurisdiction. Councilmember Saxton asked how much last year's judgment levy was. Ms. Roberts said approximately $250,000. Councilmember Saxton asked how many judgments had been awarded to businesses versus residential properties. Ms. Roberts said no residential properties were on the list. Councilmember Saxton asked if businesses typically took their cases to court. Ms. Roberts said yes. Councilmember Buhler said to adjust the rate, the City was obligated to advertise and hold a truth-in-taxation hearing. Ms. Roberts said the only way the City could increase property tax revenue was by increasing the rate. Councilmember Jergensen said the amount of the judgment levy was increasing every year. He said he felt there was a problem with the centrally assessed taxation method. He said better communication was needed so this issue could be addressed earlier in the budget process. Ms. Roberts said due to the state of the economy, she felt the City would continue to have problems. Councilmember Jergensen asked if next year's figure could be estimated. Ms. Roberts said no. She said the City was not allowed to see any assessments done at the State level. She said there was a confidentiality issue between the State and taxpayers. Ms. Roberts said the projected revenue was lower this year because last year' s judgment levy was not adopted. She said the City would never be able to recoup that money. She said future budgets would be affected because the previous year's revenue was used to calculate the next budget. Rocky Fluhart said in the past the centrally assessed properties had been improperly assessed. He said they should have paid less and all other property taxpayers should have paid more. He said the Council was now making an adjustment so taxpayers who paid too much would receive a rebate and taxpayers who paid to little would pay more. Councilmember Christensen said he assumed the Administration' s recommendation was to adopt the judgment levy. Mr. Fluhart said yes. Councilmember Christensen said the Library's budget would also be affected by the judgment levy and asked if the Library had a recommendation. Nancy Tessman said the impact to the Library was approximately $75, 000. She said she supported the Administration' s recommendation to adopt the judgment levy. Councilmember Saxton said the public needed to understand the City operated its budget mainly on property tax. She said sales tax was another source of revenue. She said half of the sales tax generated in Salt Lake City was taken by the State and distributed to other communities throughout the State. Council Members expressed concerns about residents on fixed incomes and how taxpayers would have difficulty understanding the tax increase. A straw poll was taken on adopting the $616,060 judgment levy. All Council Members were in favor. Council Members also wanted the Council staff and the Administration to work together so information could be given to the Council earlier in the budget process. 02 — 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, DUNE 18 , 2002 Discussion was held on other budget issues. Councilmember Christensen asked if the Urban Forestry issue was included in the budget proposal. Ms. Gust-Jenson said yes. She said the adoption of the budget ordinance included an extensive breakdown of the issues the Council had considered from every department of the City. She said the information would be transmitted to the Recorder' s Office. Councilmember Buhler said the Council needed $239,014 to balance the budget. He said additional cuts had been identified. He asked Gary Mumford for an explanation. Mr. Mumford said the biennial budget included interest expense for tax anticipation notes. He said due to a change in interest rates, there would be an interest expense savings of $475,000. He said the offsetting interest income was already accounted for in the Administration's proposed budget. Ms. Gust-Jenson said the Council needed to keep in mind the money was not a true windfall because interest rates could increase. Councilmember Buhler suggested using the $475,000 to cover the $239,014 shortfall. He said the remaining balance would give the Council a cushion against rising interest rates. Councilmember Jergensen asked if the $475,000 was a reliable figure. Mr. Mumford said the City was currently scheduled to sell the tax notes on July 9, 2002. He said after that date the interest rate would be locked in for 12 months. A straw poll was taken on using the $475, 000 interest savings to cover the $239,014 shortfall. All Council Members were in favor. Councilmember Buhler asked for discussion on other budget items Council Members wanted to reconsider. Councilmember Lambert asked about the cost for a full-time CERT Program Coordinator. Mr. Mumford said there would be an additional $20,500. Councilmember Lambert asked what the department's position was. Jerry Burton said after considering the issue, the department wanted to stay with the proposal for a half-time coordinator. Councilmember Turner said a portion of the $475,000 interest expense savings could be used to fund the $132,000 needed for the Impound Lot. He said a $5 rate increase would generate $100,000 in general fund revenue. Councilmember Buhler asked if Council Members wanted to reconsider the Impound Lot cut. Councilmember Christensen said he felt the Council had a responsibility to explore options for handling fleet related issues though the private sector. Councilmember Lambert said he understood very few cities in Utah had impound lots and asked if that was true. Kevin Bergstrom said local and national surveys indicated most cities did not run their own impound lots. No Council Members wanted to change. Councilmember Saxton said discussions had taken place regarding the proposal to use $650,000 for retirement expenditures. She asked if the Council had decided if that was an appropriate use of one-time money. Mr. Sears said the Council had not made a final decision. Councilmember Saxton said the money could be a one-time expenditure but kept in the general fund. Councilmember Christensen said there were differences of opinion with the Administration. He said the Council needed to look at the issue prior to the next two-year budget cycle. Councilmember Lambert said he felt the Council should not allocate money without knowing when liabilities would accrue. Mr. Sears said the Administration negotiated a contract with the State regarding the Jordan River Trail. He said the City would receive $60, 000 per year for three years. He said the increased revenue needed to be accounted for to avoid a budget amendment at a later date. Councilmember Buhler said the Council needed to recognize the increased revenue and show it as an expense. All Council Members were in favor of the adjustment. Councilmember Saxton said even though this was a gift, the Council 02 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, DUNE 18 , 2002 needed to be aware of the costs to operate and maintain the facility. She said she felt the City did not have the resources to maintain the facility. #2. HOLD A FOLLOW-UP DISCUSSION REGARDING THE PROPOSED USE OF PIONEER PARK FOR THE OLYMPIC CULTURAL CENTER. View Attachment Laurie Dillon, Stephen Goldsmith, and Ray Grant briefed the Council with the attached handout. Councilmember Lambert said he understood the Salt Lake Organizing Committee (SLOC) wanted to hold three performances per week throughout the summer. He said he was concerned about the feasibility of that schedule and if enough revenue would be generated from the performances to cover costs. Mr. Grant said SLOC felt they would be able to hold 53 performance days between Memorial Day and Labor Day. He said SLOC believed approximately 208, 000 people would attend the events over the 53 days. He said programmed activities were needed in order to reanimate downtown. He said SLOC wanted to showcase the 53 days with opening and closing festivals. Councilmember Lambert asked what types of performances were being considered. Mr. Grant said there could be Olympic films along with musical and dance performances. He said activities would be limited by the infrastructure. He said between 10 and 15 days would be dedicated to major acts. He said the acts would be broad in terms of representation but generally tied to the Olympics. Councilmember Lambert asked if Gallivan Center activities would be moved to the park. Mr. Goldsmith said not to his knowledge. Councilmember Lambert asked about the proposed tower. Mr. Grant said a 100-foot tower was part of the medals plaza. He said the tower could serve as a marquee for the amphitheater. Councilmember Lambert said there were concerns about the homeless population. He asked if the park could realistically accommodate the Olympic legacy proposal and the homeless population. Mr. Goldsmith said as part of the public process, meetings were held with social service providers in the neighborhood. He said there were clear guidelines for the design process. He said one guideline prohibited existing park users or uses to be displaced. He said SLOC and the Administration were committed to that. He said advocates for the homeless wanted to insure the continued open space component of the park. Councilmember Buhler asked if Mr. Grant was concerned the homeless element would discourage activities and visitors to the park. Mr. Grant said he felt homeless issues were genuine and the City had dealt with them since 1850. He said increased activity might bring an element of discomfort to homeless advocates and park users. He said SLOC was committed to keeping the area as open space but increased activity was needed. He said to be financially viable some events needed to be ticketed. He said SLOC was committed to maintaining the current number of trees and displaced trees would be replaced. Councilmember Turner said at one time the City had considered an aquarium in Pioneer Park. He said a decision was made to keep the park as open space. He said space was available on the westside but SLOC had limited the areas which could be used. He said SLOC felt a downtown location would generate more activity. He said the City needed more open space and he supported an additional park. Mr. Grant said SLOC would consider other parcels of land which avoided concerns of Pioneer Park. Councilmember Christensen asked if other venue cities were being considered as potential alternatives in case Salt Lake City faltered. Mr. Grant said the games were 02 - 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, DUNE 18 , 2002 awarded to Salt Lake City and he felt SLOC wanted to see the legacy remain in the City. He said at the same time, SLOC needed assurance from the Council before they moved ahead with their plans. He said there were commitments and construction deadlines which needed to be considered. Councilmember Saxton asked how SLOC felt about the community' s need to be supportive and participate in the decisions about the legacy park. Mr. Grant said SLOC did not want to divide the community. He said SLOC had generally received feedback that it was important for the community to remember the games. He said as part of the gift, the City needed to follow a public process and in so doing partner with SLOC. Councilmember Saxton said she felt several satellite locations could be used which would revitalize more areas of the City. She asked if latitude was available for other types of designs outside a single ten-acre block. Mr. Grant said SLOC was open to other ideas but proposed sites needed to become Olympic destinations. He said SLOC was currently involved in other legacy projects such as the University of Utah. He said he was concerned too many locations would cause confusion in the minds of residents and world visitors. Councilmember Saxton asked about construction deadlines and time constraints. Mr. Grant said SLOC wanted to start the Olympic festival no later than the summer of 2003. He said SLOC wanted to start construction on the amphitheater in August. Councilmember Love said she understood a boutique amphitheater was something the Administration and community wanted. She asked if the Library block could accommodate the amphitheater. Mr. Goldsmith said he understood the area was not large enough due to the amenities needed to accommodate for-profit providers. He said there were a number of problems with the Library block beside the overall design. He said the stage needed to be orientated so the sun was not in the eyes of the performers. He said he felt it would be impossible to create an adequate orientation. Councilmember Love said even though this was a generous gift, more information was needed on the long-term financial impact to the City. She asked if the City could not adhere to SLOC' s guidelines, would the gift go away. Mr. Grant said he thought the gift would be threatened. He said he felt the SLOC Board would have to be convened to address the issue. He said he felt SLOC would still want this to be in a downtown location to help revitalize the area. Councilmember Buhler said the Council had public responsibilities but felt this was a great opportunity which the City did not want to lose. Councilmember Lambert said he understood five acres was needed for the amphitheater. Mr. Goldsmith said that was correct. Councilmember Lambert asked about placing the arch at the Triad Center or the Gallivan Center. Mr. Goldsmith said both locations were too small. Councilmember Saxton said she understood the LDS Church had considered purchasing the arch but chose not to due to maintenance costs. She asked if anyone had additional information. Mr. Grant said there had been some discussion but he did not know why the Church decided not to make the purchase. Councilmember Buhler said he understood the stage would not accommodate the Church' s choir. Councilmember Jergensen said in order to meet the August deadline, a lot of work was needed. He said SLOC and the City needed to work together on cost and design issues. He asked Mr. Goldsmith how this was going to be accomplished. Mr. Goldsmith said a Landmark' s subcommittee had been meeting once a week to discuss the issues. He said stakeholders from the community had provided input regarding conditions which needed to be met before they would give their approval. He said the information would be 02 - 5 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, DUNE 18 , 2002 given to designers for testing. Mr. Goldsmith said the subcommittee would meet the 3rd week of July and show the stakeholders how their concerns had been addressed. He said designs would be presented to the public at an open house during the last week in July. He said a public hearing had been scheduled with the Landmark Commission on August 7, 2002. He said SLOC agreed with the timeframe and attended weekly meetings. He said he felt the City could meet SLOC's deadline. Ms. Gust-Jenson said if rezoning issues needed Council consideration, the August deadline was problematic. She said the Council needed to have a complete understanding of the long-term costs before a groundbreaking took place. #3. RECEIVE A FOLLOW UP BRIEFING REGARDING THE POLICE CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD ORDINANCE. View Attachment Gary Mumford and David Nimkin briefed the Council with the attached handout. Councilmember Buhler asked if the changes the Council had requested had been put in the ordinance. Mr. Mumford said yes. Councilmember Saxton said the Council had previously discussed sharing positions. Ms. Gust-Jenson said that was a separate issue from the proposed ordinance. She said some Council Members had suggested instead of adding a full-time position, the Administration be encouraged to utilize existing positions in the Budget and Policy Office or Human Resources. Ms. Gust-Jenson said the majority of the Council opposed the idea so it was not included. Councilmember Buhler asked if this issue was relative to the ordinance. Ms. Gust-Jenson said it could be because a list of qualifications was included in the ordinance. Councilmember Saxton said the Council and the Administration needed to understand the costs associated with new boards. She said there would be substantial costs to the City each year and was concerned the estimates were too low. Councilmember Saxton asked if the ordinance required investigators to have some police background. Councilmember Buhler said it did not. The meeting adjourned at 8:38 p.m. sc 02 - 6 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2002 (Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 43 of 2001 which adopted the rate of tax levy upon all real and personal property within Salt Lake City, made taxable by law for fiscal years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE NO. 43 OF 2001 WHICH ADOPTED THE RATE OF TAX LEVY UPON ALL REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY WITHIN SALT LAKE CITY MADE TAXABLE BY LAW FOR FISCAL YEARS 2001-2002 AND 2002-2003. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City: PREAMBLE On June 14, 2001, the Salt Lake City Council approved Ordinance No. 43 of 2001 which adopted the rate of tax levy upon all real and personal property within Salt Lake City made taxable by law for fiscal years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003. That ordinance was signed by the Mayor on June 18, 2001. The Salt Lake City Council now wishes to amend the rate of tax levy for fiscal year 2002-2003 as set forth herein. Chapter 2, Title 59 of the Utah Code Ann. states that the governing body of each city shall,by ordinance or resolution, adopt a proposed tax levy or, if the tax rate is not more than the certified tax rate, a final tax levy on the real and personal property for various municipal purposes. Chapter 2, Title 59, of the Utah Code Ann. provides for certain notice and hearing requirements if the proposed tax rate exceeds the certified tax rate. It is the intent of Salt Lake City to comply with the mandate of the Utah Legislature, .. but reserve in itself the power to amend the tax rates set herein to guarantee, after final appraisal figures have been determined, that it does not exceed the amount required for its governmental operations and taxing authority granted by the Legislature. Further, it is the intent of the City to levy an additional tax, if necessary, to cover costs of State legislative mandates or judicial or administrative orders under Chapter 2, Title 59 of the Utah Code Ann. SECTION 1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this ordinance is to amend the rate of tax levy upon all real and personal property within Salt Lake City made taxable by law in the year 2002 to defray the necessary and proper expenses of Salt Lake City to maintain the government thereof and for operating and maintaining its libraries and reading rooms and to pay for costs of State legislative mandates or judicial or administrative orders under Chapter 2, Title 59 of the Utah Code Ann. SECTION 2. TAX LEVY: 2002-2003. The City Council hereby levies upon all real and personal property within Salt Lake City made taxable by law in the year 2002, for the fiscal year of Salt Lake City beginning July 1, 2002, and ending June 30, 2003, as revenue in the general fund and as revenue in the library fund, a tax of percent on each dollar of taxable valuation of said property apportioned as follows: (a) percent shall be credited as revenue in the general fund; (b) percent shall be credited as revenue in the general fund to be used for repayment of court ordered judgments; (c) percent shall be credited as revenue in the special library fund; (d) percent shall be credited as revenue in the special library fund to be used for repayment of court ordered judgments; andIII 2 r i (e) percent shall be credited toward repayment of the Block 37 • General Obligation Bonds for the construction of a new City library building and other improvements. The City Council hereby further levies a tax to cover the costs of State legislative mandates or judicial or administrative orders under Chapter 2, Title 59 of the Utah Code Ann. as determined by the Utah State Tax Commission and the Salt Lake County Auditor's Office. Said tax levies in this Section 2 shall be subject to Mayor approval and City Council reconsideration pursuant to § 10-3-1214 of the Utah Code Ann. SECTION 3. CERTIFIED TAX RATE. The proposed tax levies for the general fund exceed the certified tax rates and, therefore, the City is required to and will publish notice and hold a public hearing pursuant to Chapter 2, Title 59, of the Utah Code Ann. III SECTION 4. CERTIFIED TO AUDITOR. The tax levies hereinabove determined and levied shall be certified by the City Recorder to the Auditor of Salt Lake County, State of Utah before the 22nd day of June 2002 pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 2, Title 59 of the Utah Code Ann. SECTION 5. RESERVE POWER AND RIGHT TO AMEND. The City hereby expressly reserves the power and right to amend any property tax levy made herein as it may deem just, proper and appropriate under the law. SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect on July 1, 2002. III Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of • , 2002. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER �' t (SEAL) Bill No. of 2002. Published: G\Ordina0l\Budget\adopting tax levy-May 3,2002.doc 111 Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Budget Spreadsheet (attachment to Motion sheet Agenda Item F-5) [Will be provided on June 18, 2002] THIS IS IN ADDITION TO THE PACKETS YOU RECEIVED ON FRIDAY JUNE 14 , 2002 C."ROANDERSON 1 T(e� �1 R)/�IIi ( 401 CROSS ►:7lTi/ u�[',�� d��T.aY�il, j SALT LAKE 2002 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR IRSZ9 June 17, 2002 Dave Buhler, Chair Salt Lake City Council 451 South State Street, Room 305 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear Council Chair Buhler: The Certified Tax Rate for FY2oo3, which was reported to us by the Salt Lake County Auditor, will generate $239,014 less than the projected budget. We propose to balance this difference by reducing the General Fund ongoing revenue contribution to the Capitol Improvement Program (CIP) by $239,014 (.17%). We propose replacing this amount with one- time revenue, by reducing the $382,853 previously designated to be set aside for CIP contingency, to $143,839• Given the cuts we have already absorbed, this adjustment will be the least disruptive measure we can take to balance the budget. It will not require further cuts in departmental budgets, and it will not alter the CIP schedule. I urge the Council to support this proposal. Sincerely, iltiss C. Anderson Mayor 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE:801-535-7704 FAX:801-535-6331 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: June 14, 2002 SUBJECT: Salt Lake City CDBG Housing Match Fund grant to Valley Mental Health for the Safe Haven II facility STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears, Budget & Policy Analyst CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rocky Fluhart, David Nimkin, Margaret Hunt, David Dobbins, and LuAnn Clark Document Type Budget-Related Facts Policy-Related Facts Miscellaneous Facts R solution $75,000 grant from the This proposed grant Proposed resolution CDBG Housing Match supports the Council authorizes a$75,000 Fund of Salt Lake City to housing policy included in grant from the City's Valley Mental Health to the adopted Community CDBG Housing Match complete site Housing Plan. Fund. The remaining improvements at the balance of the Housing Safe Haven II facility. Match Fund will be $207,995. Other funding for this project totals$1,999,017. OPTIONS AND MOTIONS: 1. ["I move that the Council"] Adopt the resolution as proposed. 2. ["I move that the Council"] Not adopt the resolution. SUMMARY OF BRIEFING The City Council held a briefmg on June 13, 2002 regarding the proposed resolution. Council Members discussed the benefits of projects such as Safe Haven and how the residents and neighbors are recipients of the benefits. The Council seemed pleased with the project and was in agreement that the resolution should be on the agenda for the next Council meeting. Note: The following information was provided to the Council for the 6/13/02 briefmg. It is provided again for your reference. The Administration is proposing that the City Council approve a resolution — authorizing the Mayor to execute a grant agreement and related grant documents with Valley Mental Health for a $75,000 grant from the City's Community Development Block Grant Housing Match Fund. This action would facilitate the site improvements Page 1 at the Safe Haven II facility at 522 West 700 South. The Valley Mental Health Safe Haven II project is 24 new studio apartments where homeless, mentally ill individuals will live and receive supportive services. The project services those individuals who are at 30% and below of median income. The following are key points of the request for funding for the Safe Haven facility. • The City can support the site improvements for this project with Community Development Block Grants. The total site improvement proposed budget by Valley Mental Health was $125,080 of which $75,000 was requested. • Total construction and improvement cost for this project is projected to be $2,074,017. This project is leveraged with funds provided by HUD Supportive Housing program, Federal Home Loan Bank Grant and Federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credits. The applicant has also received funding from the Olene Walker Housing Trust Fund in the amount of$200,000. • The Community Development Advisory Committee reviewed this proposal and recommended approval on May 7, 2002. Valley Mental Health provides housing and support to individuals with mental illnesses. Safe Haven II is a new project that consists of constructing 24 studio apartments to provide permanent supportive housing to homeless, mentally ill individuals. The population mix at the Safe Haven II project makes it difficult for Valley Mental Health to obtain traditional financing or to qualify for Tax Credit units. The proposed funding sources for this project is grants or low-interest deferred loans. Participation by the City through the CDBG Housing Match Fund is consistent with prior Council funding decisions and policy. The transmittal contains additional information from Valley Mental Health and minutes from the Community Development Advisory Committee. Page 2 Tuesday,May 21,2002 City Council Agenda Item F-2 Resolution: Authorize a krant from Salt Lake Citv 's Housinji Match Fund of the CDBG Program to Valley Mental Health for the Safe Haven II Project Paperwork for this item was previously received with the June 13, 2002 Work Session paperwork. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: June 14,2002 SUBJECT: POLICE CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD ORDINANCE STAFF REPORT BY: Gary Mumford Document Type Budget-Related Facts Policy-Related Facts Miscellaneous Facts Ordinance New investigator One of the goals of the The proposal indudes position is proposed proposed amendment is concurrent investigations at an annual cost of to establish and with Internal Affairs so that $90,500,which includes maintain the Police the Police Chief will have benefits. Department's reputation recommendations from both and practice for fairness Internal Affairs and the and firmness in Civilian Review Board when addressing allegations making decisions concerning of police misconduct. discipline. The Administration is proposing that the existing Civilian Review Board ordinance be rep aled and replaced with a new ordinance to allow individuals an effective way to address complaints concerning the Police Department. The Council received a briefing on April 2, 2002 regarding the proposal. During the discussion, Council Members requested the following changes to the proposed ordinance: • Require investigative skills as a qualification for investigator position • Set 3-year terms for Board members rather than 2-year terms • Impose confidentiality upon Board members similar to the requirement imposed upon investigator The Administration revised the proposed ordinance in response to the three items raised at the Council work session. Page 5 of the ordinance includes "strong investigative skills" as a required qualification of the investigator. The term of office on page 3 states that members of the Board will serve for a three-year term. The Board advisor's term of office will also be three years since the ordinance provides that the Board advisor will have the same term of office as members of the Board. Confidentiality imposed upon the Board in paragraph K of page 13 is now the same as confidentiality imposed upon the investigator. OPTIONS: The Council may wish to consider the following options: 1. Consider adopting the proposed ordinance in the Council Meeting following the briefing 2. Request additional information or changes to the ordinance and refer consideration of adoption to a future Council Meeting 3. Schedule an additional work session discussion Page 1 The following information was provided to the Council previously. It is provided again for your reference. The current ordinance(that is proposed to be repealed)provides that the Civilian Review Board evaluates trends in complaints of police officer misconduct,but it does not allow the Board to make recommendations regarding specific cases. The Administration indicated that members of the community have complained about the ineffectiveness of the review process. The proposed ordinance allows the Civilian Review Board to make recommendations regarding individual cases and officers. The Administration obtained input regarding the proposed ordinance from individual community members,community groups, and from the Salt Lake Police Association. The following are some of the key changes proposed to the Police Civilian Review Board Ordinance: • Expand recommendations to not only overall police performance or trends (current ordinance) but also to individual cases and officers. • Create a full-time investigator position. • Provide for concurrent investigations in which the Board's investigator would join with Internal Affairs during the interview process. Under the new ordinance, the Board will forward a report to the Police Chief so that the Chief will have recommendations of both Internal Affairs and the Civilian Review Board when making decisions concerning discipline. • Increase the number of board members from 7 to 14. • Change the term of board members from 4 years to 2 years (Now revised to three-years terms) • Expand the training curriculum for new Board members. • Add the appointment of a citizen to be a Board Advisor. This person is to have prior police experience but would not be a voting member of the Board. • Create a concept of board panels wherein a separate panel of five board members is to be appointed to address each case. • Provide for criminal penalties and civil liability for knowingly filing false complaints. • Establish an early warning system designed to identify police officer problem behavior in its initial manifestations. Cases in which it is claimed that a police officer used excessive force-The proposed ordinance provides that the Civilian Review Board will audit and review all cases in which it is claimed that a police officer used excessive force. The investigator will become a participant with Internal Affairs in interviewing witnesses and reviewing other information. The Board will appoint 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 is to create a new panel for each case. Full-time investigator position-The investigator is to be an at-will employee operating out of the _ City's Department of Management Services. This person is to have experience in public sector Page 2 labor and employment law, Utah civil service law, and civil rights law. The investigator will perform the review concurrently with the Internal Affairs investigation, and the investigator will be able to participate in the Internal Affairs interviewing sessions. After completion of the review, the investigator will forward recommendations to a Board panel. The Board panel will forward 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 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. 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 proposed 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 is proposed including: (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 is to appoint 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. Requesting subpoenas-If the Investigator desires to interview a witness or a police officer, and if such person declines to be interviewed, the Investigator may ask the Mayor to compel the witness or police office to meet with and be interviewed by the Investigator. An Internal Affairs Unit investigator is to be present or invited to be present when the Board Investigator has any contact with a witness or accused employee. 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. Page 3 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. • cc: Rocky Fluhart, David Nimkin Page 4 ti�[rl� i LULL' COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ) \ TO: Rocky J. Fluhart DATE: June 10, 2002 Chief Administrative Officer FROM: David Nimkin SUBJECT: Police Civilian Review Board Ordinance STAFF CONTACT: David Nimkin DOCUMENT TYPE: Police Civilian Review Board BUDGET IMPACT: DISCUSSION: This ordinance represents a refinement(repeal and re-enactment) of the existing civilian review process for both certain complaints and internal police investigations regarding conduct of the police. With considerable participation from a broad cross section of community and legal interests, this ordinance reforms the civilian review process to include a full time independent investigator for the board. This position, operating out of the Department of Management Services will be appointed by the Mayor and will have access to all Internal Affairs Unit investigations in which it is claimed that a police officer used excessive force or any other investigations that the Board in its discretion may request. RECOMMENDATION: This ordinance is recommended in its current foiiir for transmittal to the City Council 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2002 (Police Civilian Review Board) AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND RE-ENACTING CHAPTER 2.72 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO THE POLICE CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD; AND AMENDING SECTION 2.08.090 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. 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, repealed and re-enacted 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 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"means the independent Board investigator 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. 2 C. Term of Office. All members of the Board shall serve for a three (3) year term, provided that the terms of the initial appointees shall be staggered so that not more than seven(7) terms shall expire in any one year. Each member's term of office shall expire on the first Monday in September. A member shall not serve more than two (2) consecutive full teiiiis. 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 temin of office as members of the Board and shall not serve for more than two (2) consecutive terms. 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 for its proper functioning. 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 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. 3 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. A. Appointment; Removal. In the interest of legitimate civilian oversight, the Mayor shall appoint a full-time independent Investigator for the Board. In making such appointment, the Mayor shall consider any recommendations of the Board regarding who should be appointed. The Investigator shall operate out of the City's Department of Management Services. The Investigator 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 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 shall not be under a pending felony indictment or information 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. 4 5. Strong writing skills. 6. Verbally articulate. 7. Strong interviewing skills. 8. Strong investigative skills. C. Desired Investigator Qualifications. If possible, the Investigator 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 5 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 respect to any decision or action taken in the perfoiniance 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 term 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 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. 6 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: 1. A specific training course, as deteiiuined 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 two-year term. 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. 2.72.130 Meetings 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. 7 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, 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 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 determine 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) 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 Meetings; Record of Proceedings. Meetings shall be held at such public place as may be designated by the Board. The Board and panels shall 8 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 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. 9 2.72.150 Investigations by the Board. A. In General; Notice. The Investigator 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 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 ninety-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 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 shall have access to the Internal Affairs Unit's investigation of such complaint. C. Investigator's Database. When the Investigator 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 shall ensure that all pertinent data concerning the complaint is collected and entered into a computer database for future analysis. 10 D. Investigator's Access to Files. The Investigator shall have access, via computer database network, to all Police Department files on its network, except those files that are confidential by law. The Investigator 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 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. Investigator's Access to Internal Affairs Investigation. The Investigator shall have unfettered access to the Internal Affairs Unit investigation process. The Investigator 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; Interviews. 1. Access to Internal Affairs Interviews. The Investigator shall have access to all interviews scheduled by the Internal Affairs Unit. The Police Department shall notify the Investigator when all interviews are scheduled so that he or she may be present, at the Investigator's discretion. The Investigator may participate in questioning the witnesses. The Investigator 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 participates in any portion of the interview process, he or she must clearly communicate to all participating witnesses that he or she is an independent investigator affiliated with the Board and not with the Police Department. 11 3. Compelling Attendance of Witnesses and Police Officers. If the Investigator desires to interview a witness or a police officer in connection with an open Internal Affairs Unit investigation that the Investigator is investigating or reviewing pursuant to this Chapter, and if such person declines to be interviewed, the Investigator may ask the Mayor to compel the witness or police officer to meet with and be interviewed by the Investigator pursuant to Chapter 2.59, Salt Lake City Code. 4. Presence of Internal Affairs Unit Investigator. The Investigator 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 becomes aware shall be forwarded immediately to the commander of the Internal Affairs Unit. 6. Protection of Constitutional Rights. The Investigator 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. H. Completion of Investigator's Investigation. The Investigator 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. Within two (2) days after his or her completion of the investigation of a case, the Investigator shall provide to the Board a written report 12 that summarizes the case and such investigation, and states the Investigator's recommendations regarding the case. J. Board's Access to Investigator's Records. Upon request, the Investigator shall provide to the Board the Investigator's notes and other records regarding cases investigated by the Investigator. K. Board's Access to Files. Members 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 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. 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 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 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. 13 2.72.170 Internal Affairs Unit Report. 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 shall be forwarded immediately to the Investigator and the Board. 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 selected for each new case. The panel shall review the Investigator'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 14 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) 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 determination is possible"; and"sustained." In addition to the classification, a definition of each Willi shall be included in the report. The definitions are as follows: (1) "unfounded": the reported complaint did not occur; (2) "exonerated": the employee's actions were reasonable under the circumstances; (3) "no determination is possible": there is insufficient evidence to support 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 15 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 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 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 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. 16 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) 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 5. Staff Support. The Police Depaittiient and the Mayor's Office shall cooperate with the Investigator to ensure that the Board obtains all information and resources necessary to gather information 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) 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. 17 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 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 Chief's decision. B. Filing False Complaints. Any person who files a complaint against a police officer under this Section or Section 2.72150(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. Investigator's Review. Consistent with Section 2.72.230(A)(1), the Investigator shall review all requests for review. While reviewing the request for review, the Investigator may not question witnesses,but shall have access to all records of the 18 Police Department regarding the incident of alleged misconduct involved. The Police Department and the Mayor's Office shall cooperate with the Investigator so that the Investigator obtains all necessary information and resources. The Investigator 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, it shall be given to the Police Chief. 3. Investigator's Report; Reopening of Cases. Upon completion of the review, the Investigator 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 report. The panel must complete its review no later than seventy-five (75) days after it receives the Investigator'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. 19 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) days after the filing of the majority report. 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 perform their duties and issue their majority and any minority reports 20 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 discipline. 2.72.260 Board Actions Shall not Bind the Mayor or Police Chief. 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, or the Police Department, 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 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 information through other forms of media, which are not limited to written information, within budgeted appropriations. 21 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: 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 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 22 pattern of behavior of the police officer, the review by the Chief of Police, and the assigned counseling, testing, or training of such officer. SECTION 3. That this ordinance shall take effect immediately upon the date of its first publication. 23 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of , 2002. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CH t r F DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorneys MO u Date 1-c'Z- (SEAL) By, J % 4 Bill No. of 2002. Published: G:\Ordina02\Police Civilian Review Board vI Oclean.doc 24 •• 5/7//o- Revenue FY03 Adopted FY03 "BIG" ISSUE option or FTE Budget Amendment REVENUE Beginning Budget 161,948,934 Taxes: Property Taxes: 55,707,284 real property-adjustment to rate of growth —1,f30S,£FoS personal property and prior period -,Zfz•2i53 — Co, 131 motor vehicle 5,562,261 560,235 reduce motor vehicle fees revenue as a result of county adjustment in FY2002 -1,500,000 franchise taxes 19,811,066 1,023,709 sales taxes 39,043,833 507,495 uta shift 600,000 payments in lieu of taxation 876,592 59,368 Licenses and Permits 10,503,170 regulatory licenses 40,000 business licenses 161,629 high rise apartment fire inspection fee 15,000 innkeepers tax 283,036 permits -404,516 building permits -845,278 impact fees -100,000 Intergovernmental Agency Reimbursements 4,147,922 various adjustments -253,807 State support for Jordan River Trail and Cottonwood Park transfer 25,000 PGA grant to support youth programming at Jordan River Par 3 Golf 50,000 Charges and Fees for Services 3,355,034 cemetery 53,750 public safety 65,000 public services -168,229 recreation programming charges -29,100 rentals and concessions -196,336 impound fees as result of outsourcing program -260,009 CERT training revenue -15,000 Parking 1,286,500 parking meter -16,500 increase for bagging meters to$50 per day 100,000 Fines and Forfeitures 7,889,651 court revenue 30,849 Interest Income 3,250,500 -350,500 Administrative Fees Charged to Enterprise and Internal Service Funds 7,374,721 -90,008 airport police -117,000 airport fire services 0 Miscellaneous Revenue 774,854 -44,925 Interfund Transfers 2,365,546 54,258 Total Ongoing 161,948,934 159,569,347 9%CIP level 13,961,795 13,747,632 One time money Reimbursement of 1/64th sales tax 4,159,305 4,400,000 Reimbursement for Salt Lake Sports Complex 2,300,000 2,029,168 Excess reserve in the Debt Service Guarantee Fund 177,957 C&C bldg debt service savings from reissue of debt 567,591 UTA reimbursement of back sales tax for light rail 1,800,000 Total One time 6,459,305 8,974,716 Total Projected Revenue 168,408,239 168,544,063 6/18/2002 Possible Optional Cuts Cut Amount Line# 1 Excess cuts from previous Council straw poll($36,140) 2 State support for Jordan River Trail(Additional grant/contract funds,3 yrs only)($35,000) 3 Reconsider restoring zoning inspector($42,000) 4 Reconsider establishing part-time CERT program coordinator($20,500) 6 Reconsider restoring mobile watch coordinator position($23,500) 6 Reconsider speed board placement allocation($50,000) 7 Reconsider reducing graffiti removal materials for businesspr perties($19,928) Reconsider restoring one Youth&Family specialist(This would leave a total of 3 specialists) 8 ($52,000) 9 Eliminate proposed additional prosecutor position($57,535) 10 Economic Development Corporation of Utah Reduce contribution to$100,000($32,992) _ 11 Victim advocate position in Police(grant expires December 31)$22,500 for 6 months 12 Fire medical fees(could be used$16,000) Reduce(or pay as one time bonus)budgeted pay increases by 0.25%(non-bargaining units 13 $92,000;bargaining units$131,000) Use a small portion of fund balance each year to fund on-going expenses(1/10 of 1%is 14 $159,570) 16 Eliminate building permit fee exemptions($50,000?)(housing) _ 16 Use one-time revenue to pay for retirement expenses($650,000) 17 Remove underutilized vehicles from General Fund(slow replacement)($100,000) - 18 Proportional cut to General Fund Departments 19 Reduce Police overtime 20 Reduce Fire overtime 21 Crime lab field technicians-Grant(1 FTE$35,500,2 FTE$71,000) 22 Extend operating hours;4-day workweek($100,000) 23 Fund property tax shortfall with General Fund Contingency($247,828) 24 Interest expense savings on tax anticipation notes($475,000) Total(Property-Tax Shortfall$247,828;Judgment Levy$616,060) $ ROCKY J. FLU HART SALT' �\ r,tGtG1T�Y° O RP _ 'RATION; +sJ -.+t-•a os-� -� � xs -;' ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES MAYOR POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION RECEIVED To: Rocky Fluhart Chief Administrative Officer JUL 0 8 2002 From: Laurie Dillon CITY RECORDER Subject: Response to City Council Questions regarding the Proposed Use of Pioneer Park as Olympic Cultural Center Date: June 14, 2002 CC: Mayor Anderson, D.J. Baxter, David Dobbins, Steve Fawcett, Rick Graham, Stephen Goldsmith, Margaret Hunt,Nelson Knight, David Nimkin 1. Which locations have already been considered, and why are they not viable? A table(Attachment 1) lists the locations that have been considered and compares them to the criteria and restrictions currently in place. More detailed information about the criteria follows in the responses for questions 2 and 3. 2. What are the restrictions or guidelines that SLOC and the USOC are working under? They are referred to, but haven't been articulated. SLOC wants the Olympic Cultural Center to include: 1) a gathering place to accommodate groups up to about 7500 people, 2) a downtown location within Salt Lake City(currently defined within the boundaries of North Temple and 5th South, 6th West and 3rd East),preferably accessible via mass transit but also with some parking nearby since a parking structure will not be included, 3) sufficient circulation and a forum to tell the Olympic story(the forum itself has not been formally defined), 4) a place to accommodate the Hoberman arch,the 100 foot 3rd West tower, and preferably the cauldron,as well as other possible elements from the Olympics, 5) completion of the project by next summer in order to maintain the momentum of the Salt Lake Olympics and have an inaugural season of programming next summer. To accomplish this, SLOC has required that ground breaking occurs in August. SLOC is winding down and would like to bring their obligations to completion as soon as possible. 6) SLOC intends to construct and program a turn key cultural center, and turn the operational project over to the City as a gift. 7) SLOC will provide guidelines for the use of the cauldron, allowed sponsors, and any programming restrictions. The sponsor and programming restrictions are anticipated to apply only to the performance space and not to the entire park. 8) The story of Pioneer Park will be incorporated into the design. 9) Salt Lake City will provide maintenance and security. 3. What is the criteria /what are the limitations that the Administration is considering when evaluating the location? 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 145, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-6399 FAX: 801-535-6663 1. The Administration and SLOC have agreed that a"boutique"performance space would meet the requirement for a gathering and entertainment space to generate an atmosphere somewhat similar to what was experienced during the Olympics. In order to be financially viable,this kind of facility would have to accommodate about 5000 to 7500 people,have space adjacent to or on the site to accommodate at least 3 semi-trailer trucks (for performers equipment, stages,etc.), have performance-related space other than the stage(green rooms, dressing rooms, lighting and sound booths), and other possible amenities that are yet to be specifically defined(e.g. bathrooms, concession space,perhaps managerial office space). The performance space itself requires a minimum of 5 acres in order to include the amenities to make it financially sustainable. Physical space for additional Olympic features(e.g. tower and cauldron),public gathering space,and developed entrances would require a larger area. 2. SLOC has indicated they would fund the construction and the first year of programming if the City provides a suitable site. 3. Because SLOC requires initiation of construction this summer and there is no funding for property acquisition, the Administration has considered only those properties that are currently under the City's control or which are under the control of another public agency. 4. For Pioneer Park,current public uses such as the Farmer's Market, are to be maintained and enhanced. Existing users of the park,including the homeless, will not be displaced. 5. Impacts to the existing neighborhood(primarily noise and parking concerns) are also considerations. 4. For what length of time would the property be subject to restrictions relating to Olympic sponsors? What happens as Olympic sponsors change? (Coke was a big SLC sponsor, but what if they aren't in the future) Sponsor restrictions would be on-going. SLOC will be providing written guidelines to address this concern. Discussion to date has included several alternatives to address oversight of sponsors. For example, the USOC may be the contact for this information when SLOC is dissolved. SLOC is aware that some exemptions are likely to be needed, especially as Olympic sponsors change over time. 5. Will there be fencing around the amphitheater, or around the park space in any way? Some kind of operational barrier would be needed for the performance space and its sound and lighting systems. Ticketed performances will require a barrier to separate ticket holders from the general public. SLOC is designing the project,but in general the Administration envisions that a system be developed that assures the park is accessible at all times. 6. There is interest in knowing more about the entrances --will they be programmed in any way, what will they take away from the park? Designs are in progress. The Pioneer experience would be told not only at the entrance(s),but throughout the park. The Olympic story is anticipated to be told primarily at the performance space. 7. Is it anticipated that the revenues from events will cover operations and maintenance? Revenue would probably cover operations and programming only,probably not park maintenance. 8. What is the current cost to operate and maintain Pioneer Park? How is this expected to change in the future under this proposal? Current costs are$57,000 per year. Future costs are dependent on design features which have not _ been determined. Potential examples of increased costs may be 24/7 park security($117,000), 2 and increased costs for restroom maintenance ($74,000 for an increase from 4 restrooms to 4 banks of 4 restrooms). 9. What is the anticipated cost to program the facility? SLOC is developing a model with a goal to fully cover programming expenses. 10. Is it anticipated that programming would be at the City's expense? SLOC would provide the programming for the inaugural year. After that, it is currently anticipated that the City would contract with a private entity to provide the programming. SLOC would retain some programming oversight perhaps through the establishment of a programming advisory board. 11. There is interest in a museum or display area for Olympic items. Might this be done on Main Street? (not instead of this park) SLOC does not intend to create a museum to compete with the new Olympic museum in Summit County. One idea being expressed is to allow room for future development for art/community space adjacent to the performance space that could possibly accommodate an Olympic photo gallery. This center would not preclude other museums or displays in Salt Lake City sponsored by other groups. 12. Would zoning changes be necessary in order to proceed with this as currently proposed? Again,the design is not finalized,but it appears that it may be possible to place a stage as a band shell that would not require a zoning change. Whether that would provide the acoustics and visibility required is being determined. Landform changes that would create an amphitheater would require zoning changes. The Administration's intent is to minimize landfoiin changes. 13. What information does the Administration have or could it obtain to indicate that the market could support an outdoor performance facility (Red Butte, Thanksgiving Point were mentioned -- do those facilities cover their costs?) The Administration has asked SLOC to retain a consultant to gather and assess information on the status of the market for this kind of facility. In addition, the Administration has gathered information from private companies who could potentially operate this kind of facility, and their response has been that these facilities can be self-supporting if the facility is of a high enough quality that additional lighting and sound systems do not need to be rented to meet the needs of the various performers. 14. Would restrooms and other facilities to accommodate large crowds be included so that portable facilities do not need to be brought in? Yes. Although the exact design is not done,portable facilities are not anticipated to be needed for the majority of the performances. For those situations when the facility is used at its maximum capacity, additional portable facilities may be required. 15. If this facility is built, at Pioneer Park or another location, is it still necessary/ appropriate /viable to include a public performance space on Library Square of the scale previously discussed? The Administration has reviewed the anticipated usage and size of the proposed public performance space on Library Square,and the usage of that space is still being determined. There are similarities in what is being planned,but differences also exist. The potential capacity of an amphitheater at Library Square has typically been envisioned as smaller, although a capacity up to about 7000 could be developed. However,this facility would not have the same amenities as 3 those proposed for the performing space at Pioneer Park. A large stage and elaborate productions were not anticipated as the typical usage for the Library Square amphitheater. A smaller, more informal use has been discussed, perhaps related to the science center and the library,but also for other community events. A larger facility with the amenities mentioned before would be needed to draw bigger name performers. The configuration of the space on the Library Block is a concern, particularly because it does not meet the 5 acre minimum. Also,the stage for a large Library Square amphitheater would require an orientation into the western sun,which would prohibit its use for certain performances. SLOC has agreed to review any available site that meets its criteria. 16. Is it correct to state that the arch was built for a short-term use? Has an evaluation been done of the potential long-term maintenance costs? This is being investigated. SLOC is looking into the long term operational and maintenance requirements of using the arch. 17. How vital is it that the facility be operating next summer? Is this a preference of the SLOC and USOC, or is it a condition of the gift? (staffs note: is it the goal of SLOC to leave a legacy park, or to leave a legacy park only if it opens next summer?) SLOC's goal is to leave a legacy park that opens next summer. This is a condition SLOC has imposed in order to maintain the Olympic momentum,marketing and media prospects. Their rationale is that they will be dissolving all their assets over the next year or so and they want to turn over a turn-key operational project to the City. SLOC believes this time frame will maintain the momentum of the Salt Lake Olympics before the emphasis is placed entirely on Athens. 18. Is it estimated that the costs to construct the facility would be in keeping with the gift amount, or might the costs exceed the gift amount? No. Because SLOC would control the construction costs and give a completed facility as a gift, it is not expected that costs to the City would be accrued. 19. We continue to get suggestions from people about the east side of the Library Block. We understand that it is 'too small' but this hasn't been communicated to the public in a way that makes it clear. (How was it concluded that the theatre needs to be 7,500 to 2,000? Maybe there is some industry 'standard' that makes this size appropriate to draw a certain type of entertainment group??) The open space on the Library block is not sufficient to meet all the requirements being anticipated. The type of performing space being recommended requires a capacity of 5000 to 7500 to make it financially feasible. This information was obtained from private operators of these kinds of facilities. In addition, as stated above, the infrastructure for the facility has to be at a high enough caliber to provide the kind of sound and lighting systems that performers will require, as well as space for semi-truck bays, dressing rooms, green rooms,possible concession space, and stage orientation requirements. 20. How many events per year would need to be held to make the project viable? Is there any data available about similar facilities and their ability to generate that number of events and revenue (taking in to account the climate)? Is there a market for this facility, given West Valley City's interest in establishing a facility, Red Butte Garden, Thanksgiving Point? (are there others?) The number of events required per year is being developed. SLOC envisions a season from Memorial Day through Labor Day,with 10 day festivals near the opening and closing dates, and performances every weekend(Thursday—Saturday). The information from the private sector _ indicates that the Salt Lake area would support one of these facilities. Information on 4 comparisons to other facilities is being gathered. What the Administration has learned is that nothing to date suggests that this facility would substantively compete with the proposed facilities in West Valley City and Red Butte because of the size differences and programming content. Thanksgiving Point has a similar capacity(up to about 8000 people),but has differences in availability and distance. 22. It has been indicated that the homeless population will not be displaced due to this project. Is this the case? What steps will be taken in this regard? The homeless and the public in general will not be displaced. The public will continue to have access to Pioneer Park. Although there will be a certain amount of space required to be secured and inaccessible to the public during events, it will be minimized. A condition imposed on the design is that the current public uses of Pioneer Park, such as the Farmer's Market,will be maintained. It is SLOC's intent that the Farmer's Market be enhanced. Stakeholder meetings with human service providers will be held to make sure their needs and concerns are addressed. 23. Have all parcels of RDA property been considered? Yes. All available RDA properties within the borders of the downtown core area have been considered. The Serta Mattress Factory site at 336 South 500 West was recently acquired by the RDA,but a development option agreement was signed with the Living Planet Aquarium at closing, so the site is unavailable. Two other parcels exist, one acre near 500 West and 200 South,and 1.5 acres at about 330 South and 200 East,but they are both too small. 24. What is the status of the fundraising for the aquarium? Would that location be viable for the Olympic Legacy Park, and might there be another location for the aquarium? Is that even possible to consider given ownership, options, etc.? (Asked by a city employee outside the Council Office, not a Council Member) As noted above, this property was recently acquired by the RDA and they entered into an option agreement with the Living Planet Aquarium that includes fundraising and development goals for 6 month periods over the next three years. As long as the aquarium meets those goals,they will retain the option on the property at 336 South 500 West(listed as the Serta Mattress Factory site). 25. What specific process will be followed for this issue. How will the amount of public input be maximized? (Raised by a Council Member. A letter from Crossroads Urban Center on this same topic was addressed to the Mayor and Council). Stakeholder groups(homeless advocates,business, arts,historic/preservation, community councils)have been invited to on-going meetings to determine their needs and concerns as well as what they see as being required to make this project viable, and to apprise them of the design process. Their concerns will be discussed and their input will be reflected in the design. In addition to these meetings, another open house prior to the public hearing is planned. Does Historic Landmarks Commission have the authority to prevent the Pioneer Park location proposal from advancing? To what extent can changes be made to the park without the Commission's approval (how far does their authority extend, and what is the nature of the authority)? Yes, the Historic Landmarks Commission has the authority to prevent a facility in Pioneer Park. No physical changes to Pioneer Park can be made without the Historic Landmarks Commission's approval. Their authority includes reviewing and approving or denying an application for a certificate of appropriateness and reviewing and approving or denying applications for the demolition of structures in the historic preservation overlay district(City Code 21A.06.050 Section C). The subcommittee that has been formed will report to the full Landmarks Commission. ity- 200 , poo pion) yr 5 To what body can a decision of Historic Landmarks be appealed? What is the nature of the appeal? (technical only, etc.) The Land Use Appeals Board would hear any appeal of a Historic Landmark Commission decision. Currently, the LUAB can only overturn a decision if it was arbitrary,capricious, illegal, or that a prejudicial procedural error occurred. A decision can also be appealed to the District Court. Is it anticipated that alcohol would be available at functions at the park? Is it correct to state that legislative (Council) action would be needed in order to allow for this? (There was previously a proposal to change it from a park to a 'square' so that alcohol could be allowed. Would the same route be followed in this case?) It is possible that the ability to serve alcohol within the performance space might be a condition that a private contractor would impose before agreeing to program the facility. This issue will be explored as planning for the site continues, although SLOC is not seeking any change in the existing rules and regulations. Which Historic Landmarks Commission Members serve on the subcommittee? Vicki Mickelsen, Scott Christensen, Soren Simonson,and William Littig Are the subcommittee meetings open to the public? No. The subcommittee believes other forums are more appropriate for public input, although they welcome City Council members and staff at theirmeetings. Will the Olympic staff be at the meetings? Yes, they have been invited. Can the Council staff go to the subcommittee meetings, or just the meetings with the interest groups? Yes. They are welcome to attend as many of the meetings as their schedules will accommodate. The process that Stephen and I (Cindy Gust-Jenson) spoke very informally about focuses on Pioneer Park exclusively. One Council Member asked whether the Administration will have a process to hear ideas on other sites. This specific process will focus on Pioneer Park. The Administration may consider other sites if they become available,but the purpose of this process is to focus on Pioneer Park. Council Member Love was on a radio call-in program today and one of the callers indicated that the Central City Community Council has voted in opposition to the Pioneer Park site and they were asking for the specific situation re: Serta block (aquarium, etc.) It would be helpful to have clarification on the status of that block. Within the last month the RDA entered into an option agreement with the aquarium. The agreement was signed at the same time the RDA purchased the property. As long as the Living Planet Aquarium meets the requirements of the agreement, the property cannot be considered for any other use. 6 Attachment 1 Olympic Cultural Center Potential Locations Sites were evaluated against these 3 main criteria,with all 3 having to be met to proceed with the timeline of ground breaking by August 2002 Parcel size: min of 5 Within downtown City owned or acres for boutique core: 5th S, 6th W, N. publicly Site / Location performance space Temple, 3rd E controlled site Comments Noise may be a concern for future residential development, although residents would be aware of the issue before moving in. Noise not seen as a great Pioneer Park yes yes yes concern for hotel customers. Noise and parking concerns for existing nearby residents, noise concerns for library patrons. Site has long and narrow configuration, too small for amphitheater and faces western sun. Additional amenities and cultural Library Block no yes yes attractions would be very limited d State Fair Park yes no yes Franklin Covey site no yes 13th S 3rd W(privately owned) yes no no Donation of land not offered. Triad Center may be too small yes yes Ice rink would probably have to be removed. Serta Mattress Factory site no-slightly less than RDA has development option agreement in place with 336 S 500 W 4 acres yes RDA ownership Living Planet Aquarium. First Presidency indicated that LDS Church had other Medals Plaza site yes yes no long term plans for the site. yes, but would require major landscaping Memory Grove changes no yes Neighborhood, parking, and accessibility concerns Page 1 Attachment 1 Parcel size: min of 5 Within downtown City owned or acres for boutique core: 5th S, 6th W, N. publicly Site / Location performance space Temple, 3rd E controlled site Comments yes, but would require major landscaping Liberty Park changes no yes yes, but would require yes -- major landscaping Sugarhouse Park Sugarhouse Park changes no Authority UTA parcel at 2nd S, 6th-7th W yes yes -on border no Not enough time to arrange another parcel for UTA use VA Hospital area not known no no Mark Steel site near 4th S off-ramp not known yes no Privately owned Private sites not known possibly no i Page 2 Propos d Motions for Budg t Adoption FY 2002-03 Item F-4 ["I move that the Council"] Adopt an ordinance approving Salt Lake City's fiscal year 2002-2003 budget(See attached spreadsheet), excluding the budget for the Library Fund which is separately adopted, the employment staffing document, all compensation plans and Memorandum of Understandings, and the Council Legislative Intent Statements. (See attached Intent Statements) Item F-5 ["I move that the Council"] Adopt an ordinance establishing Salt Lake City's certified property tax rate upon all real and personal property within Salt Lake City made taxable by law for the fiscal year commencing July,2002 and ending June 30,2003,including [excluding] judgment levies, as follows: 1. General Fund: .003657 (certified rate) or .003911 (certified rate with Urban Forestry /Street Sweeping) 2. Library Fund: .000755 3. General Obligation Bonds for Block 37: .000546 4. Judgment Levies • General Property .000043 • G.O. Property .000006 • Library .000006 Item F-6 ["I move that the Council"] Adopt an ordinance amending Section 12.56.210, Salt Lake City Code,relating to parking meters special use conditions and fees; and amending Section 14.12.130 relating to removal of parking meters. Item F-7 ["I move that the Council"] Adopt an ordinance enacting Section 12.56.325, Salt Lake City Code,relating to loading zones and restricted parking - special use conditions and fees. Item F-8 ["I move that the Council"] Adopt an ordinance approving the final budget for the Library _ Fund of Salt Lake City, Utah for fiscal year 2002-2003. Regular Property Taxes Budget County Difference Rates Real Property 1103 39,692,971 39,478,991 -213,980 0.003657 (Certified) G. O. Property 1104 6,817,883 6,826,697 8,814 0.000546 Real Prior 1105 1,300,000 1,300,000 0 Personal Property 1107 6,278,722 6,244,874 -33,848 Motor Vehicle 1109 4,622,496 4,622,496 0 Total Property Taxes 58,712,072 58,473,058 -239,014 Judgment Levies Rates Amount Cost to $100,000 Home General Property 0.000043 537,634 2.37 G. O. Property 0.000006 78,426 0.33 Total Judgment 0.000049 616,060 2.70 Urban Forestry/Street Sweeping 0.000254 3,175,789 13.97 Rates 2002 2003 Difference Certified (General) 0.003745 0.003657 -0.000088 G. O. Property 0.000551 0.000546 -0.000005 Judgment 0 0.000049 0.000049 Urban Forestry/Street Sweeping 0 0.000254 0.000254 Total Rates 0.004296 0.004506 0.000210 Primary Residence Cost per$100,000 Market Value 2002 2003 Difference Certified (General) 205.98 201.14 -4.84 G. O. Property 30.31 30.03 -0.27 Judgment 0.00 2.70 2.70 Urban Forestry/Street Sweeping 0.00 13.97 13.97 Total Cost 236.28 247.83 11.55 Business Cost per$100,000 Value 2002 2003 Difference Certified (General) 374.50 365.70 -8.80 G. O. Property 55.10 54.60 -0.50 Judgment 0.00 4.90 4.90 Urban Forestry/Street Sweeping 0.00 25.40 25.40 Total Cost 429.60 450.60 21.00