Loading...
06/03/2003 - Minutes (2) PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, DUNE 3, 2003 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Tuesday, June 3, 2003, at 5:00 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance: Council Members Carlton Christensen, Nancy Saxton, Jill Remington Love, Dave Buhler, Dale Lambert, Eric Jergensen and Van Turner. Also in Attendance: Mayor Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson; Ed Rutan, City Attorney; Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer; David Nimkin, Chief of Staff; and Pam Johnson, Deputy City Recorder. Councilmember Christensen presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. No discussion was held. See File M 03-5 for Council announcements and handouts. #2. COUNCIL WILL ENTER INTO AN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS THE MAIN STREET PLAZA. See File M 03-2 for confidential tape and sworn statement. #3. RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING THE MAIN STREET PLAZA, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CLOSING, VACATING, AND ABANDONING A PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AND PASSAGE EASEMENT LOCATED ON THE FORMER MAIN STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY BETWEEN NORTH AND SOUTH TEMPLE STREETS PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-03-01, AND RELATED MATTERS. View Attachment Councilmember Christensen said he wanted to continue the public hearing to June 10, 2003. Councilmember Jergensen said he also wanted to continue the hearing. He said he wanted to give as many people as possible the opportunity to speak on this issue. Councilmember Buhler said the Main Street issue had gone on long enough and he wanted to see it concluded. Councilmember Lambert said he did not want the public to feel they had not been informed. He said he wanted them to have the opportunity to be aware of the smallest changes prior to the Council voting on this issue. Council Members asked Ed Rutan to read changes made to the proposed agreement to the public prior to the public hearing. Council Members held a discussion as to the structure for the public hearing scheduled in the Council Chambers. #4. HOLD A DISCUSSION ON THE POLICY DIRECTION AND OTHER FOLLOW-UP ISSUES TO THE BUDGET. View Attachment No discussion was held. The meeting adjourned at 5:40 p.m. 03 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, JUNE 3, 2003 pi 03 - 2 { SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2003 (Closing, vacating and abandoning a pedestrian access and passage easement located on the former Main Street right of way) AN ORDINANCE CLOSING, VACATING AND ABANDONING A PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AND PASSAGE EASEMENT LOCATED ON THE FORMER MAIN STREET RIGHT OF WAY BETWEEN NORTH AND SOUTH TEMPLE STREETS PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-03-01. WHEREAS, in April 1999 the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah adopted Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 28 of 1999 closing a portion of Main Street between North Temple and South Temple Streets (hereinafter the "Main Street Property") conditioned on sale for fair market value, which Ordinance was 4111 amended in May 2000 by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 29 of 2000; WHEREAS, in accordance with Ordinance No. 28 of 1999, Salt Lake City Corporation (hereinafter the "City") and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (hereinafter the "Corporation of the Presiding Bishop") executed an April 27, 1999 Special Warranty Deed (hereinafter the "Special Warranty Deed") in which inter alia(1) the City transferred its interest in the Main Street Property to the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop; (2) the City reserved an easement over and across the Main Street Property for pedestrian access and passage (hereinafter the "Pedestrian Easement"); (3) the City and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop agreed that • the reservation of the Pedestrian Easement did not create a public forum on the Main Street Property and was not intended to dictate whether the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop allowed or prohibited certain specified conduct enumerated in the Special Warranty Deed(hereinafter the "Restrictions"); and (4) the City also reserved easements for Emergency and Public Safety, Public and Private Utilities and the Preservation of a View Corridor(hereinafter collectively the "Other Easements"); WHEREAS, in November 1999, the First Unitarian Church and others filed suit against the City in the United States District Court for the District of Utah (hereinafter the "Federal Lawsuit") challenging, among other things, the Restrictions in the Special Warranty Deed and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop subsequently intervened in the Federal Lawsuit; WHEREAS, in October 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the • Tenth Circuit(hereinafter the "Court of Appeals") held that the Pedestrian Easement created a public forum for purposes of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and that the Restrictions in the Special Warranty Deed were unconstitutional; WHEREAS, the Court of Appeals concluded in its decision that the First Amendment prohibited the City and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop from guaranteeing public access through the Pedestrian Easement while at the same time prohibiting expressive activity on the Pedestrian Easement; WHEREAS, in its decision the Court of Appeals further suggested that two of the City's permitted options were: (1) to retain the Pedestrian Easement and • adopt reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on protected expressive 11111 activities; or(2) to relinquish the Pedestrian Easement so that the Main Street Property became entirely private; WHEREAS, the Court of Appeals noted in its opinion that the City and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop disagreed over the impact of the Court's decision that the Restrictions in the Special Warranty Deed were unconstitutional, with the City contending that such a decision would eliminate the Restrictions, but not the Pedestrian Easement reserved by the City, and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop contending that the City would lose the Pedestrian Easement; WHEREAS, following the decision of the Court of Appeals, the City and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop continued to disagree on the impact of the Court's decision on the City's reservation of the Pedestrian Easement; WHEREAS, the Court of Appeals' decision resulted in much controversy and divisiveness in the community; WHEREAS, in order to resolve the legal dispute over the Pedestrian Easement between the City and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop and to bring an end to the divisiveness in the community, Mayor Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson proposed on December 16, 2002 that the City and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop settle potential legal claims regarding the existence and the extent of the Pedestrian Easement on the following basis (hereinafter the "Settlement Proposal"): (1) the Pedestrian Easement would be extinguished; 3 (2) the Special Warranty Deed would be amended to provide that the • right of reverter in the Deed would be extinguished if a court deems restrictions on conduct or other expressive activity imposed by the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop unconstitutional by reason of the right of reverter; (3) the City and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop will each pay one-half of all costs and attorneys fees assessed in favor of the plaintiffs against the City in the Federal Lawsuit; (4) there would be no agreement by the City and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop regarding any restrictions on conduct or other expressive activities on the Main Street Property; (5) the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop would donate to the City a certain parcel of land consisting of approximately two acres near the Sorenson • Center in Glendale (hereinafter the "Glendale Property") for the construction of one or more facilities by the City; (6) the Alliance for Unity would commit to raise at least $4 million, which, combined with $1 million pledged by James Sorenson, will be used for the completion of facilities by the end of 2005 on or near the Glendale Property; (7) The Corporation of the Presiding Bishop also would participate financially in the development of the facilities; and (8) The City potentially would partner with others to provide programs at the facilities; 4 WHEREAS, on January 8, 2003, Mayor Anderson filed Petition 400-03-01 • with the Salt Lake City Planning Division to close, vacate and abandon the Pedestrian Easement pursuant to the terms and conditions outlined in the Settlement Proposal; WHEREAS, presentations were made by the Mayor's Office to various community councils and community organizations and the following groups gave their advisory approval of the Settlement Proposal: Downtown Alliance Capitol Hill Community Council West Salt Lake Community Council Chamber of Commerce Greater Avenues Community Council Central City Community Council People's Freeway Community Council WHEREAS, the City created a website to provide information to the public about the Settlement Proposal, to provide transcripts of the "Question and Answer" segments of the community council meetings and to receive additional public comment; WHEREAS, on or about February 27, 2003, the Salt Lake City Transportation Division prepared a Pedestrian Impact Study of Part-Time or Full Time Closure of the Main Street Plaza to Through Pedestrians, (hereinafter the "Pedestrian Impact Study"); WHEREAS, on March 23, 2003, the Transportation Advisory Board voted to support the Settlement Proposal, concluding in part that the impact on • pedestrian traffic would be minor based in part on the Pedestrian Impact Study; 5 WHEREAS, the City Council has considered and rejects the recommendation by the Transportation Advisory Board that the Corporation of the • Presiding Bishop maintain public access for pedestrians and bicyclists across the Main Street Property and the City Council itself makes no such recommendation or finding; WHEREAS, in April 2003 the City Planning Staff issued its Report on Petition 400-003-01, recommending that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council inter alia that the Pedestrian Easement be extinguished and the donation of the Glendale Property be accepted by the City; WHEREAS, on April 9, 2003, following public comment, the Planning Commission voted 4 to 3 not to follow the Planning Staff recommendation; WHEREAS, in accordance with legal requirements, the City Attorney's . Office commissioned independent appraisals of the market value of the Pedestrian Easement and of the Glendale Property by J. Phillip Cook & Associates and such appraisals dated May 2, 2003 and April 8, 2003 respectively have been delivered to the City; WHEREAS, by stipulation dated April 24, 2003, the City and the plaintiffs in the Federal Lawsuit stipulated as to the plaintiffs' attorneys fees and costs on the terms and conditions stated therein (hereinafter the "Stipulation"); WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public work session concerning the Settlement Proposal on[date], 2003; has held a public hearing concerning the Settlement Proposal on[date], 2003; heard comments from numerous citizens 6 during the "Public Comment" segment of many City Council Meetings; and • received many other written and oral comments from citizens; WHEREAS, the City Council enacts this ordinance pursuant to and in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Utah Code, including §§ 10-8-8 et seq. and of the Salt Lake City Code, including Chapter 2.58; WHEREAS, the City Council acknowledges that the closure, vacation, and abandonment of the Pedestrian Easement means there would be no legally enforceable right of public pedestrian access or passage on the Main Street Property; that the Main Street Property would no longer be a part of the public pedestrian transportation grid; and that the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop as the private owner of the Main Street Property would have the right to deny access • to the public if it so wished; WHEREAS, the Settlement Proposal is consistent with the City's primary objective in entering into the original transaction: the promotion of tourism and economic development; WHEREAS, appropriation of funds for the construction of new community facilities will be approved by the City Council pursuant to standard procedure through which the City Council considers inter alia broad benefit to the City and operations and maintenance costs; WHEREAS, based upon the information and evidence presented in the City Council public work sessions, public hearing, staff briefing, and "public • comments"; the Planning Commission hearing; and the Community Council meetings; the City Council finds as follows: • (1) if, following completion of the transaction, the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop, as the private owner of the Main Street Property, decides to close the Main Street Property to pedestrian access and passage, the impact on pedestrian traffic would be minor; (2) the City never intended in the original transaction that expressive activities would be preserved on the Main Street Property; (3) the Court of Appeals decision has left the City with an unintended responsibility to regulate protected expressive activities on the Main Street Plaza, with the attendant risk of litigation; (4) even after the closure, vacation and abandonment of the Pedestrian • Easement and resulting closure of the public forum on the Main Street Property, there will be ample alternate public forum space available for protected expressive activities in the immediate vicinity of the Main Street Property along North and South Temple Streets as well as in other areas of the City; (5) during 1998, the year prior to the original transaction, no free speech permits were requested from the City for the Main Street sidewalks between North and South Temple Streets; (6) the continued existence of the Pedestrian Easement is not necessary for use by the public as a sidewalk or pedestrian thoroughfare and closure, • 8 vacation and abandonment of the Pedestrian Easement will not be adverse to the • general public's interest; (7) there is a good faith legal dispute between the City and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop over the impact of the Court of Appeals' decision on their original agreement; (8) the controversy over the impact of the decision by the Court of Appeals on the original agreement between the City and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop has had an extremely divisive and harmful effect on the Salt Lake City community; (9) the donation of the Glendale Property by the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop and the donations by the Alliance for Unity and James L. IIISorenson will enable the City to construct new and expanded facilities that will provide significant benefits to the community; (10) the benefit of new community facilities in Glendale, promotion of tourism, resolution of divisiveness in the community, and voluntary settlement of the legal dispute between the City and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop provide sufficient public policy reasons for the closure, vacation and abandonment of the Pedestrian Easement, and the closure of the Pedestrian Easement will enable the City to accomplish those public policy purposes; (11) accomplishment of these public policy purposes through closure, vacation and abandonment of the Pedestrian Easement outweighs the benefits of • any alternatives to the closure of the Pedestrian Easement; 9 (12) there is good cause for the closure, vacation and abandonment of the Pedestrian Easement and such action will not be detrimental to the public interest; • (13) the closure, vacation and abandonment of the Pedestrian Easement according to the terms of(a) a Settlement Agreement to be executed by the City and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop substantially in the form of Exhibit A (the "Settlement Agreement"), and (b) a Deed Conveying Easement Rights and Amendment to Special Warranty Deed substantially in the form of Exhibit B (the "Amended Special Warranty Deed") is in the best interests of the City as a whole, NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, that: SECTION 1. The Pedestrian Easement located on the Main Street Property, which is more particularly described in Exhibit C attached hereto, be, • and the same hereby is closed, vacated and abandoned and declared no longer needed or available for use by the public for any purpose whatsoever, including but not limited to use as a sidewalk or as a pedestrian thoroughfare upon fulfillment of the conditions provided in Section 3. SECTION 2. Reservations and Disclaimers. The above closure, vacation and abandonment expressly does not affect and in no way limits: (1) the obligation of the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop to use and maintain the Main Street Property as a landscaped space; (2) the Emergency and Public Safety Easement reserved by the City in Section 1.1 of the Amended Special Warranty Deed; (3) the Public and Private Utilities Easement reserved by the City in Section 0 10 1.2 of the Amended Special Warranty Deed; and (4) the Preservation of View 411 Corridor Easement reserved bythe Cityin Section 1.4 of the Amended Special Warranty Deed. SECTION 3. Conditions. This closure, vacation and abandonment are conditioned upon the closing of the transactions pursuant to the terms of a Settlement Agreement between the City and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop substantially in the form of Exhibit A hereto and an Amended Special Warranty Deed substantially in the form of Exhibit B hereto. SECTION 4. Transfer of Title. Title to the Pedestrian Easement shall remain with the City until the closing pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. • SECTION 5. Amendment of Prior Ordinances. To the extent necessary, Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 28 of 1999 and Ordinance No. 29 of 2000 shall be and hereby are amended consistent with the terms and conditions set forth herein. SECTION 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of , 2003. CHAIRPERSON • 11 ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: • CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: �3 O " CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER_ 1` • (SEAL) Bill No. of 2003. Published: G:\Ordinance 03\Main Street Plaza 5-19-03-clean.doc • 12 DRAFT 5/236/03/03 • SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This Settlement Agreement is entered into as of the day of , 2003, between SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION(hereinafter the"City") and the CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, a Utah corporation sole(hereinafter"COPB"). Collectively, the City and the COPB will constitute and be referred to as the"Parties." Recitals The Parties jointly represent and acknowledge: A. On or about April 27, 1999,the City executed a Special Warranty Deed (hereinafter the"Special Warranty Deed")to the COPB conveying surface rights in property described in Exhibit A to the Special Warranty Deed(hereinafter the"Main Street Plaza Property"). The Main Street Plaza Property formerly constituted a segment of Main Street in Salt Lake City, Utah,between South Temple Street and North Temple Street. In the Special Warranty Deed,the City reserved several easements on and under the surface of the Main Street Plaza Property, including an easement for pedestrian access and passage only, subject to certain limitations designed to assure that the Main Street Plaza Property would not be dedicated to public ownership or constitute a First Amendment forum of any kind under the United States 40 Constitution. (The pedestrian access and passage easement, as established and limited in the Special Warranty Deed, will hereafter be called the"Pedestrian Easement.") B. The Special Warranty Deed provided that nothing in the Pedestrian Easement was to be deemed to create or constitute a"public forum"on the Main Street Plaza Property. The Special Warranty Deed also provided that the City and the COPB could terminate the Pedestrian Easement without the joinder or consent of any other person. The parties to the Special Warranty Deed explicitly intended for the COPB to have the right to regulate or prohibit conduct and activity of persons visiting or passing over the Main Street Plaza Property. C. In June 2000, the First Unitarian Church of Salt Lake City,Utahns for Fairness, the Utah National Organization for Women, and Craig S. Axford filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Utah against the City to challenge, among other things,the Special Warranty Deed's restrictions on the Pedestrian Easement. The suit, entitled First Unitarian Church of Salt Lake City, et al. vs. Salt Lake City Corporation,will hereinafter be referred to as the"Federal Litigation." The COPB intervened as a party defendant in the Federal Litigation. D. On or about May 4, 2001,the United States District Court for the District of Utah entered summary judgment for the City and the COPB in the Federal Litigation, holding that the restrictions on the Pedestrian Easement in the Special Warranty Deed did not violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. •E. On or about October 9, 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued an order reversing the district court's decision in the Federal Litigation and holding that the Pedestrian Easement created a public forum for First Amendment purposes and, as a result, that the City and the COPB may not prohibit protected speech on the Pedestrian Easement. The Tenth Circuit's decision suggested that the City's relinquishment of the Pedestrian Easement would eliminate the public forum and, therefore, the First Amendment issues associated with the Pedestrian Easement. The COPB has filed a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court in which it seeks review of the Tenth Circuit's decision. F. Following issuance of the Tenth Circuit's decision in the Federal Litigation, the City and the COPB disagreed concerning the decision's impact on the Pedestrian Easement and the right of the COPB to regulate or prohibit conduct on the Main Street Plaza Property. The City took the position that the Pedestrian Easement remains in effect without any of the limitations set forth specifically in the Special Warranty Deed. The COPB took the position that, as the result of the Tenth Circuit's opinion in the Federal Litigation, the Pedestrian Easement is void and, in any event, should be vacated so that the COPB may constitutionally regulate the use of the Main Street Plaza Property in accordance with the original intent of the parties to the Special Warranty Deed. In the face of these differences, the City and the COPB sought a mutually acceptable compromise to avoid protracted and costly litigation between them concerning the future of the Main Street Plaza Property. G. On January 8, 2003, the Mayor of the City(the"Mayor") filed a petition with the • City's Acting Planning Director for approval of a proposal to resolve the disputes referenced in paragraph F of these recitals (all of which disputes are hereinafter referred to collectively as the "Disputes"). A copy of the Petition is annexed hereto as Exhibit 1. On , the City Council approved the Mayor's proposal by Ordinance, a copy of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit 2 (the"Ordinance"). The purpose of this Settlement Agreement, the terms of which have been approved by the City Council, is to avoid litigation and resolve all of the Disputes, including without limitation, all disputes between the City and the COPB relating in any way to pedestrian access,pedestrian passage, and the right to control conduct on the Main Street Plaza Property. It is the intent of the Parties for the City to close, vacate, abandon, and convey to the COPB the Pedestrian Easement in return for consideration including the promises, covenants and agreements set forth herein. H. In implementation of the proposal set forth in Exhibit 1, the Parties and other interested persons intend to undertake a series of transactions and donations that will enable the City to establish one or more community facilities (hereinafter collectively the"Community Facility") located in the Glendale neighborhood for Salt Lake City residents. The land to be conveyed to the City pursuant to paragraph 2 of this Settlement Agreement will provide a location for one such facility. The Alliance for Unity will provide to the City a total of at least Four Million Dollars ($4,000,000) for construction of the Community Facility and, in the City's discretion, furnishings, fixtures, equipment, and maintenance therefor. James L. Sorenson will donate to the City cash and/or land having a value of at least One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) for the same purposes. The Foundation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the • 2 • "Foundation")has contributed Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000) to the Alliance for Unity toward its donation. I. By adopting the Ordinance, the Salt Lake City Council has considered this Settlement Agreement and all instruments and transactions referenced by this Settlement Agreement as well as the public comments regarding the Mayor's proposal. Agreement In consideration of the mutual promises and covenants set forth below, the Parties agree as follows: 1. Mutual Release of All Claims—Effective at"Closing," as defined in paragraph 8 below, and subject only to the obligations arising from this Settlement Agreement,the City and the COPB shall release, forgive, and forever discharge each other of and from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, liabilities,damages or losses of any kind whatsoever relating in any way to the Disputes, including, without limitation,those relating to the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in the Federal Litigation, the Pedestrian Easement and limitations thereon in the Special Warranty Deed,use of the Main Street Plaza Property as a public forum, and the COPB's regulation or prohibition of conduct and activity on the Main Street Plaza Property. • 2. Transfer of Gl a le p ope tyby Consideration Provided the COPB—At vuuua Closing, the COPB will convey 2.125 acres of property(hereinafter the"Glendale Property") located at 1385 South 900 West, Salt Lake City, Utah,by executing, delivering and recording a Special Warranty Deed in substantially the form annexed hereto as Exhibit 3 (the"Glendale Special Warranty Deed"). The Glendale Property has been appraised at a value of Two Hundred Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($275,000) by an independent appraiser retained by the City. The City acknowledges that the COPB is providing additional consideration equalling(a)Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000)through the Foundation's contribution to the Affiance for Unity, and(b) approximately One Hundred Four Thousand Five Hundred Eighty-Six Dollars ($104,586) as provided in paragraph 7,below. The City also acknowledges that it will receive other monetary consideration from third parties and other intangible consideration from the COPB and third parties. 3. Vacation and Conveyance of Public Access Easement—At Closing, pursuant to the Ordinance, the City will close,vacate, abandon, and convey to the COPB the Pedestrian Easement by executing, delivering and recording a"Deed Conveying Easement Rights and Amendment to Special Warranty Deed" substantially in the form annexed hereto as Exhibit 4 (the"Deed Conveying Easement Rights"). By virtue of the passage of the Ordinance and the execution, delivery and recording of the Deed Conveying Easement Rights, the Parties intend to effectuate the complete extinguishment of the Pedestrian Easement in return for all promises and covenants by the COPB in this Settlement Agreement and all donated funds and land received from the Alliance for Unity and James L. Sorenson. It is further the intent of the Parties that, 3 following implementation of this Settlement Agreement, the City will own no interest whatsoever in the Main Street Plaza Property except those interests arising from the COPB's obligation to use and maintain the Property as a landscaped space and the easements for emergency and public safety services and public and private utilities and the view corridor restrictions, as set forth specifically in Paragraphs 1.1, 1.2 and 1.4 of the Special Warranty Deed, as amended pursuant to this Settlement Agreement. 4. Other Consideration. The COPB acknowledges that the receipt by the City of the consideration to be provided by the Alliance for Unity and James L. Sorenson is material to the City's decision to enter into this transaction. 5. Amendment of Special Warranty Deed—At Closing, the City and the COPB will execute, deliver and record the Deed conveying Easement Rights, which will amend the Special Warranty Deed as follows: (a) Paragraphs 1.3, 2 (including all subparagraphs thereof), and 6.3 of the Special Warranty Deed will be deleted in their entirety and shall have no further force or effect whatsoever. (b) Paragraph 1.4 of the Special Warranty Deed will be amended to add the following: "To ensure the preservation of the view corridor established in this paragraph 1.4 and the aesthetics of the property and surrounding areas, Grantee may not erect • fences, walls or gates on the Property without the written approval of Grantor, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Grantor's approval authority shall be exercised based on aesthetic, safety, and security considerations and the need to preserve the view corridor established in this paragraph, and not on concerns about public access. All fences, walls and gates currently in place on the Property have been approved by Grantor. If a court of competent jurisdiction holds (without regard to any right to appeal) that the provisions in this paragraph 1.4 relating to fences, walls and gates, alone or in combination with any other factor, create or establish the basis for a First Amendment forum of any kind, then and thereupon the requirement that Grantee must obtain approval from Grantor to erect fences, walls or gates shall automatically terminate and be of no further force or effect whatsoever." (c) Paragraph 4 of the Special Warranty Deed will be amended in its entirety to read as follows: 4. Right of ReverterReentry. In the event that Grantee fails to use and maintain the Property as a landscaped space or to permit Grantor access to the Property pursuant to the easements reserved in Paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2, or violates the view corridor and fencing restrictions in Paragraph 1.4, then the Property shall, at Grantor's option exercised in accordance with Paragraph 5, revert to Grantor. Notwithstanding the foregoing, none of the provisions of this paragraph • s 4 4, alone or in combination with any other factor, shall be interpreted to create or establish the basis for a First Amendment forum of any kind. (d) Paragraph 6.1 of the Special Warranty Deed will be amended in its entirety to read as follows: 6.1 Integrated Agreement. This instrument is complete and integrated, and constitutes the entire understanding between the Parties with respect to the subject matter contained herein and supersedes all previous and contemporaneous agreements,understandings, promises, warranties, representations, inducements or conditions, oral or written, except as contained herein and in the Settlement Agreement between the Parties entered into on , 2003. The express terms hereof control and supersede any course of performance inconsistent with any terms hereof Any revisions, amendments or modifications to this instrument must be in writing and signed by all parties. Any implied and/or oral revisions, amendments or modifications will not be binding on any of the parties. (e) Paragraph 6.2 of the Special Warranty Deed will be amended in its entirety to read as follows: 6.2 Severability. If any term, condition, or provision of this instrument • is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable for any reason, all other terms, conditions and provisions of this instrument shall nevertheless remain in full force and effect so long as the primary purposes of the instrument are not thereby affected in any manner materially adverse to any party. Upon such determination that any term, condition or other provision is invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the Parties hereto shall negotiate in good faith to modify this instrument so as to effect as closely as possible the original intent of the Parties in a mutually acceptable manner to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law. (f) The Special Warranty Deed will be amended by adding the following paragraphs: 6.7 Intent of the Parties. Termination of Right of RevertefReentry. The parties expressly intend and agree that the Property be private property and that Grantee shall have full, complete and absolute control over all activities on and uses of the Property, subject only to its obligation to use and maintain the Property as a landscaped space with the easements reserved in Paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2, the view corridor and fencing restrictions in Paragraph 1.4, and Grantor's police powers applicable to private property in general. Nothing in this Special Warranty Deed, alone or in combination with any other factor, shall be interpreted to create or establish the basis for a First Amendment forum of any kind. If a court of competent jurisdiction holds (without regard to any right to appeal) that the right of reverterreentry in paragraph 4 alone or in combination with any other s 5 • factor creates or establishes the basis for a First Amendment forum of any kind, then and thereupon the right of reverterreentry shall immediately and automatically terminate and be of no further force or effect whatsoever. If, however, the court's holding is reversed, the reverterreentry clause shall immediately and automatically revive. Any termination of the reverterreentry clause shall not impair the right of Grantor to obtain equitable or other relief should Grantee's obligation to use and maintain the Property as a landscaped space or the provisions of Paragraphs 1.1, 1.2, or 1.4 be violated, provided that no such right in favor of Grantor , alone or in combination with any other factor, shall be interpreted to create or establish the basis for a First Amendment forum of any kind. 6.8 Notices. Notices will be in writing and will be given by personal delivery or by express delivery service(such as FedEx), freight prepaid. Notices will be delivered or addressed to Grantee and Grantor at the addresses set forth on the first page of this Amendment Deed or at such other address as a party may designate in writing;provided, however, that if the notice is given by personal delivery, delivery, in the case of Grantee, must be to one of the following: and in the case of Grantor, must be to one of the following: . The date notice is deemed to have been given,received and become effective will be(a)the date on which the notice is delivered, if notice is given by personal delivery, (b) the date of actual receipt, if • the notice is sent by express delivery service. 6. No Right of Public Access—It is the intent of the Parties to eliminate any right of public access or passage enforceable by the City or by members of the public in relation to the Main Street Plaza Property, and nothing in this Settlement Agreement should be construed otherwise. The Parties do not intend to create any obligation,promise, dedication, servitude, or easement of any kind that would require the COPB to permit public access or passage. 7. Division of Litigation Costs—All costs and attorneys' fees awarded at any time against the City in the Federal Litigation shall be paid one-half by the City and one-half by the COPB. The City hereby acknowledges that such payment of costs and attorneys' fees by COPB, equalling approximately One Hundred Four Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Six Dollars ($104,586), when and if made, represents additional consideration received by the City from the COPB in connection with the closing,vacating, abandoning and conveyance of the Pedestrian Easement. 8. Closing—The closing of all of the transactions and deliveries contemplated hereby(the"Closing") shall be held at the offices of Mayor Ross C. ("Rocky")Anderson, 451 South State Street, Room 306, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111, at 10:00 a.m., Salt Lake City time, on or before a date that is no earlier than thirty five(35) days, nor later than sixty(60)days, following(a) the date on which the Ordinance shall have been finally published, or(b) the date s 6 on which the Mayor and the COPB execute and deliver this Settlement Agreement, whichever is later, or at such other date and time upon which the parties mutually agree in writing. 9. Conditions and Events of Closing (a) Conditions and Deliveries. For the Closing to occur, each of the following conditions must be met, and each shall be considered a condition precedent to the others: (i) The Ordinance shall have been enacted by the City Council and finally published. (ii) No law suit or administrative proceeding shall have been commenced against the City, the COPB, or the officers, agents or affiliates of either challenging the Ordinance,this Settlement Agreement, or any of the transactions or instruments contemplated in this Settlement Agreement,unless satisfaction of the foregoing condition shall have been waived by the Mayor on behalf of the City and by the COPB. (iii) First American Title Insurance Company("Escrow Holder") shall be in receipt from the Salt Lake Alliance for Unity and James L. Sorenson of cash (in collected funds)and land with a total value(as determined by the City in its • sole discretion,based on an M.A.I. appraisal)of at least Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000) (the"Cash and Land")for construction and, in the City's discretion, furnishings, fixtures, equipment and maintenance therefor. (iv) The City and the COPB shall have executed and delivered to Escrow Holder the Deed Conveying Easement Rights. (v) The COPB shall have executed and delivered to Escrow Holder the Glendale Special Warranty Deed. (vi) Escrow Holder shall be irrevocably prepared to issue to the City an ALTA standard coverage owner's policy of title insurance, Form 10-17-92, in the amount of$ (the"Glendale Title Insurance Policy"), naming the City as the insured and insuring all of the City's right,title and interest to the property described in the Glendale Special Warranty Deed, subject to the normal printed terms and conditions of such policy. The COPB shall pay the premium for the issuance of the Glendale Title Insurance Policy. (b) Costs; Closing Events. All recording costs for the Deed Conveying Easement Rights and the Glendale Special Warranty Deed shall be paid by the COPB. Escrow Holder's escrow fee shall be divided equally between the City and the COPB. At the Closing, Escrow Holder shall simultaneously(i)record with the Salt Lake County Recorder the Deed Conveying Easement Rights an the Glendale Special Warranty Deed, 1111 and (ii) deliver to the City the Cash and Land(with the land portion to be conveyed by 7 Special Warranty Deed in form acceptable to the City in its sole discretion)without • condition. As soon as practicable following the Closing, Escrow Holder shall deliver to the City the original Glendale Title Insurance Policy. 10. Miscellaneous (a) The Parties each represent and acknowledge that, in executing this Settlement Agreement, they do not rely and have not relied upon any representation or statement made by each other(except as expressly set forth in the recitals in this Settlement Agreement) or by any agents, representatives, or attorneys of the other with regard to the subject matter,basis, or fact of this Settlement Agreement, or otherwise. (b) Each of the Parties represent and warrant that the persons signing this Settlement Agreement in their representative capacities have been duly authorized to do so by the party for whom he or she has signed. (c) This Settlement Agreement is complete and integrated, and constitutes the entire understanding between the Parties with respect to the subject matter contained herein and supersedes all previous and contemporaneous agreements,understandings, promises, warranties,representations, inducements or conditions, oral or written, except as contained herein. The express terms hereof control and supersede any course of performance inconsistent with any terms hereof. Any revisions, amendments or • modifications to this Settlement Agreement must be in writing and signed by all Parties hereto. Any implied and/or oral revisions, amendments or modifications will not be binding on any of the Parties. (d) The Parties each acknowledge that they are entering into this Settlement Agreement having fully reviewed the terms hereof, and they are signing this Settlement in consultation with their respective legal counsel. By signing below, the Parties' respective legal counsel each acknowledge that they have reviewed and approved the form and content of this Settlement Agreement in consultation with their respective clients. (e) The Parties each acknowledge and understand that this is a legally binding contract and further acknowledge that prior to signing below they have each fully read and understood all of the terms of this Settlement Agreement. (f) The Parties also acknowledge that they have signed this Settlement Agreement freely and voluntarily, and that they have not been threatened or coerced into making this agreement or releasing any rights hereunder. (g) This Settlement Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of all of the Parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. No party to the Settlement Agreement may assign its rights or obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the other party hereto. • 8 (h) No forbearance of any party to enforce any provision hereof or any rights existing hereunder shall constitute a waiver of such provisions or rights or be deemed to effect an amendment or modification of this Settlement Agreement. (i) This Settlement Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of Utah without regard to the principles choice of law of Utah or any other state. (j) In the event any suit is brought to enforce any of the provisions of this Settlement Agreement, in addition to any damages that may be claimed, the prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of costs and reasonable attorney fees incurred in connection with the prosecution of such action. (k) If any term, condition, or provision of this Settlement Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable for any reason, all other terms, conditions and provisions of this Settlement Agreement shall nevertheless remain in full force and effect so long as the primary purposes of the Settlement Agreement are not affected in any manner materially adverse to any party. Upon such determination that any term, condition or other provision is invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the parties hereto shall negotiate in good faith to modify this Settlement Agreement so as to effect as closely as possible the original intent of the Parties in a • mutually acceptable manner to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law. (1) Unless mutually agreed otherwise, the Parties agree to cooperate in the defense of or prosecution of claims, thorough all levels of appeal,brought by or against the Parties, or either of them,regarding the enforceability of this Settlement Agreement and all covenants and promises made hereunder. Each Party consents to share with the other Party such common communications and other litigation material related to such an action as each Party deems appropriate. The sharing of common communications is not intended to, and shall not be deemed to, constitute a waiver of any privilege or other protection that may pertain to such common communications and other litigation material. (m) This Settlement Agreement may be executed in counterparts. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have each executed this Settlement Agreement as of the date written below. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION By: Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson Mayor • ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN s 9 • CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER- DAY SAINTS,a Utah corporation sole By Kendrick Cowley Salt Lake City Recorder By: H. David Burton Presiding Bishop • • s 10 • List of Exhibits 1 Mayor's Petition 2 City Council Ordinance 3 Glendale Special Warranty Deed 4 Deed Conveying Easement Rights • • S 11 • Document comparison done by DeltaView on Tuesday, June 03, 2003 13:48:36 Input: = Document 1 pcdocs://s1c/235783/9 Document 2 pcdocs://slc/235783/10 Rendering set S&W Standard Legend: - - Insertion Deletion Moved to Format change Moved-deletion Inserted cell Deleted cell Moved cell Split/Merged cell Padding cell Statistics: • Count Insertions 15 Deletions 11 Moved from 0 Moved to 0 Format changed 0 Total changes 26 • DRAFT 56/2 3/03 WHEN RECORDED, RETURN TO: [Tax Parcel No. ] • SNELL &WILMER Gateway Tower West 15 West South Temple, Suite 1200 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Attention: Alan L. Sullivan DEED CONVEYING EASEMENT RIGHTS AND AMENDMENT TO SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED (Main Street Plaza) This DEED CONVEYING EASEMENT RIGHTS AND AMENDMENT TO SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED (the "Amendment Deed") is made and entered into as of , 2003, by and between the CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, a Utah corporation sole, whose address is 50 East North Temple, Suite 1800, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 (the"Grantee") and SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, whose address is 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 (the"Grantor") • RECITALS: A. By Special Warranty Deed, recorded on April 27, 1999, as Entry No. 7335190, in Book , at page , records of Salt Lake County, Utah (the "Original Deed"), Grantor conveyed to Grantee the real property more particularly described on Exhibit A to this Amendment Deed (the"Property"). B. Paragraph 1.3 of the Original Deed reserved a pedestrian access and passage easement over the Property in favor of Grantor. The easement rights reserved by Paragraph 1.3 of the Original Deed are referred to in this Amendment Deed as the "Pedestrian Easement." C. The Pedestrian Easement was limited by the terms of Paragraph 2 of the Original Deed. The conditions, limitations and restrictions contained in Paragraph 2 of the Original Deed are referred to in this Amendment as the "Pedestrian Easement Restrictions." D. Questions have arisen as to the enforceability of the Pedestrian Easement Restrictions, with the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit holding the Pedestrian Easement Restrictions unconstitutional in First Unitarian Church of Salt Lake City, et al. v. Salt Lake City Corporation, 308 F.3d 1114 (10th Cir. 2002). • E. To settle disputes between them with respect to the Pedestrian Easement and the Pedestrian Easement Restrictions, Grantor and Grantee have entered into a Settlement Agreement, dated as of , 2003 (the "Settlement Agreement"). This Amendment Deed is being executed and delivered pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement and pursuant to the actions of the Mayor and City Council of Salt Lake City, as described in the Settlement Agreement. F. Pursuant to Salt Lake City Ordinance No. , adopted by the City Council of Salt Lake City on , 2003 and signed by the Mayor of Salt Lake City, Grantor has closed, vacated, and abandoned the Pedestrian Easement, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in such ordinance. Now, therefore, for valuable consideration, as more particularly set forth in the Settlement Agreement, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Grantor and Grantee agree as follows: 1. Conveyance of Pedestrian Easement; Intent; Grantor's Interest. (a) Grantor hereby grants and conveys the Pedestrian Easement and all of its right, title and interest in and to the Pedestrian Easement to Grantee. Grantor hereby warrants the title so granted and conveyed as to all claims or defects arising by, through, or under Grantor , but not otherwise. This grant and conveyance shall be subject to the terms of the Original Deed as amended herein. (b) The parties intend, by this conveyance, that Grantee own the • Property in fee simple kleteffninabledefeasible title (with a right of reverterreentry) to the Property, subject only to Grantee's obligation to use and maintain the Property as a landscaped space, the easements reserved in Paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2 of the Original Deed(collectively,the "Utility and Service Easements"), and the view corridor and fencing restrictions in paragraph 1.4 of the Original Deed, as amended herein (the "View Restriction"). From and after recordation of this Amendment Deed and except for its rights pursuant to the Utility and Service Easements, the View Restriction, and Grantor's obligation to use and maintain the property as a landscaped space, Grantor relinquishes, releases, and disclaims any and all ownership interest in or rights of any kind with respect to the Property. Grantor also disclaims any right or authority to regulate any expression or conduct on the Property other than pursuant to Grantor's police powers applicable to private property in general. 2. Amendment of Original Deed. The Original Deed is amended as follows: (a) Paragraphs 1.3, 2 (including all subparagraphs thereof), and 6.3 of the Original Deed are deleted in their entirety and shall have no further force or effect whatsoever. (b) Paragraph 1.4 of the Original Deed is hereby amended to add the following: "To ensure the preservation of the view corridor established in this • 2 paragraph 1.4 and the aesthetics of the Property and surrounding areas, Grantee • may not erect fences, walls, or gates on the Property without the written approval of Grantor, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Grantor's approval authority shall be exercised based on aesthetic, safety, and security considerations and the need to preserve the view corridor established in this paragraph, and not on concerns about public access. All fences, walls, and gates, currently in place on the Property have been approved by Grantor. If a court of competent jurisdiction holds (without regard to any right to appeal) that the provisions in this paragraph 1.4 relating to fences, walls, and gates, alone or in combination with any other factor, create or establish the basis for a First Amendment forum of any kind, then and thereupon the requirement that Grantee must obtain approval from Grantor to erect fences, walls, and gates shall automatically terminate and be of no further force or effect whatsoever." (c) Paragraph 4 of the Original Deed is amended in its entirety to read as follows: 4. Right of ReveftecReentry. In the event that Grantee fails to use and maintain the Property as a landscaped space or to permit Grantor access to the Property pursuant to the easements reserved in Paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2, or violates the view corridor and fencing restrictions in Paragraph 1.4, then the Property shall, at Grantor's option exercised in accordance with Paragraph 5, revert to Grantor. Notwithstanding the foregoing, none of the provisions of this paragraph 4, • alone or in combination with any other factor, shall be interpreted to create or establish the basis for a First Amendment forum of any kind. (d) Paragraph 6.1 of the Original Deed is amended in its entirety to read as follows: 6.1 Integrated Agreement. This instrument is complete and integrated, and constitutes the entire understanding between the Parties with respect to the subject matter contained herein and supersedes all previous and contemporaneous agreements,understandings,promises, warranties,representations, inducements or conditions, oral or written, except as contained herein and in the Settlement Agreement between the Parties entered into on , 2003. The express terms hereof control and supersede any course of performance inconsistent with any terms hereof. Any revisions, amendments or modifications to this instrument must be in writing and signed by all parties. Any implied and/or oral revisions, amendments or modifications will not be binding on any of the parties. (e) Paragraph 6.2 of the Original Deed is amended in its entirety to read as follows: • 6.2 Severability. If any term, condition, or provision of this 3 instrument is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable for any reason, all other terms, conditions and provisions • of this instrument shall nevertheless remain in full force and effect so long as the primary purposes of the instrument are not thereby affected in any manner materially adverse to any party. Upon such determination that any term, condition or other provision is invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the Parties hereto shall negotiate in good faith to modify this instrument so as to effect as closely as possible the original intent of the Parties in a mutually acceptable manner to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law. (f) The Original Deed shall be amended by adding the following Paragraphs: 6.7 Intent of the Parties. Termination of Right of ReverterReentry. The parties expressly intend and agree that the Property be private property and that Grantee shall have full, complete and absolute control over all activities on and uses of the Property, subject only to its obligation to use and maintain the Property as a landscaped space with the easements reserved in Paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2, the view corridor and fencing restrictions in Paragraph 1.4, and the City's police powers applicable to private property in general. Nothing in this Special Warranty Deed, alone or in combination with any other factor, shall be interpreted to create or establish the basis for a First Amendment forum of any kind. If a court of competent jurisdiction holds (without regard to any right to • appeal) that the right of reverterreentry in paragraph 4 alone or in combination with any other factor creates or establishes the basis for a First Amendment forum of any kind, then and thereupon the right of reverterreentry shall immediately and automatically terminate and be of no further force or effect whatsoever. If, however, the court's holding is reversed, the reverterreentry clause shall immediately and automatically revive. Any termination of the reverterreentry clause shall not impair the right of Grantor to obtain equitable or other relief should Grantee's obligation to use and maintain the Property as a landscaped space or the provisions of Paragraphs 1.1, 1.2, or 1.4 be violated, provided that no such right in favor of Grantor, alone or in combination with any other factor, shall be interpreted to create or establish the basis for a First Amendment forum of any kind. 6.8 Notices. Notices will be in writing and will be given by personal delivery or by express delivery service (such as FedEx), freight prepaid. Notices will be delivered or addressed to the COPB and the City at the addresses set forth on the first page of the Amendment Deed or at such other address as a party may designate in writing;provided, however, that if the notice is given by personal delivery, delivery, in the case of the COPB, must be to one of the following: and in the case of the City, must be to one of the 4 following: . The date notice is deemed to have • been given, received and become effective will be (a) the date on which the notice is delivered, if notice is given by personal delivery, (b) the date of actual receipt, if the notice is sent by express delivery service. 3. Ratification. As modified and supplemented by this Amendment Deed, the Original Deed is ratified and confirmed and shall continue in full force and effect. DATED this day of , 2003. THE CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS,a Utah corporation sole By: H. David Burton Presiding Bishop SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a municipal corporation of the State of Utah By: Ross C. "Rocky"Anderson Mayor ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: By Kendrick Cowley Salt Lake City Recorder • 5 STATE OF UTAH ) ss COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) • The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2003 by , , of the CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, a Utah corporation sole, on behalf of the corporation. My Commission Expires: NOTARY PUBLIC Residing at STATE OF UTAH ) : ss COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2003 by , the , and , the of SALT LAKE CITY III CORPORATION, a municipal corporation of the State of Utah, on behalf of the corporation. My Commission Expires: NOTARY PUBLIC Residing at III 6 r • DRAFT 56/203/03 EXHIBIT A • LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY 0 0 Document comparison done by DeltaView on Tuesday, June 03, 2003 13:45:23 Input Document 1 pcdocs://sIc/235296/9 Document 2 pcdocs://s1c/235296/10 Rendering set S&W Standard Legend Insertion Deletion Moved from Moved to Format change Moved-deletion Inserted cell Deleted cell Moved cell Split/Merged cell Padding cell Count Insertions 14 Deletions 14 Moved from 0 Moved to 0 Format changed 0 Total changes 28 • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: May 30,2003 SuBJEci: Fees to Bag Parking Meters&Reserve Restricted Curb Space AFFEC rWU COUNCIL DISTRICTS: Citywide and specifically Council District 4 STAFF REPORT BY: Gary Mumford ADMINISTRATIVE DEPr. Community&Economic Development AND CONTACT PERSON: Tint Harpst,Transportation Director The proposed ordinance amendment reduces the$50 per day fee for reserve parking spaces to a$25 per day fee. Exceptions are: (1)$10 per space per day for requests from movie,television and commercial filming companies, (2)$10 per space per day for major events of at least three days in duration and with an expected attendance of at least 5,000 people,(3)fee waivers for 501(c)3 non-profit organizations(up to 30 days annually) that are either charitable or religious. At the April 1st briefing,the Council asked that the Salt Palace Convention Center and the Utah Film Commission be contacted to get their feedback. The Transportation Division sent the proposed ordinances to these organizations. The director of convention services at the Salt Palace responded: "... the proposed ordinance is fair and will work well for our convention clients. I hope it passes as you have presented it" The executive director of the Utah Film Commission said: "... this looks great,and we appreciate what you have done." The president of Larry H.Miller Sport&Entertainment(Delta Center)also responded favorably to the proposed ordinance. A public hearing was held on May 20,2003. Two individuals spoke in favor. There were no comments against the proposed ordinance at the hearing. POTENTIAL MOTIONS: • ["I move that the Council'] Adopt the ordinance amending Salt Lake City code 12.56.210, 12.56.325,and 14.12.130 relating to parking meters special use conditions and fees. • ["I move that the Council'] Adopt the ordinance with modifications(if any). • ["I move that the Council'] Refer the ordinance to a Council work session for additional discussion. cc Rocky Fluhart,David Nimkin,Alison Weyher,David Dobbins,Tim Harpst,Scott Vaterlaus,JD Baxter SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2003 • (Parking Meters Special Use Conditions, Loading Zones and Restricted Parking) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 12.56.210, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO PARKING METERS SPECIAL USE CONDITIONS AND FEES; AMENDING SECTION 12.56.325, RELATING TO LOADING ZONES AND RESTRICTED PARKING- SPECIAL USE CONDITIONS AND FEES; AND AMENDING SECTION 14.12.130 RELATING TO REMOVAL OF PARKING METERS. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Section 12.56.210, Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to parking meters special use conditions and fees be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as • follows: 12.56.210 Parking Meters - Special Use Conditions and Fees: Permission to park in parking meter spaces without the deposit of a coin may be granted by the City Transportation Engineer or the Engineer's designee upon application being made therefor in writing upon the following conditions: A.A showing of a substantial need to temporarily close off the meters involved to the public use for a stated duration of time, B. The placing of authorized bags over the meters involved, and C. The payment daily in advance to the City Treasurer according to the following schedule: 1. Twenty-five dollars ($25.00)per meter per day, or part thereof. S 2. Ten dollars ($10.00)per meter per day, or part thereof for-an event that: (i) continues for not less than three consecutive days, (ii) • significantly fosters area business promotion, and (iii) has an expected attendance exceeding 5,000 persons. 3. Ten dollars ($10.00)per meter per day, or part thereof duEing the filming of a movie, television series or commercial. 4. No fee shall be charged to any organization, for up to a total of 30 days in any calendar year, that provides written verification from the Internal Revenue Service that the organization has been granted tax- exempt status as a religious or charitable organization under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, or its successor 5. No fee shall be charged to any organization using such meter under the direction of the City in connection with a City-sponsored special • event. SECTION 2. That Section 12.56.325,Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to loading zones and restricted parking- special use conditions and fees be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows: 12.56.325 Loading Zones and Restricted Parking- Special Use Conditions and Fees: Permission to park in loading zones and/or restricted parking areas may be granted by City Transportation Engineer or the Engineer's designee upon application being made therefor in writing upon the following conditions: ill A.. A showing of a substantial need to temporarily close off the loading zone or restricted parking area to the public use for a stated duration of time, and B. The payment daily in advance to the City Treasurer according to the following schedule: 1. Twenty-five dollars ($25.00)per vehicle space in a loading zone or restricted parking area per day, or part thereof. 2. Ten dollars ($10.00)per vehicle space in a loading zone or restricted parking area per day, or part thereof for an event that: (i) continues for not less than three consecutive days, (ii) significantly fosters area business promotion, and(iii)has an expected attendance exceeding 5,000 persons. 3. Ten dollars ($10.00)per vehicle space in a loading zone or restricted • parking area per day, or part thereof during the filming of a movie, television series or commercial. 4. No fee shall apply outside the area of the City bounded by the following streets: North Temple, 200 East, 600 South, and 200 West. 6. No fee shall be charged to any organization, for up to a total of 30 days in any calendar year that provides written verification from the Internal Revenue Service that the organization has been granted tax-exempt status as a religious or charitable organization under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, or its successor. • 3 7. No fee shall be charged to any organization using such loading zone or restricted parking area under the direction of the City in connection • with a City-sponsored special event. SECTION 3. That Section 14.12.130, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to removal of parking meters be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 14.12.130 Removal of parking meters. A. Permission to remove a parking meter or meters from the street may be granted by the transportation engineer or the engineer's designee upon application being made therefor in writing showing a substantial need to temporarily close off metered parking spaces to the public use for a stated duration of time, together with payment in advance to the city treasurer of the sum of twenty-five ($25.00) dollars per meter so removed per day, or part thereof. However,no fee shall be charged to (1) any organization, for up to a total of 30 days in any calendar year, that provides written • verification from the Internal Revenue Service that the organization has been granted tax- exempt status as a religious or charitable organization under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, or its successor, or(2) any organization using such meter space under the direction of the City in connection with a City-sponsored special event The petitioner shall be responsible for, and install,meter post replacements according to city specifications, as set forth by the transportation engineer. B. When restricted parking areas are requested to be reserved for exclusive use by the petitioner and it is necessary to temporarily remove existing parking meters in order to relocate such restricted parking, the foregoing meter-removal provisions shall apply. • 4 . SECTION 4. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon the date of its • first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of 2002. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHI I-4 F DEPUTY CITY RECORDER • Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. • MAYOR ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Salt LakeLa OVED9ty AS TO eys Mice Date (SEAL) By Bill No. of 2003. Published: G.\Ordinances 03\Amending 12 56 210 et al re parking meters and loading zones 4-30-03 clean • 5 • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM DATE: May 27,2003 TO: Council Members FROM: Jan Aramaki SUBJECT: Annual Assessment for Special Lighting District No. 1 CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson,Dave Nimkin,Rocky Fluhart,Alison Weyher, David Dobbins,Dan Mule,Tim Harpst,Chris Bramhall,Karen Carruthers,Gordon Haight,Garth Limburg,and Gary Mumford FILE LOCATIONS: Public Services/Special.Lighting District L01/SID Requested Action: The Administration requests that the City Council adopt an ordinance approving the annual assessment on the properties incorporated within Lighting District No. 1. This action will renew the annual assessment levied upon each • parcel of property described in the assessment list for the purpose of paying the costs for electricity and maintenance. It was reported to staff that District No.2 was last assessed in December 2002,and District No. 3 was assessed in April 2003. The Office of the City Engineer has determined that the total estimated annual costs for street lights in Lighting District No. 1 will be$153,140. The City's portion is$38,285 leaving an assessment of$114,855 upon the 1,883 properties in the lighting district. The Administration reported that there is a provision for maintenance and power increases within the calculated original formula Notice of Intention back in 1995;therefore a public hearing is not required. Background: On April 1,2003,the Council received a briefing from the Transportation Division on some of the issues relating to street lighting. The Council requested that the Transportation Division update the Council in August or September on the status of the master plan and recommendations regarding implementation. Currently,Salt Lake City provides continuous street lighting along collector and arterial streets. Intersection lighting and mid-block lights are provided on local streets. Special improvement district lighting provides additional lighting in areas where property owners desire special decorative lighting or more lighting fixtures than the City's standard level of lighting and are willing to be assessed for the additional costs of the lighting. When property owners within a specific neighborhood desire special or • additional lighting,they may petition the City for the creation of a special assessment street lighting district. Creating this kind of a district is a legal process whereby property owners can arrange for funding of a public improvement that will benefit their properties. Special assessment districts are formed by ordinance upon agreement of a majority of the area property owners. Street lighting districts require the abutting property owners to pay for 75% of the ongoing operating and maintenance cost of the lights. The City pays the remaining 25% as the equivalent of lighting that would be provided by the City. The property owners' costs are levied and billed annually in the form of special assessments. There are 49 existing street lighting special improvement districts (extensions).The City has combined the individual districts into three super districts to simplify the annual assessment process. These extensions were combined based on assessment due dates,not on geographical location. On an annual basis,each district is renewed by assessment ordinance. • • 2 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM DATE: May 27,2003 TO: Council Members FROM: Jan Aramaki SUBJECT: Annual Assessment for Special Lighting District No. 1 CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson,Dave Nimkin,Rocky Fluhart,Alison Weyher, David Dobbins,Dan Mule,Tim Harpst,Chris Bramhall,Karen Carruthers,Gordon Haight,Garth Limburg,and Gary Mumford FILE LOCATIONS: Public Services/Special Lighting District L01/SID Requested Action: The Administration requests that the City Council adopt an ordinance approving the annual assessment on the properties incorporated within Lighting District No. 1. This action will renew the annual assessment levied upon each parcel of property described in the assessment list for the purpose of paying the costs for electricity and maintenance. It was reported to staff that District No. 2 was last assessed in December 2002,and District No. 3 was assessed in April 2003. The Office of the City Engineer has determined that the total estimated annual costs for street lights in Lighting District No. 1 will be$153,140. The City's portion is$38,285 leaving an assessment of$114,855 upon the 1,883 properties in the lighting district. The Administration reported that there is a provision for maintenance and power increases within the calculated original formula Notice of Intention back in 1995;therefore a public hearing is not required. Background: On April 1,2003,the Council received a briefing from the Transportation Division on some of the issues relating to street lighting. The Council requested that the Transportation Division update the Council in August or September on the status of the master plan and recommendations regarding implementation. Currently,Salt Lake City provides continuous street lighting along collector and arterial streets. Intersection lighting and mid-block lights are provided on local streets. Special improvement district lighting provides additional lighting in areas • where property owners desire special decorative lighting or more lighting fixtures than the City's standard level of lighting and are willing to be assessed for the additional costs of the lighting. When property owners within a specific neighborhood desire special or • additional lighting,they may petition the City for the creation of a special assessment street lighting district. Creating this kind of a district is a legal process whereby property owners can arrange for funding of a public improvement that will benefit their properties. Special assessment districts are formed by ordinance upon agreement of a majority of the area property owners. Street lighting districts require the abutting property owners to pay for 75% of the ongoing operating and maintenance cost of the lights. The City pays the remaining 25% as the equivalent of lighting that would be provided by the City. The property owners' costs are levied and billed annually in the form of special assessments. There are 49 existing street lighting special improvement districts (extensions).The City has combined the individual districts into three super districts to simplify the annual assessment process. These extensions were combined based on assessment due dates,not on geographical location. On an annual basis,each district is renewed by assessment ordinance. • • 2 • 0 2 1 2003 * RICHARD GRAHAM " T a vl .,y RA� ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES MAYOR TO: ROCKY FLUHART CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER FROM: RICK GRAHAM,DIRECTOR iy PUBLIC SERVICES DATE: May 28, 2003 Reference: An ordinance authorizing the Mayor to approve the annual assessment ordinance for Special Lighting District LO1. STAFF CONTACT: Karen Carruthers, 535-6355 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the attached assessment ordinance. 1110 DOCUMENT TYPE: Assessment BUDGET IMPACT: The annual operating, maintenance and electrical energy costs for the district is estimated at $153,140.28. The City pays 25% of the annual expenses ($38,285.07) and the residents in the district pay the remaining 75% ($114,855.21). The City's portion is included in the Transportation Division's annual operating budget. DISCUSSION: The attached assessment LO1 authorizes the Mayor to approve the annual assessment for Special Lighting District LO1 to be levied upon each parcel of property in the lighting district for the purpose of paying the operating, maintenance and electrical energy costs of the district. There are 1883 property owners in the lighting district, which are at various locations throughout the City. cc: Vault • SALT LAKE CITY ENGINEERING 349 SOUTH 200 EASY, SUITE 1 00, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7961 FAX: 8O 1-535-6093 n- ��seerceo PnPea • Salt Lake City, Utah June 3, 2003 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah met in regular session at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 3, 2003, at its regular meeting place at 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah. The following members of the City Council were present: Carlton Christensen Chair Jill Remington Love Vice Chair Nancy Saxton Councilmember Van Blair Turner Councilmember Eric Jergensen Councilmember David L. Buhler Councilmember Dale Lambert Councilmember Also present: Ross C. Anderson Mayor Edwin P. Rutan II City Attorney Deputy City Recorder Absent: The City Recorder confirmed that appropriate notice of this June 3, 2003, City Council Meeting had been given as required by law and as evidenced in the Certificate of Compliance With Open Meeting Law, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit"A". After the meeting had been duly called to order and after other matters not pertinent to this ordinance had been discussed, the following proceedings, among others, were duly had and taken: It was noted Salt Lake City, Utah Lighting District No. 1, now known as LO1 (the "District L01") was duly created, pursuant to notice and public hearing, on April 16, 1996. The District was created with notice to all property owners within the District that assessments are to be paid annually when assessed. Thereafter, in 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 assessment ordinances were adopted by the City Council. Subsequent to the 1998 assessment, the District was modified by an addition of an extension which was previously part of another special improvement district. Pursuant to the provisions of the proceedings creating the District and the Original Assessment Ordinance, the following assessment ordinance (the "2003 Assessment Ordinance") was then introduced in writing, was fully discussed, and pursuant to motion UT_DOCS_A#1131034 v1 1 • duly made by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember , adopted by the following vote: YEA: NAY: ABSENT: The 2003 Assessment Ordinance was then signed by the Chair, presented to and approved by the Mayor and recorded by the City Recorder in the official records of Salt Lake City, Utah. The 2003 Assessment Ordinance is as follows: • • UT_DOCS_A#1131034 v1 2 ORDINANCE NO. of 2003 • AN ORDINANCE (THE "2003 ASSESSMENT ORDINANCE") APPROVING THE ASSESSMENT LIST; LEVYING AN ANNUAL ASSESSMENT UPON PROPERTY IN SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 1, KNOWN AS LO1 (THE "DISTRICT L01"); ESTABLISHING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE 2003 ASSESSMENT ORDINANCE; AND RELATED MATTERS. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL (THE "COUNCIL") OF SALT LAKE CITY (THE"CITY"), SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH: Section 1. Determination of Costs. All costs and expenses for providing street lighting within the District and the reasonable cost of any work to be done have been determined. Section 2. Approval of Assessment List; Findings. The Council confirms and adopts the assessment list, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference (the "Assessment List"). The Assessment List has been adjusted to comport with the previous year's experience for the District and it includes estimated operation and maintenance expenses for the coming year. The Council has determined that the Assessment List is just and equitable; that each piece of property to be assessed within the District will be benefited in an amount not less than the assessment • to be levied against said property; and that no piece of property listed in the assessment list will bear more than its proportionate share of the cost of such improvements or services. Section 3. Levy of Assessments. The Council hereby levies an assessment upon the real property identified in the Assessment List. The assessments levied upon each parcel of property therein described shall be in the amount set forth in the Assessment List. The assessments hereby levied are for the purpose of paying the costs of providing for the operation, maintenance and patrolling of incandescent, fluorescent, metal halide and sodium vapor lamps and the furnishing of electrical energy. It is hereby determined and established that the property being assessed will be specifically benefited to the full amount of the assessment hereby levied to cover the cost of operating, maintaining, patrolling and furnishing of electrical energy. The property benefited is all within the boundaries of the lots, blocks and streets as set forth in the Assessment List. Unless future modifications revise the purposes and plans of the District, future assessments will continue to be levied annually based upon applicable rates established by the energy contract with the City. Future non-energy costs of operation and maintenance relating to the providing of lighting benefits will also be a factor in determining future rates. The City Treasurer is hereby authorized and directed to notify property owners of this assessment and to collect assessments in accordance with the provisions of the 2003 Assessment Ordinance for the purposes herein provided. UT_DOCS_A#1131034 v1 3 • Section 4. Cost of Services Improvements; Amount of Total Assessments. As determined by the office of the City Engineer, the total actual and estimated costs of all services and improvements for the eighth year of the District is $153,140.28, of which the City's portion is approximately $38,285.07 The remainder of$114,855.21 is to be paid from proceeds of assessments levied upon property within the District as set forth in the Assessment List. Section 5. Method, Rate and Payment of Assessment. The total assessment for the District is levied in accordance with the method set out in the Notice of Intention pertaining to the District as adopted by the City Council on March 5, 1996. The applicable rate for each property was determined based on the costs of street lighting services, together with other related factors, the totals of which are set out in the preceding Section. Future annual assessments may include adjustments to reflect changes in operation and maintenance costs and any balances or deficits resulting from the previous year's operations. Assessments shall be payable on the effective date of this annual assessment ordinance. Interest on assessments shall accrue only after passage of the due date (the "Due Date") set out in the Special Assessment Notice to be mailed by the Treasurer to property owners. The rate of interest accruing on any delinquent assessment shall be the rate allowed by Utah statute (the "Delinquent Rate"). The whole or any part of the assessment may be paid without interest on or prior to the Due Date. 1111 Section 6. Default in Payment. The assessment shall be delinquent if it remains unpaid after the Due Date. Any delinquency shall constitute a default of the payment of the assessment. If a default occurs because of failure to pay the amount due, the City may, but is not required to file for recording a notice (the "Notice of Delinquency") with the Salt Lake County Recorder. The resulting recording fees for both the filing and the release, shall be added to the assessment together with accrued interest due and owing. In addition, costs of collection as determined by the City Treasurer or required by law shall be charged and paid on all delinquent amounts. If the delinquency continues, whether or not there has been a filing of a Notice of Delinquency, the City Treasurer may determine that additional enforcement action may be appropriate. Prior to commencement of such enforcement action the City shall give an additional notice (the "Notice of Default"), in writing, of the default to the owner of the property in default. Notice of Default shall be effective upon deposit of the notice in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, and addressed to the owner as shown on the last equalized assessment rolls for the City or on the official ownership records of the City. The Notice of Default may provide for a period of thirty (30) days in which the owner shall pay the assessment balance then due and owing together with accrued interest at the Delinquent Rate plus recording costs and other costs as determined by the City Treasurer. The Notice of Default may also declare that after the thirty (30) day period the City may bring suit for the total amount due plus costs of the enforcement action remedy, or the City may elect to commence foreclosure proceedings in the manner provided for actions to foreclose mortgage liens or trust deeds. In the event the City elects to foreclose using trust deed procedures, a trustee shall be designated by the City to serve as trust deed UT_DOCS_A#1131034 vi 4 trustee for purposes of the enforcement proceedings. If at the sale no person or entity 411 shall bid and pay the City the amount due on the assessment plus interest and costs, the property shall be deemed sold to the City for these amounts. The City shall be permitted to bid at the sale. The remedies provided herein for the collection of assessments and the enforcement of liens shall be deemed and construed to be cumulative and the use of any one method or means of collection or enforcement shall not deprive the City of the use of any other method or means. The amounts of accrued interest and all costs of collection shall be added to the amount of the assessment up to the date of judgment or, in the case of foreclosure action, the date of the foreclosure sale. Section 7. Remedy of Default. An owner of property may remedy a default by paying the full amount of the unpaid assessment balance with interest at the Delinquent Rate, plus approved or required enforcement costs. The delinquency may be satisfied and the default remedied anytime prior to the final date payment may legally be made under a fmal sale or foreclosure of property to collect the delinquent assessment. Section 8. Lien of Assessment. An assessment or any part of it, any interest accruing and the costs of recording and collection shall constitute a lien against the property upon which the assessment is levied as of July 15, 2003,the effective date of the 2003 Assessment Ordinance (the "Effective Date"), or as of the effective date of any earlier applicable assessment ordinance. Unless the assessment becomes delinquent, no notice of lien will be recorded and no release of lien will be recorded at the time of • payment. When a delinquency occurs, the City may, in its discretion, record with the Salt Lake County Recorder's Office, a Notice of Lien, a Notice of Delinquency and/or a Notice of Default setting out the assessment balance due. The assessment lien shall be perfected when the Assessment Ordinance takes effect. If the City elects to record some form of Notice, it will do so for collection purposes and not because of any requirement for perfecting of the assessment lien. Said lien shall be superior to the lien of any trust deed, mortgage, mechanic's or materialman's lien or other encumbrance and shall be equal to and on a parity with the lien for general property taxes. The lien shall continue until the assessment and any interest, penalties and costs on it are paid, notwithstanding any sale of the property for or on account of a delinquent general property tax, special tax or other assessment or the issuance of a tax deed, an assignment of interest by the governing entity or a sheriff's certificate of sale or deed. Section 9. Contestability. No assessment shall be declared void or set aside in whole or in part in consequence of any error or irregularity which does not go to the equity or justice of the assessment or proceeding. Any party who has not waived his or her objections to the assessment may commence a civil action against the City to enjoin the levy or collection of the assessment or to set aside and declare unlawful the 2003 Assessment Ordinance. Such action must be commenced and summons must be served on the City not later than 30 days after the effective date of the 2003 Assessment Ordinance. This action shall be the exclusive remedy of any aggrieved party. No court shall entertain any • UT_DOCS_A#1131034 v1 5 • complaint which the party was authorized to make by statute but did not timely make or any complaint that does not go to the equity or justice of the assessment or proceeding. After the expiration of the 30-day period provided in this section, the assessments levied in the District shall become incontestable as to all persons who have not commenced the action provided for in this section; and no suit to enjoin the levy, collection or enforcement of the assessments, or in any other manner attacking or questioning the legality of the assessments may be instituted in this state, and no court shall have authority to inquire into these matters. Section 10. Notice to Property Owners. The City Treasurer is hereby authorized and directed to give notice of assessment by mail to the property owners in the District. Said notice shall, among other things, state the amount of the assessment and the date for payment. A copy of the form of notice of assessment is available for examination upon request at the office of the City Recorder. Section 11. All Necessary Action Approved. The officials of the City are hereby authorized and directed to take all action necessary and appropriate to effectuate the provisions of the 2003 Assessment Ordinance. Section 12. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions. All ordinances or parts thereof in conflict with the 2003 Assessment Ordinance are hereby repealed. • Section 13. Publication of Ordinance and Effective Date. Immediately after its adoption, the 2003 Assessment Ordinance may be signed by the Mayor and City Recorder and shall be recorded in the ordinance book kept for that purpose. The 2003 Assessment Ordinance shall be published once in the Deseret Morning News, a newspaper published and having general circulation in the City and shall take effect immediately upon its Effective Date. III UT_DOCS_A#1131034 v1 6 Section 14. PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City, this 0 June 3,2003. Chair ATTEST: Deputy City Recorder ( SEAL) • • UT_DOCS_A#1131034 v1 7 • PRESENTATION TO THE MAYOR The foregoing ordinance was presented to the Mayor for his approval or disapproval on June , 2003. Chair MAYOR'S APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL The foregoing ordinance is hereby approved this June , 2003. Ross C. Anderson, Mayor 0 • UT_DOCS_A#1131034 v1 8 STATE OF UTAH ) 4110 : ss. COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) I, ,the duly appointed, qualified and acting Deputy City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County,Utah, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the record of proceedings had by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah at its meeting held on June 3, 2003, insofar as the same relates to or concerns Salt Lake City, Utah Lighting District No. LOl as the same appears of record in my office. I further certify that the 2003 Assessment Ordinance levying the special assessments was recorded by me in the official records of Salt Lake City on June 2003. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the corporate seal of Salt Lake City this June ,2003. Deputy City Recorder ( SEAL) • UT_DOCS_A#1131034 v1 9 • STATE OF UTAH ) AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING : ss. NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) I, Daniel Mule, the duly appointed, qualified and acting City Treasurer of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County,Utah, do hereby certify that on June , 2003, I caused to be mailed a Notice of Assessment to each property owner in Salt Lake City, Utah Lighting District No. LOl by United States Mail, postage prepaid, at the last known address of such owner. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the corporate seal of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah this June , 2003. City Treasurer ( SEAL) • 1111 UT_DOCS_A#1131034 v1 10 PROOF OF PUBLICATION 0 Attached to this page is the Proof of Publication, indicating by the affidavit of the publisher that the said 2003 Assessment Ordinance levying the special assessments which was contained in the 2003 Assessment Ordinance adopted by the City Council on June 3, 2003, was published one time in the Deseret News. S • UT_DOCS_A#1131034 v1 t 1 • EXHIBIT"A" CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH OPEN MEETING LAW I, , the undersigned Deputy City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah (the "City"), do hereby certify, according to the records of the City in my official possession, and upon my own knowledge and belief, that in accordance with the requirements of Section 52-4-6(2), Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, I gave not less than twenty-four (24) hours public notice of the agenda, date, time and place of the June 3, 2003, public meeting held by the City as follows: (a) By causing a Notice, in.the form attached hereto as Schedule "A", to be posted at the City's offices at 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah on , 2003, at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the convening of the meeting, said Notice having continuously remained so posted and available for public inspection until the completion of the meeting; and (b) By causing a copy of such Notice, in the form attached hereto as Schedule "A", to be delivered to the Deseret Morning News on 2003, at least twenty-four(24)hours prior to the convening of the meeting. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my official signature this June , 2003. S Deputy City Recorder ( SEAL) 1111 UT DOCS A#1131034 v1 A-1 SCHEDULE "A" 0 NOTICE OF MEETING • • UT_DOCS_A#1131034 v1 A-2 • EXHIBIT "B" ASSESSMENT LIST [Available for review at the offices of the City Recorder and the City Engineer] • • UT_DOCS_A#1131034 v1 B-1 MAY 1 3 2003 COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky J. Fluhart DATE: May 9, 2003 Chief Administrative Officer FROM: Rick Graham, Public Services Director SUBJECT: Cooperative Agreement with Utah Department of Transportation for street sweeping services for the period from July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2007 STAFF CONTACT: Craig Posselli, Manager Streets and Sanitation Division 535-6903 DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution RECOMMENDATION: Council approval of resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign Cooperative Agreement with UDOT for street sweeping services. BUDGET IMPACT: UDOT will pay$23.00 per lane mile, generating approximately$17,000 per year in revenue. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This agreement will extend the existing agreement for street sweeping services with UDOT for four more years, to June 30, 2007. S RESOLUTION NO. OF 2003 AUTHORIZING THE APPROVAL OF AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13, Utah Code, as amended, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, the attached agreement has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1. It does hereby approve the attached Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION (the "City"), and the UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ("UDOT"), to wit: The City shall sweep certain streets for UDOT for a fee of$23.00 per lane-mile for four years commencing July 1, 2003. 2. Ross C. Anderson,Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, or his designee, is hereby authorized to execute said agreement on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation, subject to any • minor changes which do not materially affect the rights and obligations of the City thereunder. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of 2003. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City A orney's Office Date `4- C' CHI I-F DEPUTY CITY RECORDER • Folin R-308 (Revised) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT Date: March 18, 2003 SLC Contract#03-3-03-7090 We, the duly authorized officers of the UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, hereby approve the following work to be done by SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION for which we agree to pay upon presentation of an invoice for said work as follows: Description of Work Street sweeping of all areas of Utah Department of Transportation responsibility of highways as shown on attached sheet and within the incorporated limits of Salt Lake City,but excluding sweeping following Utah Department of Transportation resurfacing, seal coating, and major spillage from trucks losing their loads. The sweeping will be required a minimum of twice a year, once in early spring and again in late Fall. Sweeping will be done by Salt Lake City Street Department at the rate of $23.00 per lane miles. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION assumes all responsibility and/or liability of claims arising from work performed and agrees to furnish and maintain their own equipment and • operators. Upon completion SALT LAKE CITY STREET DEPARTMENT will notify the UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S region Two Maintenance Office for inspection and approval of work. Invoice is to be submitted upon completion of sweeping, but not later than June 30th of each year. This Agreement is for a period from July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2007, at which time it can be renewed if both parties agree. Approximate total cost: $17,000.00 REPRESENTATION REGARDING ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES AND FORMER CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES. Each party represents that it has not: (1)provided an illegal gift or payoff to an officer or employee or former officer or employee of the other party, or his or her relative or business entity; (2) retained any person to solicit or secure this contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage,brokerage or contingent fee, other than bona fide employees or bona fide commercial selling agencies for the purpose of securing business; (3)knowingly breached any of the ethical standards set forth in the City's conflict of interest ordinance, Chapter 2.44, Salt Lake City Code, or in any comparable conflict of interest ordinance of the • State of Utah; or(4) knowingly influenced, and hereby promises that it will not knowingly influence, an officer or employee or former officer or employee of the other party to breach any of the ethical standards set forth in the City's conflict of interest ordinance, Chapter 2.44, Salt Lake City Code, or in any comparable conflict of interest ordinance of the State of Utah. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION UDOT REGION TWO OPERATIONS By: By: i, -et`tAk; s . Mayor Rukhsana Lindsey, P.E. ATTEST APPROVED AS TO FORM By: Salt Lake Ci Attorneys Office Chief Deputy City Recorder . Date By • • 2 • UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STREET CLEAN-UP SR# NORTH—SOUTH STREETS CURB/GUTTER ISLANDS STATION MILES MILES 186-89 300 West-from 400 South to 2100 7.8 7.8 225 North Beck Street 270 West Temple-900 South to 400 South 1.6 0.2 225 184-89 State Street and perimeter at Capitol 500 9.8 6.0 225 North to 2100 South 71 700 East-400 South to 2800 South 7.2 7.2 225 181 1300 East-500 South to 3000 South 7.4 2.6 234 186 Foothill Drive—500 South& 1300 East 8.4 7.8 234 to I-80 SR# EAST-WEST STREETS CURB/GUTTER ISLANDS MILES MILES 89-186 North Temple-State Street to 1700 West 4.0 1.8 225 186 400&500 South- 300 West to 1300 East 5.0 5.0 225 269 500 South-I-15 to State Street 1.0 225 269 600 South-I-15 to State Street 1.0 225 201 2100 South-I-15 to State Street 1.8 1.4 230 • 268 600 North-300 West to 800 West 1.4 1.4 225 TOTAL 56.4 41.2 CONTACT INFORMATION Station Supervisor Station Phone# Cell Phone# 225 Richard Palmer 972-3272 910-2250 230 Larry Limberis 975-4960 910-2300 234 Roger Frantz 582-2115 910-2340 • 3 N SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: May 30,2003 SuwJEcn Fees to Bag Parking Meters&Reserve Restricted Curb Space AFFEc rEl.)COUNCIL DISTRICTS: Citywide and specifically Council District 4 STAFF REPORT BY: Gary Mumford ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Community&Economic Development AND CONTACT PERSON: Tim Harpst,Transportation Director The proposed ordinance amendment reduces the$50 per day fee for reserve parking spaces to a$25 per day fee. Exceptions are: (1)$10 per space per day for requests from movie,television and commercial filming companies, (2)$10 per space per day for major events of at least three days in duration and with an expected attendance of at least 5,000 people,(3)fee waivers for 501(c)3 non-profit organizations(up to 30 days annually)that are either charitable or religious. At the April 1st briefing,the Council asked that the Salt Palace Convention Center and the Utah Film Commission be contacted to get their feedback. The Transportation Division sent the proposed ordinances to these organizations. The director of convention services at the Salt Palace responded: "... the proposed ordinance is fair and will work well for our convention clients. I hope it passes as you have presented it" The executive director of the Utah Film Commission said: "... this looks great,and we appreciate what you have done." The president of Larry H.Miller Sport&Entertainment(Delta Center)also responded favorably to the proposed ordinance. A public hearing was held on May 20,2003. Two individuals spoke in favor. There were no comments against the proposed ordinance at the hearing. POTENTIAL MOTIONS: • ["I move that the Council'] Adopt the ordinance amending Salt Lake City code 12.56.210, 12.56.325,and 14.12130 relating to parking meters special use conditions and fees. • ["I move that the Council"] Adopt the ordinance with modifications(if any). • ["I move that the Council"] Refer the ordinance to a Council work session for additional discussion. cc Rocky Fluhart,David Nimkin,Alison Weyher,David Dobbins,Tim Harpst,Scott Vaterlaus,JD Baxter • SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE • No. of 2003 (Parking Meters Special Use Conditions, Loading Zones and Restricted Parking) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 12.56.210, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO PARKING METERS SPECIAL USE CONDITIONS AND FEES; AMENDING SECTION 12.56.325,RELATING TO LOADING ZONES AND RESTRICTED PARKING- SPECIAL USE CONDITIONS AND FEES; AND AMENDING SECTION 14.12.130 RELATING TO REMOVAL OF PARKING METERS. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah: SECTION 1. That Section 12.56.210, Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to parking meters special use conditions and fees be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as Sfollows: 12.56.210 Parking Meters - Special Use Conditions and Fees: Permission to park in parking meter spaces without the deposit of a coin may be granted by the City Transportation Engineer or the Engineer's designee upon application being made therefor in writing upon the following conditions: A.A showing of a substantial need to temporarily close off the meters involved to the public use for a stated duration of time, B. The placing of authorized bags over the meters involved, and C. The payment daily in advance to the City Treasurer according to the following schedule: 1. Twenty-five dollars ($25.00)per meter per day, or part thereof. S 2. Ten dollars ($10.00)per meter per day, or part thereof for-an event that: (i) continues for not less than three consecutive days, (ii) • significantly fosters area business promotion, and(iii)has an expected attendance exceeding 5,000 persons. 3. Ten dollars ($10.00)per meter per day, or part thereof dining the filming of a movie, television series or commercial. 4. No fee shall be charged to any organization, for up to a total of 30 days in any calendar year, that provides written verification from the Internal Revenue Service that the organization has been granted tax- exempt status as a religious or charitable organization under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, or its successor 5. No fee shall be charged to any organization using such meter under the direction of the City in connection with a City-sponsored special • event. SECTION 2. That Section 12.56.325, Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to loading zones and restricted parking - special use conditions and fees be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows: 12.56.325 Loading Zones and Restricted Parking- Special Use Conditions and Fees: Permission to park in loading zones and/or restricted parking areas may be granted by City Transportation Engineer or the Engineer's designee upon application being made therefor in writing upon the following conditions: • 2 • A.. A showing of a substantial need to temporarily close off the loading zone or • restricted parking area to the public use for a stated duration of time, and B. The payment daily in advance to the City Treasurer according to the following schedule: 1. Twenty-five dollars ($25.00)per vehicle space in a loading zone or restricted parking area per day, or part thereof. 2. Ten dollars ($10.00) per vehicle space in a loading zone or restricted parking area per day, or part thereof for an event that: (i) continues for not less than three consecutive days, (ii) significantly fosters area business promotion, and(iii) has an expected attendance exceeding 5,000 persons. 3. Ten dollars ($10.00)per vehicle space in a loading zone or restricted • parking area per day, or part thereof during the filming of a movie, television series or commercial. 4. No fee shall apply outside the area of the City bounded by the following streets: North Temple, 200 East, 600 South, and 200 West. 6. No fee shall be charged to any organization, for up to a total of 30 days in any calendar year that provides written verification from the Internal Revenue Service that the organization has been granted tax-exempt status as a religious or charitable organization under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, or its successor. • 3 7. No fee shall be charged to any organization using such loading zone or restricted parking area under the direction of the City in connection 110 with a City-sponsored special event. SECTION 3. That Section 14.12.130, Salt Lake City Code,pertaining to removal of parking meters be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 14.12.130 Removal of parking meters. A. Permission to remove a parking meter or meters from the street may be granted by the transportation engineer or the engineer's designee upon application being made therefor in writing showing a substantial need to temporarily close off metered parking spaces to the public use for a stated duration of time, together with payment in advance to the city treasurer of the sum of twenty-five($25.00) dollars per meter so removed per day, or part thereof. However,no fee shall be charged to (1) any organization, for up to a total of 30 days in any calendar year, that provides written verification from the Internal Revenue Service that the organization has been granted tax- exempt status as a religious or charitable organization under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, or its successor, or(2) any organization using such meter space under the direction of the City in connection with a City-sponsored special event The petitioner shall be responsible for, and install,meter post replacements according to city specifications, as set forth by the transportation engineer. B. When restricted parking areas are requested to be reserved for exclusive use by the petitioner and it is necessary to temporarily remove existing parking meters in order to relocate such restricted parking, the foregoing meter-removal provisions shall apply. • 4 SECTION 4. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon the date of its • first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of 2002. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER • Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. S MAYOR ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Salt Lake APPROVED AS TO• FORM ys Office /V • Date (SEAL) By Bill No. of 2003. Published: G:\Ordinances 033Amending 12.56 210 et al re parking meters and loading zones 4-30-03 clean S 5 • �I:; 2 : 2333 RICHARD GRAHAM ; `1 1�! �A\-Q 1 nw O °�� ., -I,l _ ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES MAYOR TO: ROCKY FLUHART CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER FROM: RICK GRAHAM, DIRECTOR py PUBLIC SERVICES DATE: May 28, 2003 Reference: An ordinance authorizing the Mayor to approve the annual assessment ordinance for Special Lighting District LO1. STAFF CONTACT: Karen Carruthers, 535-6355. 1 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the attached assessment ordinance. • DOCUMENT TYPE: Assessment BUDGET IMPACT: The annual operating, maintenance and electrical energy costs for the district is estimated at$153,140.28. The City pays 25% of the annual expenses ($38,285.07) and the residents in the district pay the remaining 75% ($114,855.21). The City's portion is included in the Transportation Division's annual operating budget. DISCUSSION: The attached assessment LO1 authorizes the Mayor to approve the annual assessment for Special Lighting District LO1 to be levied upon each parcel of property in the lighting district for the purpose of paying the operating, maintenance and electrical energy costs of the district. There are 1883 property owners in the lighting district, which are at various locations throughout the City. cc: Vault • SALT LAKE CITY ENGINEERING 349 SOUTH 200 EAST, SUITE 100, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7961 FAX: 130 1-535-6093 tr•Recvccco PAPER • Salt Lake City, Utah June 3,2003 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah met in regular session at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 3, 2003, at its regular meeting place at 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah. The following members of the City Council were present: Carlton Christensen Chair Jill Remington Love Vice Chair Nancy Saxton Councilmember Van Blair Turner Councilmember Eric Jergensen Councilmember David L. Buhler Councilmember Dale Lambert Councilmember Also present: Ross C. Anderson Mayor Edwin P. Rutan II City Attorney Deputy City Recorder Absent: • The City Recorder confirmed that appropriate notice of this June 3, 2003, City Council Meeting had been given as required by law and as evidenced in the Certificate of Compliance With Open Meeting Law, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit"A". After the meeting had been duly called to order and after other matters not pertinent to this ordinance had been discussed, the following proceedings, among others, were duly had and taken: It was noted Salt Lake City, Utah Lighting District No. 1, now known as LOl (the "District LO 1") was duly created, pursuant to notice and public hearing, on April 16, 1996. The District was created with notice to all property owners within the District that assessments are to be paid annually when assessed. Thereafter, in 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 assessment ordinances were adopted by the City Council. Subsequent to the 1998 assessment, the District was modified by an addition of an extension which was previously part of another special improvement district. Pursuant to the provisions of the proceedings creating the District and the Original Assessment Ordinance, the following assessment ordinance (the "2003 Assessment Ordinance") was then introduced in writing, was fully discussed, and pursuant to motion • UT_DOCS_A#1131034 v1 1 • duly made by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember , adopted by the following vote: YEA: NAY: ABSENT: The 2003 Assessment Ordinance was then signed by the Chair, presented to and approved by the Mayor and recorded by the City Recorder in the official records of Salt Lake City, Utah. The 2003 Assessment Ordinance is as follows: • fil UT_DOCS_A#1131034 v1 2 ORDINANCE NO. of 2003 • AN ORDINANCE (THE "2003 ASSESSMENT ORDINANCE") APPROVING THE ASSESSMENT LIST; LEVYING AN ANNUAL ASSESSMENT UPON PROPERTY IN SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 1, KNOWN AS LO1 (THE "DISTRICT L01"); ESTABLISHING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE 2003 ASSESSMENT ORDINANCE; AND RELATED MATTERS. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL (THE "COUNCIL") OF SALT LAKE CITY (THE "CITY"), SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH: Section 1. Determination of Costs. All costs and expenses for providing street lighting within the District and the reasonable cost of any work to be done have been determined. Section 2. Approval of Assessment List; Findings. The Council confirms and adopts the assessment list, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference (the "Assessment List"). The Assessment List has been adjusted to comport with the previous year's experience for the District and it includes estimated operation and maintenance expenses for the coming year. The Council has determined that the Assessment List is just and equitable; that each piece of property to be assessed within the District will be benefited in an amount not less than the assessment • to be levied against said property; and that no piece of property listed in the assessment list will bear more than its proportionate share of the cost of such improvements or services. Section 3. Levy of Assessments. The Council hereby levies an assessment upon the real property identified in the Assessment List. The assessments levied upon each parcel of property therein described shall be in the amount set forth in the Assessment List. The assessments hereby levied are for the purpose of paying the costs of providing for the operation, maintenance and patrolling of incandescent, fluorescent, metal halide and sodium vapor lamps and the furnishing of electrical energy. It is hereby determined and established that the property being assessed will be specifically benefited to the full amount of the assessment hereby levied to cover the cost of operating, maintaining, patrolling and furnishing of electrical energy. The property benefited is all within the boundaries of the lots, blocks and streets as set forth in the Assessment List. Unless future modifications revise the purposes and plans of the District, future assessments will continue to be levied annually based upon applicable rates established by the energy contract with the City. Future non-energy costs of operation and maintenance relating to the providing of lighting benefits will also be a factor in determining future rates. The City Treasurer is hereby authorized and directed to notify property owners of this assessment and to collect assessments in accordance with the provisions of the 2003 Assessment Ordinance for the purposes herein provided. 0 UT_DOCS_A#1131034 v1 3 • Section 4. Cost of Services Improvements; Amount of Total Assessments. As determined by the office of the City Engineer, the total actual and estimated costs of all services and improvements for the eighth year of the District is $153,140.28, of which the City's portion is approximately $38,285.07 The remainder of$114,855.21 is to be paid from proceeds of assessments levied upon property within the District as set forth in the Assessment List. Section 5. Method, Rate and Payment of Assessment. The total assessment for the District is levied in accordance with the method set out in the Notice of Intention pertaining to the District as adopted by the City Council on March 5, 1996. The applicable rate for each property was determined based on the costs of street lighting services, together with other related factors, the totals of which are set out in the preceding Section. Future annual assessments may include adjustments to reflect changes in operation and maintenance costs and any balances or deficits resulting from the previous year's operations. Assessments shall be payable on the effective date of this annual assessment ordinance. Interest on assessments shall accrue only after passage of the due date (the "Due Date") set out in the Special Assessment Notice to be mailed by the Treasurer to property owners. The rate of interest accruing on any delinquent assessment shall be the rate allowed by Utah statute (the "Delinquent Rate"). The whole or any part of the assessment may be paid without interest on or prior to the Due Date. • Section 6. Default in Payment. The assessment shall be delinquent if it remains unpaid after the Due Date. Any delinquency shall constitute a default of the payment of the assessment. If a default occurs because of failure to pay the amount due, the City may, but is not required to file for recording a notice (the "Notice of Delinquency") with the Salt Lake County Recorder. The resulting recording fees for both the filing and the release, shall be added to the assessment together with accrued interest due and owing. In addition, costs of collection as determined by the City Treasurer or required by law shall be charged and paid on all delinquent amounts. If the delinquency continues, whether or not there has been a filing of a Notice of Delinquency, the City Treasurer may determine that additional enforcement action may be appropriate. Prior to commencement of such enforcement action the City shall give an additional notice (the "Notice of Default"), in writing, of the default to the owner of the property in default. Notice of Default shall be effective upon deposit of the notice in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, and addressed to the owner as shown on the last equalized assessment rolls for the City or on the official ownership records of the City. The Notice of Default may provide for a period of thirty (30) days in which the owner shall pay the assessment balance then due and owing together with accrued interest at the Delinquent Rate plus recording costs and other costs as determined by the City Treasurer. The Notice of Default may also declare that after the thirty (30) day period the City may bring suit for the total amount due plus costs of the enforcement action remedy, or the City may elect to commence foreclosure proceedings in the manner provided for actions to foreclose mortgage liens or trust deeds. In the event the City elects to foreclose using 410 trust deed procedures, a trustee shall be designated by the City to serve as trust deed UT DOCS_A#1131034 v1 4 trustee for purposes of the enforcement proceedings. If at the sale no person or entity • shall bid and pay the City the amount due on the assessment plus interest and costs, the property shall be deemed sold to the City for these amounts. The City shall be permitted to bid at the sale. The remedies provided herein for the collection of assessments and the enforcement of liens shall be deemed and construed to be cumulative and the use of any one method or means of collection or enforcement shall not deprive the City of the use of any other method or means. The amounts of accrued interest and all costs of collection shall be added to the amount of the assessment up to the date of judgment or, in the case of foreclosure action, the date of the foreclosure sale. Section 7. Remedy of Default. An owner of property may remedy a default by paying the full amount of the unpaid assessment balance with interest at the Delinquent Rate, plus approved or required enforcement costs. The delinquency may be satisfied and the default remedied anytime prior to the final date payment may legally be made under a fmal sale or foreclosure of property to collect the delinquent assessment. Section 8. Lien of Assessment. An assessment or any part of it, any interest accruing and the costs of recording and collection shall constitute a lien against the property upon which the assessment is levied as of July 15, 2003,the effective date of the 2003 Assessment Ordinance (the "Effective Date"), or as of the effective date of any earlier applicable assessment ordinance. Unless the assessment becomes delinquent, no notice of lien will be recorded and no release of lien will be recorded at the time of1111 payment. When a delinquency occurs, the City may, in its discretion, record with the Salt Lake County Recorder's Office, a Notice of Lien, a Notice of Delinquency and/or a Notice of Default setting out the assessment balance due. The assessment lien shall be perfected when the Assessment Ordinance takes effect. If the City elects to record some form of Notice, it will do so for collection purposes and not because of any requirement for perfecting of the assessment lien. Said lien shall be superior to the lien of any trust deed, mortgage, mechanic's or materialman's lien or other encumbrance and shall be equal to and on a parity with the lien for general property taxes. The lien shall continue until the assessment and any interest, penalties and costs on it are paid, notwithstanding any sale of the property for or on account of a delinquent general property tax, special tax or other assessment or the issuance of a tax deed, an assignment of interest by the governing entity or a sheriff's certificate of sale or deed. Section 9. Contestability. No assessment shall be declared void or set aside in whole or in part in consequence of any error or irregularity which does not go to the equity or justice of the assessment or proceeding. Any party who has not waived his or her objections to the assessment may commence a civil action against the City to enjoin the levy or collection of the assessment or to set aside and declare unlawful the 2003 Assessment Ordinance. Such action must be commenced and summons must be served on the City not later than 30 days after the effective date of the 2003 Assessment Ordinance. This action shall be the exclusive remedy of any aggrieved party. No court shall entertain any 0 UT_DOCS_A#1131034 v1 5 • complaint which the party was authorized to make by statute but did not timely make or any complaint that does not go to the equity or justice of the assessment or proceeding. After the expiration of the 30-day period provided in this section, the assessments levied in the District shall become incontestable as to all persons who have not commenced the action provided for in this section; and no suit to enjoin the levy, collection or enforcement of the assessments, or in any other manner attacking or questioning the legality of the assessments may be instituted in this state, and no court shall have authority to inquire into these matters. Section 10. Notice to Property Owners. The City Treasurer is hereby authorized and directed to give notice of assessment by mail to the property owners in the District. Said notice shall, among other things, state the amount of the assessment and the date for payment. A copy of the form of notice of assessment is available for examination upon request at the office of the City Recorder. Section 11. All Necessary Action Approved. The officials of the City are hereby authorized and directed to take all action necessary and appropriate to effectuate the provisions of the 2003 Assessment Ordinance. Section 12. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions. All ordinances or parts thereof in conflict with the 2003 Assessment Ordinance are hereby repealed. • Section 13. Publication of Ordinance and Effective Date. Immediately after its adoption, the 2003 Assessment Ordinance may be signed by the Mayor and City Recorder and shall be recorded in the ordinance book kept for that purpose. The 2003 Assessment Ordinance shall be published once in the Deseret Morning News, a newspaper published and having general circulation in the City and shall take effect immediately upon its Effective Date. i UT_DOCS_A#1131034 v1 Section 14. PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City, this • June 3,2003. Chair ATTEST: Deputy City Recorder ( SEAL) • • UT_DOCS_A#1131034 v1 7 0 PRESENTATION TO THE MAYOR The foregoing ordinance was presented to the Mayor for his approval or disapproval on June , 2003. Chair MAYOR'S APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL The foregoing ordinance is hereby approved this June , 2003. Ross C. Anderson,Mayor • S UT_DOCS_A#1131034 v1 8 STATE OF UTAH : ss. COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) I, ,the duly appointed, qualified and acting Deputy City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the record of proceedings had by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah at its meeting held on June 3, 2003, insofar as the same relates to or concerns Salt Lake City, Utah Lighting District No. LO1 as the same appears of record in my office. I further certify that the 2003 Assessment Ordinance levying the special assessments was recorded by me in the official records of Salt Lake City on June 2003. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the corporate seal of Salt Lake City this June ,2003. Deputy City Recorder • ( SEAL) UT DOCS_A#1131034 v1 9 STATE OF UTAH ) AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING : ss. NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) I, Daniel Mule, the duly appointed, qualified and acting City Treasurer of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, do hereby certify that on June , 2003, I caused to be mailed a Notice of Assessment to each property owner in Salt Lake City, Utah Lighting District No. LO1 by United States Mail, postage prepaid, at the last known address of such owner. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the corporate seal of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah this June , 2003. City Treasurer ( SEAL) • S UT_DOCS_A#1131034 v1 10 PROOF OF PUBLICATION Attached to this page is the Proof of Publication, indicating by the affidavit of the publisher that the said 2003 Assessment Ordinance levying the special assessments which was contained in the 2003 Assessment Ordinance adopted by the City Council on June 3, 2003, was published one time in the Deseret News. • UT_DOCS_A#1131034 v1 11 • EXHIBIT "A" CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH OPEN MEETING LAW I, , the undersigned Deputy City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah (the "City"), do hereby certify, according to the records of the City in my official possession, and upon my own knowledge and belief, that in accordance with the requirements of Section 52-4-6(2), Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, I gave not less than twenty-four (24) hours public notice of the agenda, date, time and place of the June 3, 2003, public meeting held by the City as follows: (a) By causing a Notice, in the form attached hereto as Schedule "A", to be posted at the City's offices at 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah on , 2003, at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the convening of the meeting, said Notice having continuously remained so posted and available for public inspection until the completion of the meeting; and (b) By causing a copy of such Notice, in the form attached hereto as Schedule "A", to be delivered to the Deseret Morning News on 2003, at least twenty-four(24) hours prior to the convening of the meeting. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my official signature this June , 2003. Deputy City Recorder ( SEAL) UT DOCS_A#1131034 v1 A-1 SCHEDULE "A" • NOTICE OF MEETING 0 I UT_DOCS_A#1131034 v1 A-2 4 0 EXHIBIT "B" ASSESSMENT LIST [Available for review at the offices of the City Recorder and the City Engineer] • • UT_DOCS_A#1131034 v1 B-1 A. MAY 1 3 2003 • COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL c-L 0A-7 TO: Rocky J. Fluhart DATE: May 9, 2003 Chief Administrative Officer FROM: Rick Graham, Public Services Director SUBJECT: Cooperative Agreement with Utah Department of Transportation for street sweeping services for the period from July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2007 STAFF CONTACT: Craig Posselli, Manager Streets and Sanitation Division S535-6903 DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution RECOMMENDATION: Council approval of resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign Cooperative Agreement with UDOT for street sweeping services. BUDGET IMPACT: UDOT will pay$23.00 per lane mile, generating approximately$17,000 per year in revenue. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This agreement will extend the existing agreement for street sweeping services with UDOT for four more years, to June 30, 2007. A RESOLUTION NO. OF 2003 AUTHORIZING THE APPROVAL OF AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13, Utah Code, as amended, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, the attached agreement has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1. It does hereby approve the attached Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION(the "City"), and the UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ("UDOT"), to wit: The City shall sweep certain streets for UDOT for a fee of$23.00 per lane-mile for four years commencing July 1, 2003. 2. Ross C. Anderson, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, or his designee, is hereby authorized to execute said agreement on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation, subject to any • minor changes which do not materially affect the rights and obligations of the City thereunder. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of 2003. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake Ci A orney's Office Date __-6 CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER i i • Foirii R-308 (Revised) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT Date: March 18, 2003 SLC Contract#03-3-03-7090 We, the duly authorized officers of the UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, hereby approve the following work to be done by SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION for which we agree to pay upon presentation of an invoice for said work as follows: Description of Work Street sweeping of all areas of Utah Department of Transportation responsibility of highways as shown on attached sheet and within the incorporated limits of Salt Lake City, but excluding sweeping following Utah Department of Transportation resurfacing, seal coating, and major spillage from trucks losing their loads. The sweeping will be required a minimum of twice a year, once in early spring and again in late Fall. Sweeping will be done by Salt Lake City Street Department at the rate of $23.00 per lane miles. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION assumes all responsibility and/or liability of claims arising from work performed and agrees to furnish and maintain their own equipment and IPoperators. Upon completion SALT LAKE CITY STREET DEPARTMENT will notify the UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S region Two Maintenance Office for inspection and approval of work. Invoice is to be submitted upon completion of sweeping, but not later than June 30th of each year. This Agreement is for a period from July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2007, at which time it can be renewed if both parties agree. Approximate total cost: $17,000.00 REPRESENTATION REGARDING ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES AND FORMER CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES. Each party represents that it has not: (1)provided an illegal gift or payoff to an officer or employee or former officer or employee of the other party, or his or her relative or business entity; (2) retained any person to solicit or secure this contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage,brokerage or contingent fee, other than bona fide employees or bona fide commercial selling agencies for the purpose of securing business; (3) knowingly breached any of the ethical standards set forth in the City's conflict of interest ordinance, Chapter 2.44, Salt Lake City Code, or in any comparable conflict of interest ordinance of the III State of Utah; or(4) knowingly influenced, and hereby promises that it will not knowingly influence, an officer or employee or former officer or employee of the other party to breach M any of the ethical standards set forth in the City's conflict of interest ordinance, Chapter 2.44, Salt Lake City Code, or in any comparable conflict of interest ordinance of the State of Utah. 41111 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION UDOT REGION TWO OPERATIONS By: By: L j Mayor Rukhsana Lindsey, P.E. ATTEST APPROVED AS TO FORM By: Salt Lake Ci Attorneys Office Chief Deputy City Recorder a. Date By , ' 41( S 2 II 0 UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STREET CLEAN-UP SR# NORTH—SOUTH STREETS CURB/GUTTER ISLANDS STATION MILES MILES 186-89 300 West-from 400 South to 2100 7.8 7.8 225 North Beck Street 270 West Temple-900 South to 400 South 1.6 0.2 225 184-89 State Street and perimeter at Capitol 500 9.8 6.0 225 North to 2100 South 71 700 East-400 South to 2800 South 7.2 7.2 225 181 1300 East-500 South to 3000 South 7.4 2.6 234 186 Foothill Drive—500 South& 1300 East 8.4 7.8 - 234 to I-80 SR# EAST-WEST STREETS CURB/GUTTER ISLANDS MILES MILES 89-186 North Temple-State Street to 1700 West 4.0 1.8 225 186 400&500 South-300 West to 1300 East 5.0 5.0 225 269 500 South-I-15 to State Street 1.0 225 269 600 South-I-15 to State Street 1.0 225 201 2100 South-I-15 to State Street 1.8 1.4 230 268 600 North-300 West to 800 West 1.4 1.4 225 III TOTAL 56.4 41.2 CONTACT INFORMATION Station Supervisor Station Phone# Cell Phone# 225 Richard Palmer 972-3272 910-2250 230 Larry Limberis 975-4960 910-2300 234 Roger Frantz 582-2115 910-2340 S 3 • Memorandum Date: May 12, 2003 To: Council Members From: Council Member Dave Buhler RE: Legislative Action --request that the Administration re-evaluate sections of the zoning ordinance relating to fences in front yard areas in residential zoning districts CC: Rocky Fluhart, Dave Nimkin, Alison Weyher, David Dobbins, Louis Zunguze, Roger Evans,Tim Harpst, Kevin Young, Brent Wilde, Larry Butcher, Barry Walsh, Enzo Calfa, Alan Hardman, Janice Jardine, Diana Karrenberg, Barry Esham, Gwen Springmeyer, Annette Daley I would appreciate the Council's consideration of a Legislative Action item requesting • that the Administration re-evaluate sections of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to regulations for fences in front yard areas in residential zoning districts. Recently, a District Six resident contacted me who expressed concern that there are loopholes and inconsistencies in sections of the City's zoning ordinance that apply to fences particularly in residential zoning districts. The resident noted that a neighbor was allowed to install fences that appear to inhibit adequate sight, light, views and create safety hazards in the neighborhood. It is my understanding that in recent years individual Council Members have also heard similar concerns from constituents in other areas of the City. In following up on this matter with the Administration, staff from Building Services, Transportation and Planning Divisions indicated that it would be appropriate to re-evaluate and update the current fence regulations. They identified several examples in the existing zoning regulations that would benefit from revisions to provide clarification and consistency with other City regulations such as the building code and transportation engineering standards. Regulations that appear to cause the most confusion relate to fence height, location, grade change and site distance measurement criteria to provide adequate line of sight for corner properties, driveways and alleys to ensure traffic and pedestrian safety. • For example: • The Zoning Ordinance currently states that"no fence, wall or hedge shall be erected in any front yard to a height in excess of 4-feet"(Sec. 21A.40.120.D—Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges). A front yard is defined as the"yard area between the side lot lines and between the front lot line and the required front yard setback line" (Sec. 21A.62.040 - Definitions). The Zoning Ordinance does not address whether or not a fence higher than 4-feet can be constructed in the front yard behind the-required setback. The Administration reported that they interpret the area that exists between.the designated setback line and the face of a residential structure as "buildable area" and has allowed six- foot fences in the past. • The Zoning Ordinance currently allows a grade change of 2-feet or less in yard areas. (Sec. 21A.36.020B—Obstructions in Yards) The fence regulations note that where there is a difference in grade of the properties on either side of a fence, wall or hedge, the height of the fence shall be measured from the average grade of the adjoining properties. (Sec. 21A.40.120D—Height Restrictions)The Administration has noted that, in the case of fences, staff measures grade change at the mid-point thus allowing a property owner to increase the fence height by 1-foot. The Building Code requires grade be measured 6-feet away from any wall or fence. • The Zoning Ordinance currently includes regulations intended to ensure adequate line of sight for corner lots, driveways and alleys for traffic and pedestrian safety. The Administration noted the need to amend the zoning regulations to provide consistency with current transportation engineering standards. Such revisions would include: o Standards to better distinguish and identify the right of way line and the edge of a • driveway, alley, sidewalk, pedestrian walkway, roadway and curb. o Define height clearance areas between 2.5-feet and 7-feet for passenger vehicles and 2.5-feet and 8- feet for commercial trucks. o Provide City Traffic Engineers discretion to evaluate projects on a case-by-case basis including defined parameters and criteria for analysis. I would appreciate the support of Council Members in asking the Administration to reevaluate the Zoning Ordinance and provide the Council with options to address these issues. The result I would like to see is Zoning Ordinance language that would provide clarification and consistency with other City regulations such as the building code and transportation engineering standards as they relate to fences and grade in residential zoning districts. • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT 1111 BUDGET AMENDMENT ANALYSIS - FISCAL YEAR 2002-03 DATE: May 17, 2002 -- BUDGET FOR: POLICE DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT BY: Gary Mumford cc: Rocky Fluhart, David Nimkin, Chief Dinse,Jerry Burton, Steve Fawcett, Kay Christensen, DJ Baxter The budget that the Council adopted in June 2001 for the Police Department for fiscal year 2002-2003 is $42,604,364. The Mayor is recommending an amendment to decrease the budget by $78,659 to $42,525,705. Proposed Changes to the Police Department Budget Proposed Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Budget Amendment Police Department Adopted budget $42,604,364 Eliminate four youth & family specialist positions (layoffs): The Youth and Family program began under a federal grant to help combat (208,000) the potential for at-risk youth to become involved in criminal activity. • Although some of the services may be available through other agencies, the Department states that no other state, county or school program provides the same service level. Eliminate one of five civilian community mobilization specialists (layoff): Community Mobilization Specialists work with the Community (49,000) Action Team to identify long-term solutions to neighborhood problems. Eliminate mobile watch coordinator police officer position (vacant): Total cost of this position is $47,000. The remainder was used to meet (12,160) proportional cuts made to the budget at the time the biennial budget was adopted. The coordination of mobile watch will be accomplished by other _police officers. Eliminate one of three information specialists (vacant): The reco cis unit will absorb the cut within existing staff. (31,('00) Shift janA.:orial expenses to Public Services: This is a transfer to the Public Services Department since that Department is (45,000) responsible for janitorial services in the Public Safety Building. Employee actual pay increases and benefit costs are greater than the amount estimated in the biennial budget: 266,501 The budget for fiscal year 2002-2003 included a 3% increase. Actual negotiated costs and increases to health insurance premiums require additional appropriations. Proposed budget $42,525,705 11111 Potential Matters at Issue Since there is a decrease in estimated General fund revenue, some non-core programs of the Police Department are proposed for service level reduction to help • balance the budget. • Youth and Family Specialists - Four of the five Youth and Family Specialist positions are proposed for elimination. The Youth and Family Specialists receive referrals from various agencies including the City's Police Department and from concerned individuals within the community. Once a referral is received, a Specialist meets with the family for a formal assessment. A treatment or referral plan is developed. Case management includes monitoring academic performance at school, weekly meetings in the home to monitor the family's progress, crisis intervention, parenting skills, anger management, and problem solving skills. If the case is referred to other agencies for services, the Specialist monitors compliance with those referrals. Youth and Family Specialists also establish an intervention program with juveniles who have committed a second legal offense in the community. Families who refuse to cooperate are referred to the City Prosecutor's Office for possible prosecution under the City's Parental Accountability Ordinance. The goal of the program is to reduce recidivism, provide resources to families, and protect the community by improving parental skills and supervision. The Youth and Family Specialists serve as members of the Community Action Teams (CAT). The State's Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) investigates cases of abuse and neglect after they occur. The City's Youth and Family Specialists try to intervene and prevent abuse. The Mayor stated that the Administration will • ask DCFS to assume its responsibility to be involved in prevention. The Mayor also pointed out that the Salt Lake City School District also assists families with situations that would prevent a child from succeeding in school. The one remaining Youth and Family Specialist will continue to assist innocent victims of meth production, distribution and use. Reducing the Youth and Family Specialist program will place additional responsibilities on the police officers who work with the Community Action Teams. • Community Mobilization Specialists - The budget amendment proposes the elimination of one of five Community Mobilization Specialists. These specialists work with the community/neighborhood councils and Community Action Teams to determine issues, problems and concerns. The specialists investigate and help resolve these concerns. The Community Mobilization Specialists provide training in crime prevention and assist neighborhoods in implementing Neighborhood Watch. Some Council Districts share a Community Mobilization Specialist. This reduction will require the further sharing of Specialists. • Mobile Watch Coordinator - The amendment proposes eliminating the police officer position that coordinates approximately 550 volunteers to assure compliance with department policy and procedures. This police officer provides training and recruitment and is the direct link to the department for these volunteers. It is proposed that the coordination function be accomplished by • other police officers. 2 • Speedboards - Four additional speedboards were purchased during fiscal year 2000-2001, for a total of seven speedboards. In a Council briefing in • January 2002, the Police Department reported that the Department doesn't have the resources to set out the boards every day. On many days only two boards are set up. The Council may wish to discuss with representatives of the Police Department options for greater utilization of speedboards. Possibilities including contracting the services or funding part-time civilian positions to be responsible for set up, take down and data input. • Impound Lot - The paperwork from the Administration regarding the proposed outsourcing of the City's impound lot activities states that "other departments involved in the impound process or who are served by the City program, such as Police, would need to evaluate the changes and make appropriate accommodations on their own." The Council may wish to ask representatives from the Police Department to explain how the proposed changes may affect the Police Department and whether there will be additional costs for the Police Department that the Council should consider in evaluating the proposal to outsource impound lot activities. • Proportional Cuts - In June 2001, the Council made proportional cuts to all General Fund departments in order to balance the fiscal year 2002-2003 budget. The Police Department proposes to meet these reductions by: 1. Deleting the community action team (CAT) secretary position (vacant) saving $34,000. This secretary provides support for the community • action teams. This function will need to be assumed by a sergeant. 2. Deleting the community media relations coordinator position, which informs the community about the Department and City and works directly with minority community groups to enhance relationships. Eliminating this vacant position will save $45,000. (There is also an officer who fills a public information role. The officer position will not be eliminated.) 3. Deleting the mobile watch coordinator police officer position (vacant) cutting expenditures by $34,840. Total savings for this position was $47,000, but not all of the savings was needed to meet the proportional cuts. The remaining $12,160 is shown above as an additional reduction to the budget. 4. Delaying police officer recruiting/hiring to save $76,000. Balancing the budget with a delay in hiring only defers the challenges for balancing next year's budget. The budget will still be out of balance by this amount in fiscal year 2003-2004. 40 3 The budget for fiscal year 2002-2003 is proposed to be $42,525,705, which represents a 0.1% decrease over the original adopted budget. PROPOSED BUDGET AMENDMENT III POLICE DEPARTMENT FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 Original Proposed Proposed Adopted Budget Budget Budget Amendment Administrative Bureau Administration $1,479,860 $ 9,335 $1,489,195 Management Services (eliminate 1 FTE) 473,788 (40,333) 433,455 Internal Affairs 324,589 3,334 327,923_ Training 710,032 4,667 714,699 Administrative Services 355,526 3,334 358,860 Technical Support 297,092 4,001 301,093 Records (eliminate 1 FTE) 1,664,289 (6,996) 1,657,293 Communications 2,926,658 38,673 2,965,331 General Services 2,212,934 148,274 2,361,208 Total Administrative Bureau 10,444,768 164,289 10,609,057 Investigative Bureau Traffic Unit 2,770,416 27,338 2,797,754 Detective 5,679,650 51,676 5,731,326_ Community Support _ 3,980,475 , 34,673 4,015,148� Police Evidence 253,556 _ 3,334 256,890 Crime Lab 747,288 8,668 755,956 Total Investigative Bureau 13,431,385 125,689 13,557,074 Operations Bureau Pioneer Patrol (eliminate 4 FTEs) 9,905,871 (138,318) 9,767,553 • Liberty Patrol(eliminate 3 FTEs) 8,452,447 (114,987) 8,337,460 Airport Liaison (Transfer 1 FTE) 200,463 (117,333) 83,130 Crime Analysis 169,430 2,001 171,431 Total Operations Bureau 18,728,211 (368,637) 18,359,574 Total Police Department $42,604,364 $ (78,659) $42,525,705 III • SALT::°LAKECITY COUNCIL: FF°: :STAREPORT°°" . :'BUDGET AMENDMENT ANALYSIS- FISCAI::YEAR:2002.-.03 DATE: May 17, 2002 BUDGET FOR: CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE STAFF REPORT BY: Gary Mumford cc: Rocky Fluhart, David Nimkin, Roger Cutler, Sim Gill, Lynn Pace, Steve Fawcett, Kay Christensen, DJ Baxter The budget that the Council adopted in June 2001 for the City Attorney's Office for fiscal year 2002-2003 was $2,616,056. The Mayor is recommending an amendment to decrease the budget by $35,716 to $2,580,295. The City Prosecutor's Office is included within the budget for the City Attorney's Office. Proposed Changes to the Budget for the City Attorney's Office Proposed Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Budget Amendment City Attorney's Office Adopted budget $2,616,056 Additional associate city prosecutor position to assist with workload: The number of new case filings has increased to an average of 1,500 to 57,535 1,600 per prosecutor. The Administration indicates that the prosecutors spend more time with each case than in the past.. The Administration also indicates that the transition to a justice court will require prosecutors to prosecute existing caseload already in place at the District Court as well as beninto prosecute cases in the Justice Court. Reduction in process service costs: Costs associated with process service can be further reduced as a result of switching from using contracted (54,100) constables for delivering documents to mailing the documents. Eliminate a senior attorney position that inadvertently.was included in (62,000) the biennial budget: This position has never been filled. Adjustment for employee pay increases and benefit costs is greater than the amount estimated in the biennial budget: Much if this increase 26,239 is due to the City's health insurance rates that are increasing by 11%. Proposed budget $2,583,730 1 Potential Matters at Issue • Additional associate city prosecutor position: The Administration reports • that the average caseload of other jurisdictions within the County is approximately 1,270 annual cases per prosecutor (Sandy 1,230 cases per prosecutor; Murray 1,835; South Salt Lake 1,015; West Valley City 1,000 cases per prosecutor). Salt Lake City's average annual caseload is between 1,500 and 1,600 per prosecutor. The City Prosecutor indicates that a change in approach has increased the number of jury trials from less than 14 in 1999 to over 100 in calendar year 2001. Council staff has not verified this data. o In the past several years, the City has `decriminalized' many issues, such as minor traffic matters and a number of land use issues. As such, many of these cases are now being handled outside of the prosecutorial process. o Briefing papers from the Administration in calendar year 2000 regarding establishing a Justice Court stated that one of the advantages of a justice court is that Salt Lake City would have control of the docket. Sometimes with the District Court, witnesses and police officers are brought in only to have cases continued. The Salt Lake City Prosecutor's Office will be better able to coordinate caseload and prosecutor assignments since there are fewer judges in the Justice Court. There was an indication that the Justice Court would allow the City to use its existing resources (prosecutor and police) more efficiently because scheduling problems will be significantly reduced. Travel time of walking between the Prosecutor's Office and the court will be almost eliminated. The Council may wish to ask the Administration to address the transition need with part-time or temporary resources until the Justice Court is fully operational. • Reduction in process service costs: Prior to January 2001, the City contracted with constables for service of summons, subpoenas and bench warrants. The Prosecutor's Division determined that it ccu'_d achieve the same service of process results, in a more cost effective manner, by mailing the majority of subpoenas, summons and bench warrants, and by having a City employee effectuate personal service of process rather than paying the higher costs of an outside process server. The fiscal year 2001-2002 budget was reduced to recognize this more efficient means for process. The Prosecutor's Office suggests that the budget can be further reduced by $54,100 as a result of switching from using contracted constables. The Council may wish to confirm that resources are available to effectuate personal service when it is necessary. • 2 If the Council determines that the reduction in personal services costs can be made without a significant service level impact, the Council can weigh whether it wishes to fund the additional prosecutor position, as suggested in this budget, or another Council priority. • Scope of Services in Prosecutor's Office: The Prosecutor's Office focuses on a restorative justice model. This approach could be more labor-intensive than a traditional prosecutorial approach, yet has a number of benefits. The Council may wish to request a summary of all services and programs currently funded in the office. There are two grant-funded positions in this office that the Administration may request to have continued in the future. Due to the recommendation to eliminate the Youth and Family Specialist and Community Support positions in the Police Department, the Council may wish to consider whether there are positions in the Prosecutor's Office that also fall outside of the strict interpretation of the City's role. • The Prosecutor's Office is requesting one-half of a position in the last budget opening of this year. It is a grant-funded position to assist victims of domestic violence as they go through the court system. Council staff has requested information on how that position differs from the victim advocate positions in the Police Department who are also involved in domestic violence cases. While this position is funded with grant funds, it does represent a service level increase. It is likely that there would be interest in continuing it using general fund monies once the grant funds expire. Governmental Immunity Fund The City Attorney also oversees the Governmental Immunity Fund and a part of the Insurance and Risk Management Fund. There are not any changes proposed to the budget for the Governmental Immunity Fund. The City's Governmental Immunity Fund provides for protection against unfounded claims of liability and for payment of legitimate claims. The adopted budget for fiscal year 2002-2003 increased the funding from the General Fund by $50,000 to $1,300,000. Past Council policy is to maintain sufficient reserves in the Governmental Immunity Fund. Audited financial statements for the Governmental Immunity Fund as of June 30, 2001 showed reserves to be nearly depleted (i.e., retained earnings of $70,509). Budget amendment #6, which the Council may consider on June 4, proposes an appropriation of most all of the reserves ($70,000) to meet current- year claims. State law allows a separate tax levy for governmental liability claims. Salt Lake City doesn't levy this separate tax. The Council may wish to discuss the adequacy of this fund, and re-confirm whether it supports this approach. 3 Insurance and Risk Management Fund Changes proposed to the Insurance and Risk Management Fund are: • $140,000 for increases in cost of property insurance: The cost for property insurance has significantly increased since September 11, 2001. Costs to the City will be approximately 40% greater than the previous year. Funding is proposed to come from the following funds: $20,000 from the General Fund; $90,000 from the Airport; and $30,000 from Public Utilities. The amount requested by the Risk Manager for the General Fund's portion was $30,000 but because of an oversight, only $20,000 was included in the proposed budget amendment. • $200,000 decrease to correct an error: The proposed biennial budget included $200,000 to create a self-insurance pool to cover liability from off- duty vehicle accidents. The Council chose not to adopt this approach. The transfer from the General Fund was removed from the adopted budget, but the appropriation in the Risk and Insurance Fund unintentionally remained. • $8,000 for employee pay increases and benefit costs: Projected costs are greater than the amount included in the biennial budget for employees working in the Insurance and Risk Management Fund. The General Fund supports most of the costs of employees of this internal service fund. • $33,000 increase in cost of health insurance for City's share of cost for retirees: The City pays approximately 25% of retired employees health • insurance costs. The projected costs for the City's share are greater than originally estimated. • 4 SALT LAKE Y COUNCIL STAFF REPORT 11 BUDGET AMENDMENT ANALYSIS- FISCAL YEAR.20O2-03 DATE: May 17, 2002 BUDGET FOR: PUBLIC SERVICES (including GOLF, FLEET, REFUSE Funds) STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears cc: Rocky Fluhart, Steve Fawcett, Rick Graham, Kevin Bergstrom, Greg Davis, Nancy Sanders, Laurie Dillon and DJ Baxter The General Fund budget that the Council adopted in June 2001 for the Public Services for fiscal year 2002-2003 was $29,777,376. The Mayor is recommending an amendment to decrease the budget by $336,373 to $29,441,003. The following recommended budget amendments include amendments to the Golf and Refuse Funds. Golf and Refuse are enterprise funds, supported by user fees rather than tax dollars. RECOMMENDED BUDGET AMENDMENTS The following budget amendments are recommended by the Administration: • Personal services benefit adjustment - There is a $146,760 increase in the budgeted amount for personal services. Actual pay increases and benefit costs are different than the amount estimated in the biennial budget. (BA03-01) • Eliminate Impound Lot-The recommended budget includes the outsourcing of the impound lot operations. This recommendation will result in a decrease of 7.08 FTE positions. Total expenditure savings is anticipated to be $386,636. Other departments that use the impound lot will need to make appropriate accommodations on behalf of their individual departments. There is a corresponding reduction in revenue of$260,009. (BAO2 14 • Eliminate 2 positions from the In-House Architectural program - There is a $139,762 decrease in the budgeted amount for the In-House Architectural program personnel costs. This decrease was a result of a recom=....nded reduction of two FTE positions in the program. The Administration has indicated that they will be forwarding an alternate proposal on for this program, which will not necessitate the elimination of these positions. (BA03-15) • Various Operational Changes - There is a combined reduction of $163,203 in various operational changes. These changes do include personnel reductions. The breakdown of the changes is as follows: • Eliminate business graffiti removal ($19, 928) 1 • Eliminate Hazardous Waste Removal ($24,996) (environmental compliance is a function of Management Services) • Eliminate International Peace Gardens Seasonal employees ($54,696) • Transfer General Fund portion of Accountant III to Golf Fund ($14,500) • Eliminate early retirement budget ($230,900) • Eliminate Asphalt Equipment Operator II position (vacant) ($45,132) • Eliminate Engineer III position (vacant) ($56,340) • Water increases $83,000 • Waste Disposal Fees increase in Parks $20,531 • CBI Security price increase of$27,514 • Electrical and Natural Gas $90,963 cost increase • Gateway Island Maintenance increase $24,000 • Seasonal employees increase $33,905 • Police Department janitorial shift $45,000. (BA03-16) • Assumption of Jordan River Parkway ownership and operations -The City has the opportunity to assume ownership of the Jordan River Parkway State Park and the State owned Cottonwood Park. The State has tentatively agreed to contribute $25,000 towards the operation of the park. The Administration is currently negotiating for a greater amount. Total expenditures are anticipated to be $128,468 each fiscal year. Three FIE seasonal positions will be added to maintain this new park. (BA03-17) • Additional FTE position in Golf Enterprise Fund - The recommended budget amendment for the Golf Fund includes the addition of a groundskeeper (1 FTE) for the Forest Dale Golf Course. The $34,091 in necessary funding for this position is proposed to come from a reduction in operating supplies and retail merchandise in the Golf Fund. The budget for supplies and merchandise has been more than sufficient in the past. The total overall fiscal affect of this proposal is $0. (BA03- 28) • Assumption of Jordan River Golf Course ownership and operations -The City has the opportunity to assume ownership of the Jordan River Golf Course. Total annual expenditures are anticipated to be $223,990. Green fees, Golf Fund reserves and a $50,000 Grant from the PGA for the operation of the Jordan River Golf Course are the proposed funding sources for this golf course. This course is expected to require more than $93,990 from the Golf Fund reserves in fiscal year 2002-2003 for one-time equipment purchases. The professional and superintendent at the Rose Park Golf Course will manage this golf course. Audited financial statements for the Golf Fund as of June 30, 2001 showed current assets to be about $1.3 million greater than current liabilities. This proposal uses fund reserves for one-time equipment purchases. The Council may wish to ask the Administration to comment on the adequacy of fund reserves and the purposes for which the reserves are being accumulated. The Administration — expects to realize economies of scale from the operation and improved 2 marketing of this course. The resulting revenue is expected to cover • operating expenditures. (BA03-29) • Refuse Fund changes to operating expenditures -With the implementation of automated curbside recycling, an increase in recycling activity has occurred, which has resulted reduced non-recyclable trash, for a savings in tonnage (tipping) fees paid to the Landfill. A corresponding reduction in the number of weekly refuse containers has caused a decrease in projected revenue of $180,763. The proposed increases to the operating budget are for maintaining the refuse fleet and for the addition of .50 FTE Ground Arborist and 2.04 FTE Seasonal employees. The total proposed staffing additions are estimated to cost $80,953. Overall adjustments to the Refuse Fund include an increase in the use of fund balance in the amount of $388,367 and a net expenditure increase of $207,604. Audited financial statements for the Refuse Fund as of June 30, 2001 showed current assets to be about $4.8 million greater than current liabilities. (BA03-30) ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED BUDGETS The synopsis below represents full-time equivalent (FTE) positions from the Staffing • Document, and is followed by a synopsis of the Public Service Department's budgets. FTEs FTEs Adopted Proposed 2002-03 2002-03 Office of the Director 14.63 14.48 Compliance 54.49 53.36 Facility Management 51.31 51.31 Gallivan Utah Center/Community Events 17.15 17.15 Streets 85.05 84.80 Parks 120.79 119.38 Engineering 63.00 60.00 Youth & Family Programs 23.37 23.37 Total 429.79 423.85 Golf 90.92 94.50 Refuse 60.88 63.42 Fleet 40.00 40.00 • 3 PROPOSED BUDGET AMENDMENT EXPENDITURES PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 O11111 Recommended ::;I'ro Deed .::.:: :: ..... .... Ado ted::: :: ;.Budget::: u et: Bti et::::»::» Atiiendtreriti:»: :.:» 2.002:: >:<:: � 2Q03.... -General Fund Office of the Director $1,723,816 _ $(14,500) $1,709,316 Compliance 2,025,294 (386,636) 1,638,658_ Facility Management 4,792,204 163,477 4,955,681 Gallivan Utah Center 1,215,196 0 1,215,196 Community Events 367,755 0 367,755 Streets 7,439,449 (84,756) 7,354,693 Parks 6,286,780 156,379 6,443,159 Engineering 4,886,440 (196,102) 4,690,338 Youth& Family Programs 1,040,442 0 1,040,442 Personal Services (all 146,760 146,760 divisions) • Other adjustments (120,995) (120,995) Total Proposed General Fund $29,777,376 $(336,373) $29,441,003 GOLF FUND $ 8,355,117 238,490 $ 8,593,607 REFUSE COLLECTION FUND $10,156,680 207,604 $10,364,284 FLEET MANAGEMENT FUND $11,173,836 0 $11,173,836 Office of the Director • This division provides coordinated direction and support to carry out the Department's goals and policies. It provides financial, planning, training, personnel and safety services, as well as overseeing and coordinating the communications, information, and contract management functions of the Department. Compliance Administration This division provides coordinated direction and support to carry out three programs: parking enforcement, crossing guards and the impound lot. Facility Management This division provides maintenance and repairs of City-owned buildings, the Downtown and Sugar House Business Districts and Franklin Covey Stadium. Gallivan Utah Center This division is responsible for operation of the Gallivan Utah Center through contract with the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City. Expenditures not covered by program revenue are covered by the Redevelopment Agency. Community Events The Community Events division is responsible for programming some of the activities — at Gallivan Utah Center, as well as Citywide events such as the Celtic Festival, the Salt Lake City Classic, and 24th of July celebration. • Streets 4 The Streets Division provides a variety of services aimed at providing a clean, attractive, safe and healthy environment. General Fund services include the • maintenance of streets, sidewalks and signals; snow removal; and signing and marking within the City. Parks The Parks Division ensures the preservation, development and maintenance of parks and open spaces in the City. The division also is responsible for managing the City Cemetery and the Graffiti Removal program. Engineering The Engineering Division provides general engineering services for the City, including the review of private development projects, oversight of work in the public right-of- way, engineering, surveying, mapping, record services and the proper design of City- owned buildings and facilities. Youth & Family Programs This division provides intervention activities and assistance for at-risk youth and families at the Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center. Within the Non-Departmental portion of the recommended budget there is $150,000 identified for Youth Services. That program is not related to this Youth and Family services program. • LEGISLATIVE INTENT STATEMENTS The Council has some Legislative Action items outstanding with this Department. A complete list of outstanding Legislative Action items will be provided for Council feedback later in the budget process. POTENTIAL MATTERS AT ISSUE ■ The Mayor's recommended budget amendment for fiscal year 2002-2003 does not address the Fleet .1:ianagement and Performance Review that is currently underway. Part I of the review had some recommendations for the division. It is try; under^tanding of Council staff that the Fleet Review briefing material will be transmitted from the Administration soon. The Council may wish to consider all recommendations associated with the Fleet Division once the review is complete. • The Council has received public comments relating to the Fleet impound lot. The Council may wish to request that the Administration respond to the issues raised, including: • The potential impact on other City Departments, including Fire and Police (vehicles available for training). • Any potential chain of evidence or security concerns with private lots. • 5 • The actual amount of revenue that is currently generated and any revenue that is anticipated to be generated through the new approach. • Confirmation of the net projected savings. • The Council has also received comment on the architect positions proposed for elimination. Clarification could be requested from the Administration on: • The extent to which outside contracting will be necessary • The service level impact for departments • The extent to which some of the savings may be offset by loss of reimbursement revenue from other departments (BA03-15) • Confirmation of the net projected savings • It is the understanding of Council staff that briefing material concerning the State Land Transfer and the Golf Marketing Plan will soon be transmitted by the Administration. Both items relate to the budget discussions that the Council will hold on May 21, 2002. The Council may wish to schedule briefings on these two items on June 4 or 6 and discuss them before the Council adopts changes to the fiscal year 2002-2003 budget. • The Council established the business graffiti removal program in order to assure quick removal of graffiti because it has been asserted that graffiti left unchecked tends to lead to further graffiti and property destruction. In establishing the program, the Council indicated it didn't want property owners to feel 'victimized twice'— once when the graffiti.was done and a second time due to a proposed City regulation requiring that removal take place within a • specified time frame. The Council may wish to clarify whether paint and materials will still be available to property owners including businesses, whether there will be a charge for these items and where the cost for these items is budgeted. Also, the Council may wish to clarify whether there are currently any requirements for the timely removal of graffiti. • Last year the Council expressed concern that one of the City departments had not budgeted for early retirement and came to the Council in a budget opening in the middle of the year to request funding. The elimination of$230,900 from this department's budget could create the same situation. The Council may wish to establish a consistent policy about whether retirements will be funded through budget openings or should be included in the regular budget such as Fire and Police have done. • The Council has a policy indicating it will consider funding maintenance costs as new maintenance responsibilities are added to the Public Services portfolio. Adequate funding is not available to follow this policy for the addition of the State parks properties unless cuts are made in other areas. • In response to a question from Council Member Carlton Christensen the Administration has indicated that parking meter replacement is no longer funded in Management Services. It is anticipated that replacement will be • 6 funded to the extent possible through Public Services. This could be very limited given the other demands of this Department's budget. • S 7