Loading...
11/15/2011 - Work Session - Minutes PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2011 The City Council met in Work Session on Tuesday, November 15 , 2011, at 4 : 30 p.m. in Room 326 , Committee Room, City County Building, 451 South State Street . In Attendance: Council Members Van Turner, Jill Remington Love, Stan Penfold, Luke Garrott and Soren Simonsen. Carlton Christensen was present for Item 1 only. Absent: Councilmember JT Martin. Also In Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Jennifer Bruno, Deputy Council Director; Edwin Rutan, City Attorney; David Everitt, Mayor' s Chief of Staff; Joel Paterson, Planning Manager; Michaela Oktay, Principal Planner; Rick Graham, Public Services Director; Lehua Weaver, Council Policy Analyst/Constituent Liaison; Rusty Vetter, Senior City Attorney; Vicki Bennett, Sustainability and Environment Director; Russell Weeks, Senior Council Policy Analyst; Nick Tarbet, Council Policy Analyst/Constituent Liaison; Jeffry Niermeyer, Public Utilities Director; Tom Ward, Public Utilities Deputy Director; Christopher Robinson, Petitioner/Ensign Foreground; Benjamin Roberts, Public Services Compliance Program Director; Debbie Lyons, Recycling Programs Manager; and Scott Crandall, Deputy City Recorder. Councilmember Love presided at and conducted the meeting except for Item 1 which was conducted by Councilmember Penfold. The meeting was called to order at 4 : 32 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1. 4:32:00PM CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO CLOSED SESSION, IN KEEPING WITH UTAH CODE § 52-4-204, FOR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES: a) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 52-4-205 (1) (b) ; b) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS THE PURCHASE, EXCHANGE, OR LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY (INCLUDING ANY FORM OF WATER RIGHT OR WATER SHARES) WHEN PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD DISCLOSE THE APPRAISAL OR ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION OR PREVENT THE CITY FROM COMPLETING THE TRANSACTION ON THE BEST POSSIBLE TERMS, PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 52-4-205 (1) (d) ; c) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING OR REASONABLY IMMINENT LITIGATION, PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 52-4-205 (1) (c) ; d) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS THE SALE OF REAL PROPERTY (INCLUDING ANY FORM OF WATER RIGHT OR WATER SHARES) IF (1) PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD DISCLOSE THE APPRAISAL OR 11 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2011 ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION OR PREVENT THE CITY FROM COMPLETING THE TRANSACTION ON THE BEST POSSIBLE TERMS, (2) THE CITY PREVIOUSLY GAVE NOTICE THAT THE PROPERTY WOULD BE OFFERED FOR SALE, AND (3) THE TERMS OF THE SALE ARE PUBLICLY DISCLOSED BEFORE THE CITY APPROVES THE SALE; e) FOR ATTORNEY-CLIENT MATTERS THAT ARE PRIVILEGED, PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 78B-1-137; AND f) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS DEPLOYMENT OF SECURITY PERSONNEL, DEVICES OR SYSTEMS PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE SECTION 52-4- 205 (1) (f) . Councilmember Simonsen moved and Councilmember Turner seconded to recess as the Redevelopment Agency and reconvene as the City Council for the purpose of entering into Closed Session for reasons stated on the Council' s agenda. A roll call vote was taken. Council Members Christensen, Turner, Penfold, Simonsen and Garrott voted aye . Councilmember Love was recused. Councilmember Martin was absent . See file M 11-2 for Sworn Statement and recording. #2 . 7:38:00PM REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING A REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. View Attachments See File M 11-5 for announcements . #3 . 7:45:26PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A REQUEST TO REZONE THE PARCELS LOCATED WITHIN COLUMBUS COURT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) , APPROXIMATELY 700 NORTH COLUMBUS COURT, FROM FOOTHILLS RESIDENTIAL (FR-2) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1/5, 000) . THE PURPOSE IS TO SUBDIVIDE THE EXISTING LOTS INTO 12 SMALLER LOTS. PETITIONER - ENSIGN FOREGROUND LC. (PETITION PLNPCM2011-00091) View Attachments Joel Paterson, Nick Tarbet, Michaela Oktay and Christopher Robinson briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Councilmember Love said a public hearing would be scheduled for December 6, 2011 . #4 . 7:58:23 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ALLOW PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO RIDE BICYCLES ON SIDEWALKS IN DOWNTOWN SALT LAKE CITY. (AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 12 . 80 . 160, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO THE CENTRAL TRAFFIC DISTRICT BICYCLE RIDING RESTRICTION. ) View Attachments Rick Graham, Ben Roberts and Russell Weeks briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Councilmember Love said the issue would be forwarded to a formal meeting. 11 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2011 #5. 8:03:27PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING CHANGES TO THE CITY' S WASTEWATER PRE-TREATMENT ORDINANCE. THE PURPOSE OF THE PRETREATMENT PROGRAM IS TO PREVENT INTRODUCTION OF POLLUTANTS INTO THE CITY' S WASTEWATER SYSTEM. THE CHANGES ARE MOSTLY REQUIRED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND MAY AFFECT SOME BUSINESSES WITH DISCHARGE PERMITS. (CHANGES WOULD AFFECT SALT LAKE CITY CODE CHAPTERS 17 .32, 17 .36, 17 . 52, 16. 67, 17 . 69) View Attachments Jeffry Niermeyer, Tom Ward, Rusty Vetter and Lehua Weaver briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Ms . Gust-Jenson said the proposal included two policy issues the Council needed to be aware of . She said the first issue dealt with establishing requirements for best management practices for certain types of industries . She said best management practices/criteria could be required in leau of and/or in addition to sampling and monitoring reports . She said the Council could request that the Administration establish written policies . Councilmember Penfold said the ordinance did not need to include the criteria but the Administration needed to provide written guidelines . Ms . Gust-Jenson said the second issue was important because appeals of director decisions would go directly to District Court without first going to an appellate board. She said the Council could request an explanation from the Administration about the proposed change. A majority of the Council was in favor of having issues addressed by an appellate board before going to District Court. Mr. Niermeyer said they would draft language which would be presented to the State for their input . #6. 8:22:05PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A ZERO WASTE RESOLUTION, WHICH IS A JOINT RESOLUTION WITH THE MAYOR SUPPORTING WASTE REDUCTION AND DIVERSION PRACTICES FOR SALT LAKE CITY AND IDENTIFYING NEW GOALS TO DIVERT MORE WASTE FROM THE LANDFILL. View Attachments Debbie Lyons and Vicki Bennett briefed the Council with the attached handouts . A majority of the Council was in favor of advancing the issue for formal consideration. #7 . 8:25:29PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING AN ORDINANCE CLOSING AND VACATING AN ALLEY AS A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1370 EAST BRYAN AVENUE PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. PLNPCM2011- 00207 . (BALDOMERO AND LOURDES OLIVERA ARE REQUESTING THE PARTIAL VACATION OF THE ALLEY THAT RUNS ADJACENT TO THEIR PROPERTY IN ORDER TO BUILD A GARAGE. ) (ITEM H2) View Attachments 11 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2011 Joel Paterson and Jennifer Bruno briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Ms . Bruno said the proposal was on the Consent Agenda to set a public hearing for December 13, 2011 . #8. 8:29:05 PM HOLD A FOLLOW-UP DISCUSSION ON THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND FINANCING OF THE UTAH PERFORMING ARTS CENTER (UPAC) . INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: View Attachments • A REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES COMPLETED REGARDING PERFORMING ARTS FACILITIES; • A REVIEW OF THE ADMINISTRATION' S TRANSMITTAL REGARDING THE PROPOSED UPAC, INCLUDING A RESOLUTION APPROVING TERMS OF AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT RELATING TO A PROPOSED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AREA (CDA) ON BLOCK 70, A RESOLUTION REGARDING AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT ALLOWING A PORTION OF FUTURE PROPERTY TAX INCREMENT IN THE DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA (SARR FUNDS) TO BE USED TOWARDS DEBT SERVICE ON THE UPAC, AND A NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ISSUING SALES TAX BOND REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTES TO PAY FOR THE INITIAL DESIGN OF THE UPAC. (ITEM Fl) • A RELATED MATTER FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION IS A BUDGET AMENDMENT WHICH WOULD AUTHORIZE EXPENDITURE OF DESIGN FUNDS AND UPFRONT COSTS (APPROXIMATELY $15 MILLION) . (BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 3) Councilmember Love said due to anticipation of a long meeting, the Administration was told the briefing would be moved to next week. Council Members were in favor of postponing detailed discussion on the item but asked Ms . Bruno to give them an overview of new handouts/financial spreadsheets so they could be better prepared for follow-up discussions . Ms . Bruno said the Excel document Council Members received contained three worksheets which analyzed the project with County participation, without County participation and with the Utah Theater project. She said there were three sub-sections to each scenario which reflected variable interest rates . Councilmember Love asked Council Members to contact staff with questions/concerns before the next briefing/hearing. Councilmember Penfold requested information about current Capital Improvement Project (CIP) percentages and how those percentages would be impacted in the future. Ms . Bruno said calculations could be done based on revenue assumptions . The meeting adjourned at 8 : 52 p.m. 11 - 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2011 COUN L CHAIR / % \ RECORDE ._ :;; This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held November 15, 2011 . sc 11 - 5 • AGENDA + .,* �, , Ir._:;'.,,,,,►s CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY rry�' • rrrl Sa•p.. Tuesday,November 15,2011 4:30 p.m.Work Session or immediately following the 2:0o p.m. Redevelopment Agency Meeting (the public is invited to listen to the discussion) PLEASE NOTE: Limited Formal.Meeting following 4:30 p.m.Work Session. A general public comment period will not be held this evening.This is the Council's monthly scheduled briefing meeting.However,housekeeping action items in a limited formal meeting are included. A. WORK SESSION:Approximately 4:3o p.m. in Room 326, City&County Building, 451 South State St. 1. (TENTATIVE)The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session,in keeping with Utah Code § 52-4-204,for any of the following purposes: a)A strategy session to discuss collective bargaining,pursuant to Utah Code§52-4-205(1)(b); b)A strategy session to discuss the purchase,exchange,or lease of real property(including any form of water right or water shares)when public discussion of the transaction would disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration or prevent the City from completing the transaction on the best possible terms,pursuant to Utah Code§52-4-205(1)(d); c)A strategy session to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation,pursuant to Utah Code§52- 4-205(1)(c); d)A strategy session to discuss the sale of real property(including any form of water right or water shares)if(1)public discussion of the transaction would disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration or prevent the City from completing the transaction on the best possible terms,(2)the City previously gave notice that the property would be offered for sale,and(3)the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the City approves the sale; e)For attorney-client matters that are privileged,pursuant to Utah Code§78B-1-137;and f)A strategy session to discuss deployment of security personnel,devices or systems pursuant to Utah Code Section 52-4-205(1)(f). 2. Report of the Executive Director,including a review of Council information items and announcements. CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 15 SOUTII STATE STREET,ROOM 30 W,41V.SL000V.COM COIJ\CII e P0.BOX 1_{5{ 6.SAI;1 L1(a;CHI S,l;i All Ei.111'j-5.1;'6 1`LL So1-535-7i,00 I-_',A JILLREMINGfONLOA-E I DISTI[C',_i j COUNCIL CHAIR SIAN['ENFOLD DISTRICT I COUNCIL A'ICE CHAIR C_ARI;ION CI IRISi ENS.N_DISTRICT VAN TURNER'I DISTRICT 2 LUKE GARREYF I DIS I RIC 1',I JT MARTIN I D1511RIC";b SORENSINIONS[EN Dia'_"Y.IC Salt Lake City Council Agenda Tuesday,November 15,2011 3. The Council will receive a briefing regarding a request to rezone the parcels located within Amok Columbus Court Planned Unit Development(PUD),approximately 70o North Columbus Court,from Foothills Residential(FR-2)to Single Family Residential(R-1/5,000).The purpose is to subdivide the existing lots into 12 smaller lots. Petitioner-Ensign Foreground LC. (Petition PLNPCM2o11-00091) 4. The Council will receive a briefing regarding a proposed amendment to allow parking enforcement officers to ride bicycles on sidewalks in downtown Salt Lake City. (An ordinance amending Section 12.80.16o,Salt Lake City Code,relating to the central traffic district bicycle riding restriction.) 5. The Council will receive a briefing regarding changes to the City's wastewater pre-treatment ordinance.The purpose of the pretreatment program is to prevent introduction of pollutants into the City's wastewater system.The changes are mostly required by the State Department of Environmental Quality and may affect some businesses with discharge permits. (Changes would affect Salt Lake City Code Chapters 17.32, 17.36, 17.52, 16.67, 17.69.) 6. The Council will receive a briefing regarding a Zero Waste Resolution,which is a joint resolution with the Mayor,supporting waste reduction and diversion practices for Salt Lake City,and identifying new goals to divert more waste from the Landfill. 7. The Council will receive a briefing regarding an ordinance closing and vacating an alley as a public right-of-way adjacent to property located at 137o East Bryan Avenue,pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2o11-00207. (Baldomero and Lourdes Olivera are requesting the partial vacation of the alley that runs adjacent to their property in order to build a garage.) (Item H2) Amok 8. The Council will hold a follow-up discussion on the proposed construction and financing of the Utah Performing Arts Center(UPAC). Including but not limited to: • A review of previous studies completed regarding performing arts facilities; • A review of the Administration's transmittal regarding the proposed UPAC, including a resolution approving terms of an interlocal agreement relating to a proposed Community Development Area(CDA)on Block 70,a resolution regarding an interlocal agreement allowing a portion of future property tax increment in the Downtown Redevelopment Project area(SARR Funds)to be used towards debt service on the UPAC,and a notice of a public hearing to consider issuing Sales Tax Bond Revenue Anticipation notes to pay for the initial design of the UPAC. (Item Fi) • A related matter for Council consideration is a budget amendment which would authorize expenditure of design funds and upfront costs(approximately$15 million). (Budget Amendment No.3) FORMAL MEETING B. OPENING CEREMONY: (None) C. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (None) 2 Salt Lake City Council Agenda Tuesday,November 15,2011 D. POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS: (None) E. COMMENTS: (None) F. NEW BUSINESS: (None) G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: (None) H. CONSENT: 1. Set the date: Resolution: Salt Lake City's Community Housing Plan Set the date of Tuesday,December 6, 2011 at 7:0o p.m.to accept public comment and consider adopting a resolution updating policy statements for the City's Community Housing Plan.The intent is to address development of new housing opportunities,preservation of the City's existing housing stock and reflect current housing and economic conditions. (T 11-5) Staff Recommendation: Set the date. 2. Set the date: Ordinance: Closing and vacating an alley adjacent to property located at 1370 East Bryan Avenue. Set the date of Tuesday,December 13, 2011 to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance closing and vacating an alley as a public right-of-way adjacent to property located at 137o East Bryan Avenue,pursuant to Petition No.PLNPCM2o11-00207. (Baldomero and Lourdes Olivera are requesting the partial vacation of the alley that runs adjacent to their property in order to build a garage.) (P 11-13) Staff Recommendation: Set the date. 3. (Tentative) Set the date: Resolution: io Year Capital Facilities Plan and Impact Fees Set the date of Tuesday,December 6, 2011 to accept public comment and consider adopting a resolution relating to the City's 10 year Capital Facilities Plan and impact fees. (Capital improvements involve the construction,purchase or renovation of buildings, parks,streets or other physical structures. Generally,projects have a useful life of five or more years and cost $50,000 or more.) (T 11-6) Staff Recommendation: Set the date. 3 • Salt Lake City C cil Agenda Tuesday,No tuber 15,2011 I. ADJOURNME Annik Dated: November , 2011 • cr"C/&-----/ y: Ci cord r STATE OF UTAH ) . ss. COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) On or before 5:oo p.m.on November 10, 2011, I a o personally 1)posted a co egoing on the Utah Public Notice Website created under U ah Code Sect' n 63F- 01, d(2)pro ' ed a copy of the foregoing to The Salt Lake Tribune or t Deseret Ne and a loc edia corre ent. Op- Recorder Subscribed and sw n to before me his lot'day of November,2011. Notary Publi re ding in the State of Utah Aimikok Approval: e BEVERLY JONES ?ud/Lty �fi . �� ©NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF UTAH irector i My Comm.Exp. 10/O1/2013 "" _. Commission#580422 Access agendas at http://www.slcgov.com/council/agendas/default.htm. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance of council meetings.We make every effort to honor these requests,and they should be made as early as possible.Accommodations may include alternate formats,interpreters,and other auxiliary aids.The City and County Building is an accessible facility.For questions or additional information,please contact the City Council Office at 535-760o,or TDD 535-6021.Assistive listening devices are available on Channel I;upon four hours advance notice.Please allow 72 hours advance notice for sign language interpreters; large type and #2 Braille agendas. *Final action may be taken and/or adopted concerning any item on this agenda.After 5:oo p.m.,please enter the City& County Building through the east entrance.Accessible route is located on the east side of the Asok building. In accordance with State Statute, City Ordinance and Council Policy, one or more Council Members may be connected via speakerphone. 4 November 10, 2011 Council Work Session — Request to rezone the parcels located within Columbus Court Planned Unit Development (PUD), approximately 700 North Columbus Court, from Foothills Residential (FR-2) to Single Family Residential (R-1/5,000). The purpose of the proposal is to proceed with a subdivision amendment to subdivide the existing six (6) lots into twelve (12) lots. The subdivision amendment is possible only through a rezoning. Petitioner - Ensign Foreground LC - Petition No PLNPCM2011-00091 • This action would allow the petitioner to rezone parcels within the Columbus Court PUD from Foothills Residential (FR-2) to Single-Family Residential (R- 1/5,000). • The Planning Commission already approved a preliminary plat amendment, subject to the approval of the zoning map amendment. • A Council staff report was not prepared for this item. • COUNCIL PROCESS: The Council is scheduled to receive a briefing at the November 15th Work Session. Zoning regulation changes require public hearing advertising a minimum of 12 days prior to the hearing. If the Council is comfortable moving this item forward, Council staff has identified the following tentative dates: • November 22, 2011 Set the date • December 6, 2011 Public hearing • December 13, 2011 Council action fi FRANK B. GRAY "tea'_t\a.2 g `►��► '�.1©r+.i` `J - RAL•PH1BE43 DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 3�e :11;: GR.•.i.sMo OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR 1 ! DE LA MARE-SCHAEFER r i t ' . / ;/�I DEPUTY DIRECTOR `" //~•� ROBERT FARRINGTON, JR. DEPUTY DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ii RECEIVED OCT 3I 2�11 Date Rece4ed: id Everitt, Chief of Staff SLC COUNCIL OFFICE Date sent to Cotner'. IJ '2eI / 1 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: October 27, 2011 Jill Remington Love, Chair r � FROM: Frank Gray, CED Director �'� �• � � �� SUBJECT: Petition PLNPCM2011-00091: Columbus Court PUD Zoning Map Amendment STAFF CONTACTS: Michaela Oktay, Principal Planner (801) 535-6003 michaela.oktay cr,slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance COMMISSION MOTION & FINDINGS: Based on the findings in the Staff Report, and the public testimony on September 14, 2011, The Planning Commission recommended that the zoning be changed from (FR-2) Foothills Residential to (R-1/5,000) Single-Family Residential. Commissioners De Lay, Drown, Luke, Gallegos, Woodhead, Wirthin all voted "aye". Commissioner Dean voted "no." The vote passed 6-1. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a briefing and schedule a Public Hearing. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This is a request to rezone parcels within Columbus Court PUD, located at approximately 700 Columbus Street, from Foothills Residential (FR-2) to Single-Family Residential (R-1/5,000). The purpose of the proposal is to proceed with a subdivision amendment to subdivide the existing six lots into 12 smaller single family residential lots. The subdivision amendment is possible only through a rezoning. Proposed Zone: The applicant is requesting a change from FR-2 to R-1/5,000. Both zones allow a majority of the same land uses with the exception that "small assisted living facilities" and "seminaries and religious institutes" are both conditional uses in the proposed zone. Staff has reviewed the project, and is recommending that the properties be rezoned. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 The following is a summar'y°or ie uribse`statements'or t eB t'K425ann R-1/5,000 zones: TELEPH E. 0 1-535-6230 FAX: 801-535-6005 WWW.SLCGOV.COM/CED `i RECYCLED PAPER FR-2: The purpose of the FR-2/21,780 foothills residential district is to promote environmentally sensitive and visually compatible development of lots not less than twenty one thousand seven hundred eighty (21,780) square feet in size, suitable for foothills locations as indicated in the applicable Community Master Plan. The district is intended to minimize flooding, erosion, and other environmental hazards; to protect the natural scenic character of foothill areas by limiting development; to promote the safety and well being of present and future residents of foothill areas; to protect wildlife habitat; and to ensure the efficient expenditure of public funds. R-1/5,000: The purpose of the R-1/5,000 single-family residential district is to provide for conventional single family residential neighborhoods on lots not less than five thousand (5,000) square feet in size. This district is appropriate in areas of the City as identified in the applicable Community Master Plan. Uses are intended to be compatible with the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood. The standards for the district are intended to provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play, promote sustainable and compatible development patterns and to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood. Zoning Height Minimum Minimum Front Yard Side Yard/Rear District Lot Area Lot setback Yard Setbacks Width FR-2 28' 21,780 Sq. Ft. 100 Ft. Min. 20 ft. 20 ft./40 ft. , , pitched/ 20' flat R-1/5,000 28' 13,192 Sq. Ft. 50 Ft. Min. 20 ft. 4 ft & 10 feet/ pitched/ 20 ft. 20' flat The Planning Commission reviewed this petition and conducted a public hearing on September 14, 2011. At the meeting, the Commission reviewed the project and the Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council. Master Plan (Capitol Hill Community) Considerations The Capitol Hill Community Master Plan was amended in 2007 calling for the subject properties to be designated as "very low-density residential," (1-5 dwelling units per acre). The area is currently identified as "very low density residential" on the future land use map. The policies identified for the neighborhood are to: • Ensure that new infill development be compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood. • Ensure that the established low-density residential character of the neighborhood is preserved. This purpose of the rezoning request is to allow a minor subdivision amendment to divide existing lots in the Columbus Court PUD. The density of the proposed subdivision is 2.96 Petition PLNPCM201 1-00091 Columbus Court PUD Rezone 2 dwelling units per acre, which is consistent with the Master Plan land use designation calling for "very low density residential." It is Staff's opinion that the requested zoning amendment is consistent with the Future Land Use Map classification and generally meets the policies as stated in the Capitol Hill Master Plan. PUBLIC PROCESS: The petitions were presented by Christopher Robinson to the Capitol Hill Community Council on Mav 19. 2011. Approximately 25 people attended the community council meeting. During the meeting the general public was given the opportunity to speak. Most of the members of the public were in favor of the petitions and a few citizens had questions about the increase in traffic caused by an increase in density. Some members expressed that the gate had late night traffic issues when people used to drive up Columbus to look at the views. Most agreed that the gate had increased security at the site of Columbus Court and in the area. There were some concerns raised regarding erosion control when development eventually occurs. The Capitol Hill Community Council Trustees then discussed the petitions and decided to take a straw vote at a later (June) meeting. On June 15, 2011 neither the applicant nor Staff was in attendance but a straw vote was taken and the proposals were voted down. Parking issues on Columbus Street were allegedly the main concerns. Staff hasn't received official comment from the Community Council about this meeting. On September 14. 2011 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing. The Planning Commission passed a motion to transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council. The vote was 6 in favor 1 against. RELEVANT ORDINANCES Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Maps are authorized under Section 21A.50 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, as detailed in Section 21A.50.050: "A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council and is not controlled by any one standard." It does, however, list five standards, which should be analyzed prior to rezoning,property (Section 21A.50.050 A-E). The five standards are discussed in detail starting on page 5 of the Planning Commission Staff Report published August 18, 2011 (ATTACHMENT 5A). Petition PL\PC\120I I-0009I Columbus Court PUD Rezone 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. CHRONOLOGY 2. ORDINANCE 3. CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE 4. MAILING LABELS 5. PLANNING COMMISSION 5.A. POSTMARK OF PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE 5.B. SEPTEMBER 14, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 5.C. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 14 2011 6. ORIGINAL PETITION PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2011-00091 March 4, 2011 Petition received by Planning. March 8, 2011 Petition Assigned to Michaela Oktay, Principal Planner, for staff analysis and processing. May 18, 2011 Petition reviewed by Capitol Hill Community Council September 2, 2011 Planning Commission hearing notice was published in the paper, sign posted, and notices were mailed to adjacent property owners. September 14, 2011 Planning Commission reviewed the petition, conducted a public hearing and voted 5-1 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. October 26, 2011 Planning Commission ratified minutes for September 14, 2011 meeting. September 26, 2011 Staff requests ordinance from City Attorney's office. October 10, 2011 Staff received draft of proposed ordinance from City Attorney's Office. SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 201 (Amending the zoning map pertaining to property located at Approximately 700 North Columbus Court from Foothills Residential (FR-2)to Single Family Residential (R-1/5,000)) An ordinance amending the zoning map to re-zone property located at approximately 700 North Columbus Court from Foothills Residential (FR-2) to Single Family Residential (R- 1/5,000) pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2011-00091. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") held a public hearing on September 14, 2011 on an application submitted by Christopher Robinson, representing Columbus Court HOA and Ensign Foreground L.C. ("Applicant")to amend the City's zoning map to re-zone property located at approximately 700 North Columbus Court(the "Property") from Foothills Residential (FR-2) to Single Family Residential (R-1/5,000) pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2011-00091; and WHEREAS, at its September 14, 2011 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council ("City Council") on said applications; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the City's best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the Property located at approximately 700 North Columbus Court (Tax ID Nos. 09-30-351-041-0000, 09-30-351-042-0000, 09-30-351-043-0000,09-30-351- 044-0000,09-30-351-045-0000, 09-30-351-046-0000, 09-30-351-047-0000, 09-30-351-050- 0000, 09-30-351-051-0000, 09-30-351-052-0000, and 09-30-351-055-0000), and which is more particularly described on Exhibit"A" attached hereto, shall be and hereby is re-zoned from Foothills Residential (FR-2)to Single Family Residential (R-1/5,000). SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of 201 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: _ Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM (SEAL) Salt Lake City Attorney's Office Date: )-; 101` Bill No. of 201_. By: Published: Pa I C.Nielson, eni r City Attorney t-tB ATTY-420I 53-v1-Ordinance rezoning Columbus Court DOC „cr�n- Exhibit "A": Property Descriptions 09-30-351-042-0000 Lot 6 Columbus Court PUD 09-30-351-043-0000 Lot 5 Columbus Court PUD 09-30-351-044-0000 Lot 4 Columbus Court PUD 09-30-351-045-0000 Lot 1 Columbus Court PUD 09-30-351-046-0000 Lot 2 Columbus Court PUD 09-30-351-047-0000 Lot 3 Columbus court PUD 09-30-351-050-0000 Parcel C Columbus Court PUD 09-30-351-051-0000 Parcel B Columbus Court PUD 09-30-351-041-0000 Parcel F Columbus Court PUD 09-30-351-052-0000 Parcel G Columbus Court PUD 09-30-351-055-0000 See description below: Private Street and common area within Parcel F of Columbus Court PUD, BEG W 2473.89 FT & S 3496.88 FT FR N 1/4 COR SEC 30, T1 N, R1E, SLB & M; S 891'53'58- E 29.1 FT; S 74^54'00 E 108.23 FT;S 15"06'00- W 25 FT; S 041'06'00- W 300 FT; S 301'54'00- E 165FT; N 561'26'00- E 90 FT; S 07"04'00- E 130 FT; S 47'54'00- E125 FT; S 83^54'00"W 320 FT; N 81115'00- E 147.99 FT; S00^42119" E 428.83 FT; S 89^59'13' W 54.48 FT; S 14'55'22- W192.5 FT; S 891'59'13- W 99.03 FT; S 00^00'47" E 50 FT; S89^58'58"W 272.71 FT; N 00^00147' W 33.02 FT; S 89^59113' W 120 FT; S 00^00'47" W 33.03 FT; S 891'58'58' W 281.3 FT; N00^00147" W 16 FT; N 891'59'13- E 89.46 FT; N 00^00147" W 50.05 FT; S 891'59'13- W 1065.35 FT; N 30^56'27"W 151.72 FT;N 41^47'21" W 163 FT; N 441'52'24-W 317.8 FT; N 51'00'00- E 327.8 FT; N 34"10'06- E 521.9 FT; S 40^12'47" E 168.83 FT; S 621'05'49- E 165.35 FT; N 881'50'44- E 281.09 FT; N 141'02'35' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2011-00091 Columbus Court PUD Zoning Amendment - A request by Ensign Foreground L.C. to rezone properties located at approximately 700 N. Columbus Street from FR-2/21,780 (Foothill Residential )to R-1-5,000 (Single Family Residential) in order perform a minor subdivision to divide six lots into 12 lots. The properties are located in Council District 3, represented by Stan Penfold. (Staff contact: Michaela Oktay at (801) 535-6003 or michaela.oktaylcgov.com). As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Room 315 City & County Building 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Michaela Oktay at 801-535-6003 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at michaela.oktavri7slcgoy.com People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this hearing. Accommodations may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. This is an accessible facility. For questions, requests, or additional information, please contact the Planning Division at (801) 535-7757; TDD (801) 535- 6021. EcoFriendly Easy Peel®Labels 1 ♦ IIIII Bend along line to 1 a AV'ERY®4816oTM Use Avery®Template 5160® A Feed Paper expose Pop-up Edge"' A 1 [09-30-354-004-0000] [09-30-353-006-0000] [09-31-102-004-0000] PROTASEVICH,NATALIE&ALEX;JT STONE, PAUL&ROXANNE;TRS MURDOCK,CLAIR N;TR ' REDWOOD AVE #3017 2305 ASHLAND ST #C PO BOX 163 ANGELES, CA 90066 ASHLAND,OR 97520-3777 HENEFER, UT 84033-0163 [09-30-351-041-0000] [09-30-351-055-0000] [09-30-351-042-0000] COLUMBUS COURT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION COLUMBUS COURT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ENSIGN FOREGROUND LC PO BOX 540478 PO BOX 540478 PO BOX 540478 NORTH SALT LAKE, UT 84054- NORTH SALT LAKE,UT 84054- NORTH SALT LAKE, UT 84054-0478 [09-30-351-043-0000] [09-30-351-044-0000] [09-30-351-045-0000] ENSIGN FOREGROUND LC ENSIGN FOREGROUND LC ENSIGN FOREGROUND LC PO BOX 540478 PO BOX 540478 PO BOX 540478 NORTH SALT LAKE, UT 84054-0478 NORTH SALT LAKE,UT 84054-0478 NORTH SALT LAKE, UT 84054-0478 [09-30-351-046-0000] [09-30-351-047-0000] [09-30-351-050-0000] ENSIGN FOREGROUND LC ENSIGN FOREGROUND LC ENSIGN FOREGROUND LC PO BOX 540478 PO BOX 540478 PO BOX 540478 NORTH SALT LAKE,UT 84054-0478 NORTH SALT LAKE,UT 84054-0478 NORTH SALT LAKE, UT 84054-0478 [09-30-351-051-0000] [09-30-354-003-0000] [09-30-353-007-0000] ENSIGN FOREGROUND LC ENSIGN FOREGROUND LC BARTON,JAMES L&MARIE II,TRS PO BOX 540478 PO BOX 540478 5 S 500 W #1007 N'"TH SALT LAKE, UT 84054-0478 NORTH SALT LAKE,UT 84054 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84101-4128 [09-31-102-007-0000] [09-31-101-016-0000] [09-31-101-017-0000] WILKING,JAMES H&SALLY F;JT ROKICH,JEANNINE C;TR ROKICH,JEANNINE C;TR 1622 E 6480 S 655 N COLUMBUS ST 655 N COLUMBUS ST SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84121 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103-2118 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103-2118 [09-31-102-002-0000] [09-31-102-001-0000] [09-30-353-004-0000] LORENZ, BEM I Y S Mt I LGER, MARCY BEER, FRANK D &NICOLE L;JT 662 N COLUMBUS ST 666 N COLUMBUS ST 672 N COLUMBUS ST SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103-2117 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103-2117 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103-2117 [09-30-353-001-0000] [09-30-351-048-0000] [09-31-103-017-0000] CALDERON,JULIANNE B CALDERON,JULIANNE B OLSEN, PETER F 700 N COLUMBUS ST 700 N COLUMBUS ST 681 N CORTEZ ST SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103- SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103-2126 [09-31-103-018-0000] [09-31-102-022-0000] [09-31-102-021-0000] OLSEN, PETER F BROWN,CHARLES&NAGATA, SUSAN M;JT BROWN, FRANCIS H 681 N CORTEZ ST 655 N DESOTO ST 659 N DESOTO ST SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103-2126 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103-2132 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103-2132 EcoFriendly Easy Peel®Labels 1 A Bend along line to I C\ AVERY®48160TM Use Avery®Template 5160® Feed Paper expose Pop-up EdgeTM J j [09-31-103-004-0000] [09-31-103-002-0000] [09-31-103-001-0000] EVANS,JACK C;TR(JOERTUA) KUDLA, KRISTOPHER S ROBERTS,JULIE H; ET AL 660 N DESOTO ST 670 N DESOTO ST 676 N DESOTO ST SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103-2131 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84103-2131 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103-2131 [09-31-102-019-0000] [09-30-353-008-0000] [09-30-354-005-0000] DAMERY,TERESA S&WILLIAM E;TC TORREY,RICKY S HUFFAKER,ALTON W&MARION B; (LIFE)ET Al 679 N DESOTO ST 687 N DESOTO ST 700 N DESOTO ST SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84103-2132 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84103-2132 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103 [09-30-351-049-0000] [09-30-353-005-0000] [09-30-354-002-0000] BETHEL, DANNY J;TR BETHEL,DANNY J;TR(DJB L TRUST) FITTS,STANFORD P&MELANIE H;JT 707 N DESOTO ST 707 N DESOTO ST 209 E ENSIGN VISTA DR SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103 [09-30-354-006-0000] [09-30-354-007-0000] [09-31-102-018-0000] FITTS,STANFORD P&MELANIE H; JT FITTS,STANFORD P&MELANIE H;JT IMAIZUMI,JULIE A 209 E ENSIGN VISTA DR 209 E ENSIGN VISTA DR 780 E NORTHCLIFFE DR SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103-3339 [09-31-103-005-0000] [08-25-482-003-0000] [09-30-352-001-0000] DILLMAN, DAVID;TR SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY 755 E NORTHCREST DR PO BOX 145460 PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103-3318 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84114-5460 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5460 AIN • [09-31-101-001-0000] [09-30-351-040-0000] [09-31-102-003-0000] SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION WIND, CHRISTINE PO BOX 145460 PO BOX 145460 PO BOX 26475 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5460 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84114-5460 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84126-0475 [09-30-353-002-0000] [09-31-102-005-0000] [09-31-103-003-0000] WINEGAR,TODD JR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC KEDDINGTON, R H JR&JEANNE;JT PO BOX 353 . PO BOX 511396 827E SECOND AVE SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84110-0353 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84151-1396 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103-3819 [09-31-102-035-0000] [09-31-102-020-0000] [09-31-102-006-0000] ATKINSON, DESTRY HIDDEN WILLOW PROPERTIES LLC FABERTS PROPERTIES LLC 1361 E YALE AVE 3060 E DEER HOLLOW DR 6914 S 2160 W SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105-1612 • SANDY, UT 84092-4519 WEST JORDAN, UT 84084-2326 [09-30-353-003-0000] [09-30-353-005-0000] [09-30-354-004-0000] HAYNIE, RICHARD A BETHEL DAN J ARC/ARTEL ARCHITECTURE 1785 W 2300 S 707 N DE SOTO ST 689 N CORTEZ ST WEST VALLEY, UT 84119-2009 Salt Lake City, UT 84103 Salt Lake City, UT 84103 EcoFriendly Easy Peel®Labels i A Bend along line to 1 C\ AVERY®4816oTM Use Avery®Template 5160® Feed Paper expose Pop-up Edge," J 1 [09-31-101-017-0000] [09-30-354-004-0000] [09-31-103-018-0000] ROKICH JOHN A&JEANNINE C LINUX CONSULTING SERVICES CITY CREEK LANDSCAPE&SNOW REMOVAL INC Gri N COLUMBUS ST 689 N CORTEZ ST 675 N CORTEZ ST Lake City, UT 84103 Salt Lake City, UT 84103 Salt Lake City, UT 84103 [09-30-353-002-0000] [09-30-353-002-0000] [09-30-353-003-0000] Residents Residents Residents 690 N COLUMBUS ST 692 N COLUMBUS ST 674 N COLUMBUS ST Salt Lake City, UT 84103-2117 Salt Lake City, UT 84103-2117 Salt Lake City,UT 84103-2117 [09-30-353-003-0000] [09-30-353-005-0000] [09-30-353-006-0000] Residents Residents Residents 676 N COLUMBUS ST 705 N DE SOTO ST 701 N DE SOTO ST Salt Lake City, UT 84103-2117 Salt Lake City, UT 84103-2138 Salt Lake City,UT 84103-2138 [09-30-353-006-0000] [09-30-353-007-0000] [09-30-353-007-0000] Residents Residents Residents 703 N DE SOTO ST 695 N DE SOTO ST 697 N DE SOTO ST Salt Lake City, UT 84103-2138 Salt Lake City", UT 84103-2132 Salt Lake City,UT 84103-2132 [09-30-353-008-0000] [09-30-353-008-0000] [09-30-354-002-0000] Residents Residents Residents 685 N DE SOTO ST 687 N DE SOTO ST 680 N DE SOTO ST Salt Lake City, UT 84103-2132 Salt Lake City, UT 84103-2132 Salt Lake City,UT 84103-2131 [09-30-354-002-0000] [09-31-102-001-0000] [09-31-102-002-0000] Residents Residents Residents 682 N DE SOTO ST 668 N COLUMBUS ST 660 N COLUMBUS ST Salt Lake City, UT 84103-2131 Salt Lake City, UT 84103-2117 Salt Lake City,UT 84103-2117 [09-31-102-003-0000] [09-31-102-003-0000] [09-31-102-004-0000] Residents Residents Residents 656 N COLUMBUS ST 65S N COLUMBUS ST 650 N COLUMBUS ST Salt Lake City, UT 84103-2117 Salt Lake City, UT 84103-2117 Salt Lake City,UT 84103-2117 [09-31-102-004-0000] [09-31-102-00S-0000] [09-31-102-006-0000] Residents Residents Residents 652 N COLUMBUS ST 642 N COLUMBUS ST 636 N COLUMBUS ST Salt Lake City, UT 84103-2117 Salt Lake City, UT 84103-2117 Salt Lake City, UT 84103-2117 [09-31-102-006-0000] [09-31-102-007-0000] [09-31-102-018-0000] Residents Residents Residents 638 N COLUMBUS ST 632 N COLUMBUS ST 681 N DE SOTO ST Salt Lake City, UT 84103-2117 Salt Lake City, UT 84103-2117 Salt Lake City,UT 84103-2132 EcoFriendly Easy Peel®Labels 1 ♦ Bend along line to 1 a AVERY®48160TM Use Avery®Template 5160® j Feed Paper expose Pop-up EdgeTM J j [09-31-102-018-0000] [09-31-102-019-0000] [09-31-102-020-0000] Residents Residents Residents 683 N DE SOTO ST 679 N DE SOTO ST 665 N DE SOTO ST Salt Lake City, UT 84103-2132 Salt Lake City, UT 84103-2132 Salt Lake City,UT 84103-2132 [09-31-102-021-0000] [09-31-102-022-0000] [09-31-102-035-0000] Residents Residents Residents 659 N DE SOTO ST 655 N DE 5OT0 ST 635 N DE SOTO ST Salt Lake City, UT 84103-2132 Salt Lake City, UT 84103-2132 Salt Lake City,UT 84103-2132 [09-31-102-035-0000] [09-31-103-001-0000] [09-31-103-002-0000] Residents Residents Residents 637 N DE SOTO ST 676 N DE SOTO ST 670 N DE SOTO ST Salt Lake City, UT 84103-2132 Salt Lake City, UT 84103-2131 Salt Lake City,UT 84103-2131 [09-31-103-003-0000] [09-31-103-004-0000] [09-31-103-004-0000] Residents Residents Residents 664 N DE SOTO ST 660 N DE SOTO ST 660 N DE SOTO ST #1/2 Salt Lake City, UT 84103-2131 Salt Lake City,UT 84103-2131 Salt Lake City,UT 84103-2131 [09-31-103-005-0000] [09-31-103-005-0000] [09-31-103-018-0000] Residents Residents Residents 656 N DE SOTO ST 658 N DE SOTO ST 677 N CORTEZ ST Salt Lake City, UT 84103-2131 Salt Lake City, UT 84103-2131 Salt Lake City,UT 84103-2126 [09-30-354-006-0000] [09-30-354-006-0000] [09-30-354-005-0000] Residents Residents Residents 694 N DE SOTO ST 696 N DE SOTO ST 700 N DE SOTO ST Salt Lake City, UT 84103-2131 Salt Lake City, UT 84103-2131 Salt Lake City,UT 84103-2133 . Remit to:P.O.Box 704005 ac*aft gala fribunt ME DIAgge Deseret News West Valley City,UT 84170 Order Confirmation for Ad #0000721871-01 Client SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING DIVISI Payor Customer SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING DIVISI Ad Content Proof Actual Size PUBLIC NOTICE d Client Phone 801-535-7214 Payor Phone 801-535-7214 Salt Lake Cry Zcrir Text Ater dNerr Or 5ep'erber 14, 2011,tte Salt lake City Plarrirg Ccr- risricr will told a ptblic tearirg to collider r•akirg recer- merdaricn to tte Cry Cared regardirg tte kllewirg peti- Account# 9001397145 Payor Account 9001397145 tier; Ccltrbts Carr PUS Zcrirg Arerdreer and Mircr Address 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 406 Payor Address 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 4 Stbdivrier-A regtest by Ersicr Fcregrctrd L.C.for a 2cr- ,rg Anerdnert and a M.aor ftbdivisicr arerdnerr at ap- SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 USA SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 proximately 700 N. Coll-mem Com ir the FR-2,121,7E10 (Foothill Re!iderriol)rcrirg district. Tie properties are lo- cated ir Cotrcil District 2, represer ted by Star Perfcld. (Staff:enact:M'r-toelo Otay at(P01)535.6002 cr Mil ae Ordered ByIs.ck•aygslcgev.corn). Acct.Exec PLNPCM2011-00212 Gorges It tte Lard We Appeal Al- Fax rtcriy-A regtert by Mayor Ralf*Becker far a Zor irg Text EMail angels.hasenbergia slcgov.coni Angela mfultz Adernertm •eft and tie Lord to Title 2 tl a watld elimuare tie Beard cf Use Appeals Beard and weld up- per a 14earirg Officer IC art as le cry'r lard tre appeal atttority.Related provision of Title 21A-Zcrirg, Title 2- Total Amount $156.20 Adriristraier ord Perscrrel, Title 20 StbcUviiors, Title - 14—Streen,Sidewalks ord Ptblr. Places. and Title I P—Btildir<prd Centnoicr ray also be arerded as part Payment Amt $0.00 cf Iris petrrier. tile Cot ges world apply citywide if adept- Tear Sheets Proofs Affidavits ed by tte Cry Card. All perscrs irrererted ere(preserr will be giver er cppertriry re be teard it tt,s crater. (Staff ccrtoa;Sctr Ardeecr Cl P01-525-7214 or jctr.erde Amount Due $156.20 0 0 1 nor(tfilslcgcv.ccn) My Place Zcrirg Mrereirerr and Pierced D°veleprert - a regrew by Mane Girrcr for a Zcrirg Arerrhlert crd a Payment Method PO Number City Zoning Plorred Develcprer- a apprcxinerely 545 ord 555 Wes- 500 Nertt ced 446 Tttrle Corr it Me SR-1 A and SR-2 Spe- Confirmation Notes: cial Develcpnert Paaerr Reriderriol Zcrirg Districts. Tie property is looted K Cry Cevcil District 2 repre<--erred by Srcr Perfcld. (Malf certerrt:Kana Paz cr'P01 525-6254 Text: City Zoning cr katia.pace[ilslcgcv.xr) lie ptblic tearirg will begir at 5:45 pot.ir root•226 cf tie Cry Corry BL lldirg,451 Scut State Street,Salt Lake Cry,UT.For more irfcrrraicr cr for special ADA o:ccrnc- Ad Type Ad Size Color daiers,whet may ircltde area'ace (errors, irrerprerers, NONE and otter atxiliory aids Cr addawral irkrraicr, please Legal Liner 2.0 X 45 Li < > correct Mi:toel Stott at P01-525.7976 or call TDD E01- 525-6220. 721 e71 UPA(LP oduct Placement Position alt Lake Tribune:: Legal Liner Notice-0998 Public Meeting/Hear-ing Notices Scheduled Date(s): 09/02/2011 Product Placement Position Deseret News:: Legal Liner Notice-0998 Public Meeting/Hear-ing Notices Scheduled Date(s): 09/02/2011 Product Placement Position sltrib.com:: Legal Liner Notice-0998 Public Meeting/Hear-ing Notices Scheduled Date(s): 09/02/2011 Product Placement Position utahlegals.com:: utahlegals.com utahlegals.com Scheduled Date(s): 09/02/2011 08/31/2011 1.38:42PM 1 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COM1VIISSION MEETING AGENDA In Room 326 of the City&County Building at 451 South State Street Wednesday,September 14,2011 at 5:30pm The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m. Dinner will be served to the Planning Commissioners and Staff at 5:00 p.m.in Room 126. Work Session: 5:30 in Room 326. The Planning Commission will hold a work session from approximately 5:30-6:00. During the Work Session the Planning Staff will brief the Planning Commission on pending projects,discuss project updates and minor administrative matters.This portion of the meeting is open to the public for observation. Briefing: Chapter 21.44 Parking: the Planning Commission will receive a briefing regarding the City's parking regulations.(staff contact Nick Norris at 801-535-6173 or nick.norris@slcgov.com) Approval of Minutes:August 10,2011 and August 24,2011 • Report of the Chair and Vice Chair • Report of the Director Public Hearing Unfinished Business 1. PLNPCM2010-00591 Noise Regulations Text Amendment,a request by Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker to amend the Environmental Performance Standards in regards to noise to require review by the Salt Lake Valley Health Department when specific non-residential uses are proposed to locate near residential uses.The amendment will affect sections 21A.36.180,21A.24.190,21A.26.080,21A.30.050,21A.31.050 and 21A.32.140 of the zoning ordinance.Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition.(Staff Contact:Elizabeth Reining at 801-535- 6313 or elizabeth.reining@slcgov.com) Legislative Petitions 2 PLNPCM2011-00312 Zoning Text Amendment to Change the Land Use Authority-A request by Mayor Ralph Becker for a Zoning Text Amendment to Title 21A.02 that would eliminate the Board of Adjustment and the Land Use Appeals Board and would appoint a Hearing Officer to act as the city's land use appeal authority.Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning,Title 2-Administration and Personnel,Title 20 Subdivisions,Title 14—Streets,Sidewalks and Public Places and Title 18—Buildings and Construction may also be amended as part of this petition.The changes would apply citywide if adopted by the City 000111114q Council. (Staff contact:John Anderson at 801-535-7214 or john.anderson@slcgov.com) 3. My Place Zoning Amendment and Planned Development-a request by Marie Ginman for a Zoning Amendment and a Planned Development at approximately 545 and 555 West 500 North and 446 Tuttle Court in the SR-1A and SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential Zoning Districts.The property is located in City Council District 3,represented by Stan Penfold. (Staff contact:Katia Pace at 801 535-6354 or katia.pace@slcgov.com) a) PLNPCM2011-00203-a request for a Zoning Amendment at 545 and 555 West 500 North from SR-lA and SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential)to TSA(Transit Station Area)and on the rear of 555 West 500 North from SR-1A to SR-3. b) PLNSUB2011-00204-a request for a Planned Development.The applicant is requesting the Planning Commission waive the standards for public street and sidewalk. 4. Columbus Court PUD Zoning Amendment and Minor Subdivision-A request by Ensign Foreground L.C.for a Zoning Amendment and a Minor Subdivision amendment at approximately 700 N.Columbus Court in the FR-2/21,780(Foothill Residential)Zoning District. The properties are located in Council District 3,represented by Stan Penfold. (Staff contact: Michaela Oktay at(801)535-6003 or michaela.oktay@slcgov.com). a) PLNPCM2011-00091-A request to rezone properties from FR-2/21,780(Foothill Residential)to R-1-5,000(Single Family Residential)in order perform a minor subdivision to divide six lots into 12 lots. b) PLNSUB2011-00090-A request for a minor subdivision to divide six existing lots into 12 lots,and to combine three adjacent lots into one lot. Administrative Petitions 5. PLNSUB2011-00382 Planned Development Amendment-a request by Darlene Batatian,representing Dee's Inc.,to amend a previous planned development proposal located at approximately 1345 S.Foothill Drive,in the CB,Community Business District.The property is in Council District 6 represented by JT Martin.The applicant is requesting to move and alter a legal non-conforming existing sign and to allow two signs fronting Foothill Drive. (Staff contact:Michaela Oktay at 801-535-6003 or michaela.oktey@slcgov.com) 6. PLNPCM2011-00311 Former Fleet Block Surplus Property Request-A request by the Salt Lake City Property Management Division for a Declaration of Surplus Property for the vacated former Fleets and Sanitation Facility located at approximately 850 S 300 West.The subject property is located in a PL(Public Lands)zoning district in Council District 4,represented by Luke Garrott.(Staff Contact:Daniel Echeverria at 801-535-7152 or daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com) The files for the above items are available in the Planning Division offices,room 406 of the City and County Building. Please contact the staff planner for information, Visit the Planning Division's website at www.slcgov.com/CED/planningfor copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports,and minutes.Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified which usually occurs at the nett regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission.Planning Commission Meetings may be watched live on. SLCTV Channel 17;past meetings are recorded and archived,and may be viewed at www.cicly.coin PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ZONING MAP AMENDMENT :•'•�?,����- %C!.,9 PLNPCM2011-00091- Zoning Map Amendment PLNSUB2011-00090 — Subdivision Amendment '4.)_° ` • IC�\S I T •ts,, Approximately 700 North Columbus Court Zo in Planning and Zoning Division August 10, 2011 Department of Community and Economic Development Applicant: Christopher Request Robinson,representing Columbus Court HOA and Christopher Robinson, Ensign Foreground LC, is requesting a Zoning Map Ensign Foreground L.C. amendment to rezone the property from FR-2, Foothills Residential to R- 1/5,000, Single Family Residential zoning district. The amendment would Staff: Michaela Oktay allow for the proposed subdivision amendment creating 12 lots from the current 801-535-6003 michaela.oktay@slcgov.com 6 lots and consolidation of three lots into one, making a total of 12 lots in the Columbus Court PUD, and three lots into one lot of Plat J, Block 20. Tax ID: 09-30-041-00009-30-042- 000,09-30-043-000,09-30-044-000,09- 30-045-000,09-30-046-000,09-30-047- 000,09-30-050-000,09-30-051-000,09- Staff Recommendation 30-052-000 Current Zone: FR-2. Foothills PLNSUB2011-00090-Subdivision Amendment Residential Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant approval of the preliminary plat for Columbus Court PUD Subdivision Amendment and Plat J Master Plan Designation: Block 20, subject to the following condition: Capitol Hill Community Master Plan—Very low-density Residential 1. Approval is conditioned upon compliance with all departmental comments as outlined in this staff report. If during the building permit review process, Council District: District 3— additional requirements are stipulated by the City Departments, the applicant Council Member Stan Penfold shall satisfy said requirements prior to the recording of any approved plat. Community Council: Capitol Hill-Katherine Gardner,Chair PLNPCM2011-00091-Zoning Map Amendment Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the Staff Total Size of FR-2 Lots: Report and accept public comments. Planning Staff recommends that the Approximately 4.98 acres Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation on the proposal to Current Use: improved residential lots the City Council. Notification • Notice mailed on 8/12/l 1 • Newspaper ad on S/13/1 1 • Sign posted on 8/15/1 1 • Agenda posted on the Planning Division and Utah Public Meeting Notice websites 8/11/11 PLNSUB2011-00090,E PLXPCM2011-00091 Published Date August IS.2011 1 Attachments: A. Application Submittals B. FR-2&R-1-5.000 Zoning Table of Allowed Uses C. City Department/Division Comments D. Public Comments E. Capitol Hill Future Land Use Map F. Site Photos VICINITY MAP +! x y.. ..., t ' - ice .„ i.� ;M, Av.., 4-rvi71.7 _ti ....t.Z'e^'4'. w r • i yq• ; t -.. — - 4 fi 'f \ p✓. y_'1-' '.. A y `� - , k fu ♦ .- G ♦ ♦ d p, a4» ; •S i a Y"t1 `. 9"," b. a S; M --,,,.,� ,,-1 r .� li �r �fcr� ic, 4 ,f ' i S ;_ r 'p.,,- `.1- ",' Oat. "-yI n. �1"- ,' :� 4 ,• ir. 44* 4 . � :c Pd ' r -' i .6 y -. . . � •S 7 x ` . - � � - . ',*--= . , .. 4 am a ' t pi- Y ,,t ire .. 'fir " • . ;f. Q ...'''r.- - . - - 4 _ Lei' %.43.1., aA .-:::: L. "-1 '' _4-----'.e--..l.W _-'k-_ 4 tea.; - ` '° !` 3 .=5t _ .,4,- o`' - '-'. ? t- .,- =. .. Background Request The applicant is requesting that Salt Lake City amend the zoning map changing the zoning for the subject properties from Foothills Residential (FR-2) to Single-Family Residential (R-1/5,000). The amendment is requested to allow the applicant proceed with a request to subdivide the existing six lots into 12 smaller single- family residential lots, and to consolidate 3 lots that are accessed from the current development. The subdivision amendment is possible only through a rezoning. " PLNSUB-10 1 1-00090&PUN'PCMM-011-00091 Published Date August 13,2011 7 Purpose of Request The overall purpose of the applicant's request is to allow the existing half acre lots (FR-2) to be divided so that they are more marketable properties. In order to understand the purpose further, Staff provides the following history of area, development and zoning of the property: • Prior to 2007, the Applicant, Christopher Robinson owned approximately 44.51 acres of property. The property contained mostly undisturbed foothills property; however portions of the property particularly north of Columbus, DeSoto and Cortez Streets had been significantly altered by grading activities over time. Much of the grading in this area occurred when a Chevron pipeline was installed where there once existed a paper street showing a westerly extension of 700 North Street. • In 2007, Applicant, Christopher Robinson deeded 39.44 acres of the total 44.51 acres of land to Salt Lake City. That 39.44 acres was subsequently rezoned to Natural Open Space (NOS). He got approval to amend the Capitol Hill Master Plan future land use designation from Foothill Preservation to Low- density Residential. As part of that dedication, he also rezoned the current subject properties from Foothills Preservation (FP)to Foothills Residential (FR-2), vacated a portion of 700 North that was located generally between Columbus and Cortez Streets, and transferred the property to abutting property owners. As part of those petitions he received Planned Development approval to develop a cluster development with minimum lot size averaging and a private street. The result is the existing 6-lot development that exists today. • The final plat was recorded in 2008, and construction was finished in 2009. • The subject properties are currently Lots 1-6 of Columbus Court PUD. The private road has been constructed on the site. There is a private gate leading into the development but pedestrian and bicycle access through the street allows, in perpetuity, access through his development to existing foothill trails and there is a sign that was erected identifying that access. • The subject properties were zoned Foothills Residential (FR-2) in 2007. The FR-2 zoning district allows "single-family" as a permitted use, on lots with a minimum lot area of 21,780 and lot width of 100 feet with front yard setbacks of 20 feet and rear yard setbacks of 40 feet. • Christopher Robinson has been actively marketing property and there has not been any development of homes in the Columbus Court Development. Current Proposal In March 2011, Christopher Robinson submitted two petitions, a Subdivision Amendment and a Zoning Map Amendment. The applicant's current plan is to divide the existing lots in half to allow for 12 lots in the development with access to another additional lot proposed to be consolidated, a total of 13 lots. This would only be possible with a rezoning. The applicant contends that since his final plat was recorded in 2008 and subsequent construction on the site was finished in 2009, due to the economic downturn, the market demand has changed to more modest lot sizes. The proposed minimum lot size is significantly less than allowed by the current FR-2 zoning designation. If the applicant was allowed to rezone the properties from FR-2 to R-1-5,000 the following table represents residential single-family scenarios: PLNSL1B20 1 1-00090& PLNP C\12011-0009I Published Date' August IS,2011 2 3 Zoning Averaged of Combined Lot Minimum Minimum Front Yard Side Yard/Rear District Area Lot Area Lot setback Yard Setbacks (existing or proposed) Width FR-2 Existing average 26,731 Sq.Ft. 21,780 Sq.Ft. 100 Ft. Min. 20 ft. 20 ft./40 ft. R-1-5,000 Proposed 13,192 Sq.Ft. 13,192 Sq.Ft. 50 Ft. Min. 20 ft. 4 ft & 10 feet/20 ft. Comments City Department Comments The comments received from pertinent City Departments are attached to this staff report in Attachment C. The Planning Division has not received comments from the applicable City Departments that cannot reasonably be fulfilled or that warrant denial of the petitions. Most comments focus on the proposed subdivision. Community Council Comments The subject properties are in the Capitol Hill Community Council area and the petitions were presented on May 19t" by the applicant, City Staff was in attendance. In addition, the Community Council took a straw vote at their June meeting, the applicant was not in attendance. Capitol Hill Community Council-May 19, 2011 The petitions were presented by Christopher Robinson to the Capitol Hill Community Council on May 19, 2011. Approximately 25 people attended the community council meeting. During the meeting the general public was given the opportunity to speak. Most of the members of the public were in favor of the petitions and a few citizens had questions about the increase in traffic caused by an increase in density. Some members expressed that the gate had late night traffic issues when people used to drive up Columbus to look at the views. Most agreed that the gate had increased security at the site of Columbus Court and in the area. There were some concerns raised regarding erosion control when development eventually occurs. The Capitol Hill Community Council Trustees then discussed the petitions and decided to take a straw vote at a later (June) meeting. Capitol Hill Community Council—June 15, 2011 Neither the applicant nor Staff was in attendance but a straw vote was taken and the proposals were voted down. Parking issues on Columbus Street were allegedly the main concerns. Staff hasn't received official comment from the Community Council about this meeting. Public Comments There has been one letter received by Staff from a neighboring property owner. (See Attachment D) Project Review Zoning Amendment Discussion The subject property is currently zoned FR-2 Foothill Residential. The following is the purpose statement of the FR-2 zoning district: The purpose of the FR-2/21,780 foothills residential district is to promote environmentally sensitive and visually compatible development of lots not less than twenty one thousand seven hundred eighty (21,780) square feet in size, suitable for foothills locations as indicated in the applicable Connnnitj " PLNSUB2011-00090 R PLNPC`120 1 1-0009 1 Published Date August IS,201I 4 Master Plan. The district is intended to minimize flooding, erosion, and other environmental hazards; to protect the natural scenic character offoothill areas by limiting development; to promote the safety and well being of present and future residents offoothill areas; to protect wildlife habitat; and to ensure the efficient expenditure of public funds. The applicant is requesting a zoning map amendment to change the zoning of the property from FR-2 to R-1- 5,000 Single-family residential. The following is the purpose statement of the R-1-5,000 zoning district: The purpose of the R-1/5,000 single-family residential district is to provide for conventional single- family residential neighborhoods on lots not less than five thousand (5,000) square feet in size. This district is appropriate in areas of the City as identified in the applicable Community Master Plan. Uses are intended to be compatible with the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood. The standards for the district are intended to provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play, promote sustainable and compatible development patterns and to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood. The FR-2 and R-1-5,000 zoning districts allow a majority of the same limited land uses; however, it is essentially the scale, or size of the buildings that house the uses, that are different between the zones. For example, both zoning districts are limited in allowing single-family detached dwellings, small group homes, but no duplex or multi-family dwellings. The R-1-5,000 zoning district, however, allows one additional land use not allowed in the FR-2, that is "small assisted living facilities"as a conditional use. (see Attachment B). The issue of scale can also be seen when comparing the lot and building size regulations between the two zoning districts. In the R-1-5,000 zone there is a smaller minimum lot area, and reduced side and rear yard setback requirements. Although the proposed lot sizes are larger than usual for an R-1-5,000 lot, building sizes would be reduced in size and scale due to reduced buildable areas proposed on the plat. In the R-1-5,000 zone, lot sizes should not exceed 7,500 square feet in size unless compatibility standards are met. Those standards can generally be met through the proposed subdivision. When analyzing the future land use designation of very low-density and comparing it with both the FR-2 and R- 1-5,000 zoning districts and surrounding zoning designations particularly south and east of the development, R- 1-5,000 is an appropriate density for the properties. The property as a whole has characteristics that would allow it to be associated with both zones. The property and the proposed subdivision would yield lots that are comparable in size to those south of it. The proposals would allow for a buffer between the foothills development of the north and the more dense R-2 zoning districts to the south. The private street of Columbus Court is accesses from Columbus Street, a public local street. The proposal would essentially allow 6 more single-family residences which would mean there would be more vehicles using Columbus Street to access the development. It is estimated by Staff that this would not be a substantial traffic impact to residents in the area or on Columbus Street. Analysis and Findings Zoning Map Amendment- A decision to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council and is not controlled by any one standard. However, in making its decision concerning a proposed amendment, the City Council should consider the following factors found in the Zoning Ordinance under Section 21A.50.050B: PLNSUB2011-00090 PLNPCN120I 1-00091 PuNisiied Date August 18,2011 5 1. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of <. ' the City as stated through its various adopted planning documents; Analysis: The Capitol Hill Community Master Plan is the current master plan for the area. The Capitol Hill Community Master Plan was amended in 2007 calling for the subject properties to be "very low-density residential," (1-5 dwelling units per acre). The approximate density of the proposal is 2.96 dwelling units per acre, this is consistent with the Master Plan land use designation. The policies for the neighborhood are to ensure that new infill development be compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood. It calls to ensure that the established low-density residential character of the neighborhood is preserved. In summary, it is the opinion of Staff that the requested zoning amendment is consistent with the Future Land Use Map classification and generally meets the policies as stated in the Capitol Hill Master Plan. Finding: Staff finds that the request to rezone the properties located at approximately 700 Columbus Court from FR-2 to R-1-5,000 is consistent with the purposes, goals, objective, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City, and of the future land use designation of very low density residential. 2. Whether the proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the Zoning Ordinance; Analysis: Currently surrounding the subject properties is very low density residential development and or natural open space. The area directly south of Columbus Court is zoned R-2 which allows single and two- family dwellings. The following purpose statements pertain to the proposed zoning districts: . 4. The purpose of the R-1/5,000 single-family residential district is to provide for conventional single- family residential neighborhoods on lots not less than five thousand (5,000) square feet in si_e. This district is appropriate in areas of the City as identified in the applicable Commmunity Master Plan. Uses are intended to be compatible with the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood. The standards for the district are intended to provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play, promote sustainable and compatible development patterns and to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood. The location and site characteristics of the subject properties are consistent with the purpose of the R-1- /5,000 zoning district. The properties lie between very low-density to the north and low-density to the south. The zoning would provide a buffer separating Ensign Downs and DeSoto/Cortez areas. Finding: Staff finds that the proposed amendment does not conflict with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the characteristics of the property are consistent with the purpose of the proposed zoning district. 3. The extent to which the proposed amendment will affect adjacent properties; Analysis: The proposed amendment is to change the zoning on the property from FR-2 to R-1-5,000. The permitted uses are essentially unchanged from FR-2 to R-1-5,000 and should not be an impact to adjacent properties. Because of the unique situation of lots on Columbus Court, and the location of undevelopable parcels between its adjacent neighbors to the south, the 20 foot rear yard setbacks of the R-1-5,000 should PLNSUB20 1 1-00090 R PLNPC\1201 I-00091 Published Date August IS,2011 6 provide an adequate butter. The creation of 6 new lots should not cause a significant traffic impact to adjacent property owners on Columbus Street. Finding: Staff finds that the proposed amendment will not adversely affect adjacent properties. 4. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards; and Analysis & Finding: There site is located within an aquifer recharge area. However the development of the site will be consistent with the overlay requirements. 5. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems,water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection. Analysis: Applicable City departments and divisions were given the chance to review and comment on the proposed rezoning and preliminary site plans. No immediate deficiencies were noted as part of the review process. Finding: Staff finds that the current public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property are adequate, and any necessary modifications and changes to facilities will be identified upon application for building permits or part of the subdivision amendment. Subdivision Amendment Discussion Minor Subdivisions - Section 20.20.020 Required Conditions and Improvements A minor subdivision shall conform to the required improvements specified in Section 20.28.010, or its successor, of this Title, and shall also meet the following standards: A. The general character of the surrounding area shall be well defined, and the minor subdivision shall conform to tins general character. Analysis: The surrounding area is characterized by very low density residential uses in established neighborhoods. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the very low density character. The proposed lots will be smaller than some in the area and larger than others, however the overall development is somewhat physically isolated from neighbors and its proposed larger than average lot sizes for the R-1-5,000 would be in character with other lots in the development as well as the neighborhood. (see Vicinity Map above). Finding: The proposed subdivision satisfies this standard. B. Lots created shall conform to the applicable requirements of the zoning ordinances of the city. Analysis: The entire development is somewhat physically isolated from adjacent neighbors. The proposed lot sizes are larger than the usual lot sizes for the R-1-5,000 but because the applicant would PLNSUB3011-00090 fi PLNPCN120 1 1-00091 Published Date August IS.2011 7 be creating the block face and pattern on the street, the proposal would be in character with other lots in — the development as well as the neighborhood. Lots larger than 7,500 square feet in size, are permitted in the R-1-5,000 if their configuration is compatible with other lots on the block face, and the relationship of the lot width is compatible with other lots on the same block face. Because the subdivision is creating the block face, the proposal meets the standards. The lots as proposed shall meet the requirements for the R-1-5,000 zoning district. Finding: The proposed subdivision amendment satisfies these standards for maximum lot size. C. Utility easements shall be offered for dedication as necessary. Analysis: No dedication of utility easements is required. Finding: The proposed minor subdivision satisfies this standard. D. Water supply and selvage disposal shall be satisfactory to the city engineer. Analysis: The site is developed at the moment. The City's Public Utilities Department will be required to review the water supply and sewage plans at any future time when building permits are submitted for further development. Finding: The proposed minor subdivision satisfies this standard. E. Public improvements shall be satisfactory to the planning director and city engineer. Amik Analysis: The proposed subdivision has been forwarded to the pertinent City Departments/Divisions for comment. All public improvements must comply with all applicable City Departmental standards. All plans for required public improvements must be submitted and approved prior to approval of the minor subdivision. Finding: The proposed minor subdivision satisfies this standard. PLNSUB20I1-00090&PLNPCN120 I 1-00091 Published Date August IS,2011 8 ---------- ---- COLUMBUS COURT PUD AMENDED - . •EVER COTS 14 MO FOCUS B a CM y8us COUNT a.D 4V1.051:110E SAL':ME CITY RAVE•&M.:6t.D4112•1 • I' • • •• • • CCLU!ACU5 COURT PUD AIdEND'c5 1- PLNSUB201 1-00090&PLNPCM2O11-00091 Published Date August IS.2011 10 ENSIGN FOREGROUND, L.C. AND COLUMBUS COURT HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION 925 West 100 North, Suite F P.O. Box 540478 North Salt Lake, Utah 84054 March 4, 2011 Mayor Ralph Becker c/o Salt Lake City Buzz Center 451 South State Street, Room 215 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 RE: Master Plan Amendment, Zoning Amendment, and Subdivision Amendment for Amended Plat of Lots 1-6 and Parcels B, C, F, and G of Columbus Court PUD and Lots 12-14 of Salt Lake City Survey, Plat J, Block 20 (the "Amended Plat") Dear Mayor Becker: We,Ensign Foreground,L.C.,recorded the Columbus Court PUD subdivision plat (the "CC Plat") in early 2008. It consists of single family estate building Lots 1-6, which each is approximately '/2 acre in size or bigger and several non-buildable"alpha" parcels, including the 39 acre Parcel A which was deeded to the City and zoned as natural open space. All of the subdivision improvements for the CC Plat were completed in 2009 and all improvement bonds have been released. The CC Plat also provided access via a private driveway to Lots 12-14 of Salt Lake City Survey, Block 20, Plat J ("Plat J" and the "Plat J Lots") which theoretically "front" on Cortez Street but which couldn't easily be accessed from Cortez Street due to very steep slopes. However, because of the "Great Recession" and the paradigm shift in attitudes away from high-end homes, coupled with the fact that the surrounding DeSoto/Cortez neighborhood is made up of more modest homes, we have been unable to sell these high-end lots. Nor do we believe that there will be a market for these lots as currently configured in the foreseeable future. Therefore, we desire to basically divide in half the six lots in the CC Plat into twelve (12) smaller lots. We also desire to amend Plat J to combine the Plat J Lots into one lot and officially make it a part of the Columbus Court development. Therefore,upon approval and recordation, the Amended Plat would consist of thirteen (13) lots, as conceptually shown in the attached drawing. 1 In order to process the Amended Plat,we understand that we must first amend the Capitol Hill Master Plan to change the area encompassed by the CC Plat from Foothill Preservation Residential to Very Low Density Residential 1-5 du/acre, which is the same Future Land Use now shown for the DeSoto/Cortez neighborhood. In essence, Columbus Court would become an extension of the DeSoto/Cortez neighborhood. Please find attached our application for the Master Plan Amendment. In addition to the Master Plan Amendment, we hereby request that the tracts of land described in the Amended Plat and shown by tax parcel number, address, and size in the Land Summary attached hereto be rezoned from FR-2 to R-1/5000 Single Family Residential District(except for the Plat J Lots which are alre oned R-2, an acceptable zone). Please find attached our application for Zoning Amendment. Finally, please find attached our Subdivision Amendment Application to allow us to amend the CC Plat and Plat J to create the Amended Plat. There will be very little additional improvements needed to finish these 13 lots in the Amended Plat. All of the roadways are in,but six additional sewer and water laterals will need to be stubbed into half of the lots and some of the dry utility(gas, electric, telecom, . cable) boxes may need to be relocated. There should not be a need for any earthmoving or grading, other than during the construction of the homes. We respectfully request that these applications be processed concurrently (as much as is possible) to allow us to make these changes during the upcoming construction season. Best regards, ENSIGN FOREGROUND, L.C. AND COLUMBUS COURT HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION By: } 71), Patm4-en Christopher F. Robinson Manager&President, respectively Attachments: Concept of Amended Plat Property Summary Master Plan Amendment • Zoning Amendment • Subdivision Amendment Application 7 da ,A,; - Subdivision Amendment OFFICE USE ONLY i Petition No. Pl-A)5 l.( p/(_ w�� -r/rr-�= Application tf ,,,f,(. Date Received: j �-�p/( .fir_'_d<, ►p,: _r'S r:r"ii ri; Residential Reviewed By: p(,V� ice'``-i.A4 ..:Li t2 j Non Residential "fi`~ t; '," `". ` Street involved filmr Amended Plat of Lots 1-6 and Parcels B, C, F, and G of SUBDIVISION NAME: Columbus Court PUD and Lots 12-14 of Salt Lake City Survey Plat 1. Block 20 Property Address: Approx 700 N Columbus Street Number of Lots: 13 (after amendment) cif) ^ Applicant name: Christopher F. Robinson Applicant Phone: 801_599_4397 V1 Address of Applicant: P.O. Box 540478, North Salt Lake, UT 84054 E-mail for Applicant as Contact: crobi nson@theensi gngroup.�?,1iFax: 801-599-4397/801-677-6416 Name of Property Owner: Ensign Foreground? L.C. & Phone: 801-599-4397 Columbus Court Homeowners' Association E-mail for Property Owner:crobinson@theensigngroup.com Cell/Fax:801-599-4397/801-677-6416 t7° County Tax ("all Sidwell#"): See attached Zoning: FR-2 and R-2 Please include with the application: Attach additional sheets,rfnece.ssary 1.The names and addresses of all property owners located within four-hundred fifty feet(450')of the subject parcel(s). The names,address and Sidwell number of each property owner must be typed or clearly printed on gummed mailing lables.Please include yourself and the appropriate Community Council Chair.The cost of first class postage for each (P) address is due at the time of application.Do not provide postage stamps. 2.A legal description of the boundaries of the subject property together with a legal description of each of the proposed lots. )1115 .i 3.One(1) 11"x 17"(reduced)copy of the plat drawings,and an electronic version of plat drawings. 4.Ten(12)of preliminary plat drawings(complete set if multiple sheets)showing the land to be subdivided,properly and 01 accurately drawn to scale,certified as accurate by a Registered Land Surveyor or Professional Engineer. 5. A digital copy of documents is required if it the petition is forwarded to a Planning Commission hearing. 6. A current Sidwell Map(with aerial photography and ownership lines)showing the entire area of the proposed subdivision. 7. A letter addressed to the Mayor requesting the Subdivision Amendment.Must state specifically what you are doing twill (combing,or dividing)and into/from how many lots,etc. S.Filing Fee(due at time of application)of$332.22 plus$110.74 per lot is required. Notice: Additional information may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate information is provided for staff analysis. A;eAll information submitted as part of the application may be copied and made public including professional u architectural or engineering drawings which will he made available to decision makers,pub alid, git(1 )iLegtp'dfT �N party. 001( If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this application,please contact the Salt Lakc,City Buzz Center at 535-7700 prior to submittal. C7) County tax parcel("Sidwell")maps and names of property File the complete application at: owners are available at: Salt Lake City Buzz Center Salt Lake County Recorder 451 South State Street,Room 215 2001 South State Street,Room N 1600 Salt Lake City,UT 84111 Salt Lake City,UT 84190-1051 Telephone:(801)468-3391ENSI GN FJpOREG-R�OOUND, L.C. ,nd COLUMBUS COURT ,HOMEOWNERS' ASS'N Feb 2008 Signature of Property Owner By: C�L(A,`'�-(ki ). t%t$''•vw�,'t 3/3/20/1 Or authorized agenF Christopher F. Robinson, Manager and President, Respectivel. OFFICE USE ONLY -- Zoning e#1, t" Petition No.PL�iOCl� t)I (— Ooo`I /y \\ ;IP.i' Date Received: 3 -f4—Z o!f .y:,.,-� it_ _i .2_-,-x o Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance by amending Section: Reviewed By: - '�Lt,.- �( _f p.q-f1.-�-yy��,,," `'ma's ^(n;i:.f,.=11f::�._i.:'77_- :ui 7-1. C m,.,: / �''7'� ,, � `mend the Zoning Map by reclassifying the above property from a X"" ".� 'one to a zone.(attach map or legal description) Address of Subject Property: Approximately 700 North Columbus Street, Salt Lake City, UT Name of Applicant: Christopher F. Robinson Phone: 801-599-4397 Address of Applicant: P.O. Box 540478, North Salt Lake, UT 84054 CA E-mail Address of Applicant: crobinson@theensigngroup.com Cell/Fax: 801 -599-4397/801-677-6416 L LIM( Applicant's Interest in Subject Property: Manaq er of Epti ty that Owns Property or rresloent Fmn Name of Property Owner: Ensign Foreground, L.C. * Phone: 801-599-4397 E-mail Address of Property Owner: crobinson@theens i gngroup m ax:801-599-4397/801-677-4616 County Tax ("Bidwell#"): See attached Zoning: FR-2 Legal Description(if different than tax parcel number): See attached Proposed Property Use 41111.1 Existing Property Use ,, 4 Please include with the application: rill) 1. A statement of the text amendment or map amendment describing the purpose for the amendment and the exact language,boundaries and zoning district. 2. A complete description of the proposed use of the property where appropriate. P� 3. Reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area. 11. 4. Printed address labels for all property owners within 450 feet of the subject property. The address and Sidwell number of each property owner must be typed or clearly printed on gummed mailing label.Please include yourself and the appropriate Community Council Chair(s). Address labels are available at the address listed below.The cost of first class postage for each address is due at time of application.Please do not provide postage stamps. tilimi 5. Legal description of the property. 6. Six(6)copies of site plans drawn to scale and one(1) 11 x 17 inch reduced copy of each plan and elevation drawing. 7. .lf applicable,a signed,'notarized statement of consent from property owner authorizing applicant to act as agent 8. Filing fee of$885.92,plus$110.74 for each acre over one acre and the cost of first class postage is due at time of application. Applications must be reviewed prior to submission.Please call 535-7700 for an appointment to review your application. 0* Notice: Additional information may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate information is provided for staff analysis. All information submitted as part of the application may be copied and made public including professional 1111111 architectural or engineering drawings which will be made available to decision makers,public and any interested . _ party. P. °.ate.t..;1`7 ._.,1) * and the Columbus Court Homeowners ' Association J,:. 0 , }7�7. i. . 4 _- Feb 2008 County tax parcel("Sidwell")maps and names of property owners are available at: File the complete application at: Salt Lake County Recorder Salt Lake City Buzz Center 2001 South State Street,Room N1600 451 South State Street,Room 215, Salt Lake City,UT 84190-1051 Salt Lake City,UT 84111 Telephone:(801)468-3391 Columbus Court Homeowners' Association and Ensign Foreground, L.C. , a Utah limited liability company 1414,-,-4,--),Signature of Property Owner By: — - 3 3 1 Z Q Or authorized agent Christoph r F. Robinson, Manager and Pr silent February 28, 2011 , .•,,,r SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION \11., :,1,i I Buzz Center _, 451 South State Street,Room 215 Phone: 801 535-7700 Ito?,°U-7..._�; P.O.Box 145471 Fax :(801)535-7750 Salt Lake City,Utah 84114 Date:Mar 04,2011 ti rf �rI,un!s1". 0 SUBDIVISION AND CONDOMINIUM PO BOX 540478 NORTH SALT LAKE,UT 84054 Project Name: Project Address: 72 E COLUMBUS CT Detailed Description: u Amount Description Qty Dept C Ctr Obj Invoice Paid Due Invoice Number:844782 Filing Fee( 13 06 00900 125123 $1,771.89 Postage for Planning Petitions( 93 06 00900 1890 $40.92 Total for invoice 844782 $1,812.76 $1,612.76 Total for PLNSUB2011-00090 $1,612.76 $1,612.76 ,, OFFICE USE ONLY Intake By:AJ1631 CAP ID# PLNSUB2011-00090. TotafD le:$1,812:76- ` "3 II II I I I I I I I I! I I I II I II 1 II II II II I I II II www.slcpermits.com ' P L N S U B 2 0 1 1 - 0 0 0 9 0 ' %,„k,, �t SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION ,ate;\\ ;.": :'/./ry% Buzz Center �r- -. +=�'��' , 451 South State Street,Room 215 Phone: (801)535-7700 ^+; 16E. P.O.Box 145471 Fax:(801)535-7750 Salt Lake City,Utah 84114 Date: Mar 04,2011 r�rrr lltl!tik�`� ❑ PLANNING COMMISSION PO BOX 540478 NORTH SALT LAKE,UT 84054 Project Name: ❑ Project Address: 50 E COLUMBUS CT Detailed Description: Amount Description Qty Dept C Ctr Obj Invoice Paid Due Invoice Number:844783 Filing Fee( 6 P6 0900 125111 $1,439.62 Postage for Planning Petitions( 93 P6 P0900 1890 $40.92 Total for invoice 844783 $1,480.54 $1,480.54 Total for PLNPCM2011-00091 $1,480.54 $1,480.54 OFFICE USE ONLY Intake By: AJ1631 CAP II?# • - PLNPCM2011-00091 •= 1.1 Total-Due:$1;480754— _' 1 II II I I I I II II II, I I II I II I II II II II I I I I II v v v.sicpermits.com ' P L N P C h,1 2 0 1 1 - 0 0 0 9 1 * • 2 i A.24.190 21A.24.190 21 A.24.190: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS: Legend: C= Conditional P = Permitted Permitted And Conditional Uses, By District Residential Districts FR-1/ FR-2/ FR-3/ R-1/ R-1/ R-1/ Use 43,560 21,780 12,000 12,000 7,000 5,000 SR-1 SR-2 SR-3 R-2 RMF-30 RMF-35 RMF-45 RMF-75 RB R-MU-35 R-MU-45 R-MU RO imiii - Residential: Accessory guest and servants'quarters Accessory uses on accessory lots Assisted living facility, C P P C P P P large Assisted living facility, C C C C C C P P P P P P P P ;small Dormitories,fraternities, sororities(see section 21A.36.150 of this title) Eleemosynary facilities C C C C C C C C 'C C C P P C P P P • Group home, large C C C C C C C C C (see section 21A.36.070 of this title) - Group home,small P P P P P P P I P P P P P P P P P P P (see section 21A.36.070 of this title) Manufactured home P P • P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P January 2011 Salt Lake City • 21A.24.190 21A.24.190 Permitted And Conditional Uses,By District Residential Districts FR-1/ FR-2/ FR-3/ R-1/ R-1/ R-1/ Use 43,560 21,780 12,000 12,000 7,000 5,000 SR-1 SR-2 SR-3 R-2, RMF-30 RMF-35 RMF-45 RMF-75 RB R-MU-35 R-MU-45 R-MU RO Mixed use develop- P, P P P P ments,including . • • residential and other uses allowed in the zoning district ". Multiple-family • P P P P P P P P P dwellings Nursing care facility P P P P (see section 21A.36.060 of this title) Resident healthcare P P P P P P P P P facility(see section 21A.36.040 of this title) • Residential substance abuse treatment home, large ,.11ilmili.i1J Residential substance P P P P P abuse treatment home, • small Rooming(boarding) �■ C C C C C C C house • Single-family attached P P P P P P P P P dwellings Single-family detached P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P dwellings January 2011 Salt Lake City 1 4 a 21 A.24.190 21A.24.190 Permitted And Conditional Uses, By District Residential Districts I 1 FR-1/ FR-2/ FR-3/ R-1/ R-1/ R-1/ Use 43,560 21,780 12,000 12,000 7,000 5,000 SR-1 SR-2 SR-3 R-2 RMF-30 RMF-35 RMF-45 RMF-75 RB R-MU-35 R-MU-45 R-MU RO Transitional treatment C C C C C home,large(see section 21A.36.090 of this title) Transitional treatment C C C C C C C home,small(see section 21A.36.090 of - this title) Transitional victim C C C C C home,large (see section 21A.36.080 of this title) Transitional victim C C P C C P P home,small(see section 21A.36-080 of this title) Twin home dwellings P P P P P P P P P Two-family dwellings P • P/ P2 . P • P P P P P P Office and related uses: • Financial institutions with drive-through facilities •. Financial institutions P P P' P' • without drive-through facilities Medical and dental C C C C C C' C6 clinics and offices July 2009 Salt Lake City 21A.24.190 21A.24.190 Permitted And Conditional Uses, By District Residential Districts FR-1/ FR-2/ FR-3/ R-1/ R-1/ R-1/ Use 43,560 21,780 12,000 12,000 7,000 5,000 SR-1 SR-2 SR-3 R-2 RMF-30 RMF-35 RMF-45 RMF-75 RB R-MU-35 R-MU-45 R-MU RO Municipal service uses, C C C C C C CCCC C C C C C C C C C including city utility uses and police and fire stations Offices,excluding C C C` C C C3 C6 medical and dental clinics and offices Recreation,cultural and entertainment: Art galleries P P P P3 P Art studio P P P P P Community and • f recreation centers, public and private on lots less than 4 acres in size Community gardens as C C C C C C C C C P P P P P P P P P defined in chapter 21A.62 of this title and as regulated by subsection 21A.24.010Q of this chapter Dance studio P P P P3 Live performance C C C C C theaters Movie theaters C C C C C July 2009 Salt Lake City 21A.24.190 21A.24.190 Permitted And Conditional Uses,By District Residential Districts FR-1/ FR-2/ FR-3/ R-1/ R-1/ R-1/ Use 43,560 21,780 12,000 12,000 7,000 5,000 SR-1 SIR-2 SR-3 R-2 RMF-30 RMF-35 RMF-45 RMF-75 RB R-MU-35 R-MU-45 R-MU RO Natural open space P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P and conservation areas on lots less than 4 acres in size Parks and playgrounds, P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P public and private, less than 4 acres in size Pedestrian pathways, P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P trails and greenways • Private clubs/tavern/ Ce lounge/brewpub;2,500 square feet or loss in floor area Retail sales and service: Gas station(may C C C C include accessory convenience retail and/or minor repairs) as defined in chapter 21A.62 of this title Health and fitness C C C C facility Liquor store Restaurants,without P P3 drive-through facilities Retail goods P" P P P3 establishments March 2011 Salt Lake City 21 A.24.190 Permitted And Conditional Uses,By District Residential Districts FR-1/ FR-21 FR-3/ R-1/ R-1/ R-1/ Use 43,560 21,780 12,000 12,000 7,000 5,000 SR-1 SR-2 SR-3 R-2 RMF-30 RMF-35 RMF-45 RMF-75 RB R-MU-35 R-MU-45 R-MU RO Retail service P` P P P' establishments Institutional: Adult daycare center P P P P Child daycare center P P ' P P , P P Governmental uses C C C C P° and facilities Library C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Museum P C C P Music conservatory P C C P Nursing care facility P P P P (see section 21A.36.060 of this title) Places of worship on C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C lots less than 4 acres in size Schools,professional P° C C P3 P° and vocational Seminaries and C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C religious institutes Commercial: Laboratory,medical, P3 dental,optical March 2011 Salt Lake City 21A.24.190 21 A.24.190 Permitted And Conditional Uses, By District Residential Districts FR-1/ FR-2/ FR-3/ R-1/ 11-1/ R-1/ Use 43,560 21,780 12,000 12,000 7,000 5,000 SR-1 SR-2 SR-3 R-2 RMF-30 RMF-35 RMF-45 RMF-75' RB R-MU-35 R-MU-45 R-MU RO Plant and garden shop, with outdoor retail sales I area Miscellaneous: Accessory uses,except P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P those that are other- wise specifically regulated in this chapter,or elsewhere in this title Bed and breakfast P P P P p Bed and breakfast inn P P p P Bed and breakfast P manor Crematorium C C C Funeral home C C C House museum in C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C landmark sites(see _ subsection 21A.24.O1OT of this chapter) Offices and reception C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C5 centers in landmark sites(see subsection 21A.24.010T of this chapter) May 2010 Salt La Ire City 21A.24.190 21 A.24.190 Permitted And Conditional Uses,By District Residential Districts FR-1/ FR-2/ FR-3/ R-1/ R-1/ R-1/ Use 43,560 21,780 12,000 12,000 7,000 5,000 SR-1 SR-2 SR-3 R-2 RMF-30 RMF-35 RMF-45I RMF-75 RB R-MU-35 R-MU-45 R-MU RO Park and ride parking, shared ulith church parking Int on.arterial street Parking, off site facilities(accessory to permitted uses) Parking, off site(to C C C C C support nonconforming uses in a residential zone or uses in the CN or CB zones) Public/private ,etility P5 Ps P5 Ps Ps P5 Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps p5,7 buildings and structures' Public/private utility P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P transmission'wires, lines,pipes and poles' Reuse of church and school buildings Veterinary offices p' P6 Wireless tetecjmmuni- cations facilities(see table 212.40.090E of this title` May 2010 Salt Lake City 21A.24.190 21A.24.190 Qualifying provisions: 1. A single apartment unit may be located above first floor retail/office. 2. Provided that no more than 2 two-family buildings are located adjacent to one another and no more than 3 such dwellings are located along the same block face (within subdivisions approved after April 12, 1995). 3. Subject to conformance with the provisions of subsection 21A.24.170E of this chapter. 4. Construction for a nonresidential use shall be subject to all provisions of subsections 21A.24.1601 and J of this chapter. 5. See subsection 21A.02.050B of this title for utility regulations. 6. Building additions on lots less than 20,000 square feet for office uses may not exceed 50 percent of the building's footprint. Building additions greater than 50 percent of the building's footprint or new office building construction are subject to the conditional use process. 7. Subject to conformance to the provisions in section 21A.02.050 of this title. 8. A conditional use permit for a class B or C private club or association shall be subject to the following qualifying provisions. For the purpose of these provisions a class B or C private club or association shall have the meaning set forth in title 5, chapter 5.50 of this code, as amended. a. In approving a conditional use permit for a class B or C private club or association the planning commission shall: (1) Require that a security and operations plan be prepared and filed with the city which shall include: (A) A complaint-response community relations program; (B) Having a representative of the private club or association meet with neighbors upon request to attempt to resolve any neighborhood complaints regard- ing the operations on the premises; (C) Design and construction requirements to ensure that any sound level originating within the premises, measured within 15 feet from an exterior wall or door thereof: does not exceed the maximum permissible sound level set forth for residential use districts in section 9.28.060 of this code; (D) Allowing live entertainment only within an enclosed building subject to the foregoing sound limit; (E) Prohibiting electronically amplified sound in any exterior portion of the premises; (F) Designating a location for smoking tobacco outdoors in conformance with state law; (G) Having trash strewn on the premises, including any smoking and parking lot areas, be collected and deposited in a trash receptacle by 6:00 A.M. the following day; and (H) Having portable trash receptacles on the premises emptied daily and automated receptacles emptied at least weekly. Automated receptacles shall be located only within a city approved trash storage area; (2) Review the site plan and floor plan proposed for the premises, and as result of such review may require design features intended to reduce alcohol related problems such as consumption by minors, driving under the influence, and public drunkenness; (3) Require buffering where a private club or association abuts a residential building or area, including landscaping or walls along any property line or within any required yard area on the lot where the premises are located; (4) Require that landscaping be located, and be of a type, that cannot be used as a hiding place; and (5) Require that the exterior of the premises be maintained free of graffiti at all times, including the main building, any accessory building or structure, and all signs. March 2011 Salt Lake City 21A.24.190 21A.24.190 Qualifying provisions (cont.) b. If necessary to meet the standards for approval of a conditional use permit set forth in section 21A.54.080 of this title,the following conditions may be imposed: (1) Require parking area lighting to produce a minimum foot-candle that provides safe lighting for pedestrians but does not intrude on residents' enjoyment of their homes; and (2) Consider the proposed location of an outdoor smoking area in the security and operations plan and the potential effect on neighboring residences, busi- nesses and buildings and designating a new area if the area designated in the security and operations plan appears to adversely affect neighboring residences, businesses and buildings. • (Ord. 79-10, 2010: Ord. 27-10, 2010: Ord. 19-10 § 5, 2010: Ord. 12-09 § 1 (Exh. A), 2009: Ord. 61-08 § 4 (Exh. C), 2008: Ord. 60-08 § 9 (Exh. C), 2008: brd. 21-08 § 2 (Exh. A), 2008: Ord. 2-08 § 1, 2008: Ord. 13-06 § 4 (Exh. C), 2006: Ord. 54-05 § 1 (Exh. A), 2005: Ord. 11-05, 2005: Ord. 71-04 § 3 (Exh. C), 2004: Ord. 13-04 § 5, 2004: Ord. 5-02 § 2, 2002: Ord. 19-01 § 6, 2001: Ord. 35-99 § 20, 1999: Ord. 30-98 § 2, 1998: Ord. 19-98 § 1, 1998: amended during 5/96 supplement: Ord. 88-95 § 1 (Exh. A), 1995: Ord. 84-95 § 1 (Exh. A), 1995: Ord. 26-95 § 2(12-18), 1995) March 2011 Salt Lake City SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT PLNSUB2011-00090 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT PLNPCM2011-00091 Salt lake City Department Comments Attorney-Lynn Pace Applicant will remove"Relinquishment and Quitclaim of Easement" language on proposed amended plat. The following language on the original plat shall be copied onto any amended plat: • Sheet 2,"Notice to purchasers" language, item 12, shall be carried over to the new plat. General comments are to ensure original language is carried over to any amended plat for consistency. Public Utilities-Justin Stoker As part of the previous subdivision an 8-inch water main was installed at a high elevation of the pressure zone, it is not certain this pipe size will be able to support additional lots. A private consulting engineer will need to verify that the 8-inch water main will be able to handle the additional water connections and still provide adequate pressure. The owner will also be responsible to submit a revised improvement plan by a civil engineer proposing the additional utility connections. Utility services to the previous lot, now straddles the property line of the proposed Lots 1 and 2. These services may have to be relocated to properly serve the owner of Lot 1 or Lot 2. Services to Lots 6 and 9 appear to be remarkably close to the property line dividing the lots. Utility services must be located in front of the lots they service and may not cross private property to serve another lot. These issues will need to be worked out after the plat has been approved. For information only, the owner will also be responsible for additional fees associated with the new utility connections after the plat is approved and the new utility connections are proposed. Zoning-Alan Michelson Proposed lots exceed the maximum lot size for the R-1/5000 zone. Building Permits-Larry Butcher No comment. Engineering-Scott Weiler Columbus Court is a private street. SLC Engineering does not have a direct interest in the maintenance of Columbus Court but recommends that the sewer and water laterals that are needed to serve the 6 additional lots be grouped (to the extent possible) so as to avoid 12 separate trench patches in the asphalt. Landscaping is recommended along the north side of the entrance road to Columbus Court(west of the gate). A plat is required for the proposed amendment.The City Surveyor will begin a review of the plat when it is submitted. Certified addresses are required for the additional 6 lots. See Alice Montoya at 801-535-7248. Transportation-Barry Walsh The division of transportation review comments and recommendations are for approval as follows: There are no changes indicated to the existing public ROW of Columbus, Desoto, or Cortez Streets and no change to the existing private roadway Columbus Court, a paved roadway with defined edges C&G and pedestrian sidewalk on the north side. Fire-Ted Itchon- No comments received. Police-Richard Brede-No comments received. • aF44J� Georg Stutzenberger Neighbor Voting for zoning change 06-13-20 I I COLUMBUS COURT Dear fellow neighbors, It has come to our:attention that Chris Robinson is on the Capitol Hill Neighborhood Council roster tomorrow Wednesday the 15th to present changing the 6 building lots on Columbus Court into 13lots. Three years ago he came before us to gain positive vote developing his property for 6 building lots.Several changes have been done during the construction without the knowledge of the neighbors at that time. This new zoning change he is trying to gain will cause a dramatic increase in traffic on Columbus Street creating more noise,speeding problems,environmental distraction and is against the Capitol Hill Master Plan which so many people worked on it. Many things have been changed during the development such as bull dozing of the pristine Agook open space from it's original planes to removal of dirt to upgrade from single gate to a double gate with a larger set back of about 30 feet.This is an extra hardship in that people park,cause light pollution late night to early morning hours.The city engineering was more concerned about the disabled ramp on a steep hill rather than how the neighborhood functions. Also we would like to bring to attention,as he is the property owner of Columbus Court,it is as the neighbors who keep cleaning up garbage and debris and not him who shows no interest of bare bottom maintaining his property like a good neighbor should be.The promise of landscaping as original agreed did not happen and weed is growing out of control. We urge you to come this wednesday,tomorrow night,to the CHNC meeting at the Capitol Cafe on the east side to vote a no to his plan to change the zoning and to stop Chris Robinson from continuing to put more burden upon our nice neighborhood and using as for his benefit to make more money.We have to live with the decision we make on this matter for the future. The meeting will start at 6:30 pm with the voting to follow during the meeting. Georg 80 I-5 I 0-1603 Julianne 801-243-2673 r • • * * • • • • • • •• I li ' , CAPITOL HILL • i COMMUNITY :;, ,t • , FUTURE r p✓ _ y t I LAND USE MAP •• . i rgin •• „ ., , , , .-. „ ...„ .. - 2.;;.:12.14 ;....._ - • , , . , -" r • i . ... .., . _ .. ... _ 1.,.._ : , ....,.. „,_ _•...,.„.„ - -6.‘4,4. .. • „ . . . . _.. ... ,...„. • „,.. , ., .., , , ,.. .. ,., . S p ' J / / "� A J ? t5\ F '4- ff I /C'gi t ''�� Transitioning to t• „ X p' •_�• Business Park °� ).(//) Future Land Use �i• `{ \ �JJ MiFoothill Preservation ,- z - ti Residential �r r---Very Low Density ^ , 1 L __; Residential 1-5 du/acre •`'� • • e(;1112\7 -- "- -- 1 wsxrseu / tj Low Density � ram,,, „> Residential 5-15 du/acre [ F- Medium Density ,.- < ✓ k.°" Residential 15-30 du/acre - Medium/High Density V y��♦•♦ ��,\ Residential 30-45 du/acre \ r o=.=16� High Density ® x... t `' I JResidential 45+du/acre • ° .. r I \ 7� C Medium Mixed Use y i ti J , !, j •/ I 611NOR,, . ♦ �JJ • �� i Medium/High Mixed Use \.- ' - 11i \ ii II MIN 1 . : High Density Mixed Use ,r--i A I ���OO I ;I I L �\ \-11 II IIII General Commercial � 'gi� } Business Pak I /% �' JJ®t'a -1 , :[.LIBUILDING Light Industrial tOOINFR v ♦ ♦ 'TH .: ' J®®,.�, __ NEHeavy Industrial , �, m Extractive Industry I ,I �xxL' .� �"$,. "°T•" • ::: ;''' Institutional ♦ \ • 7.CL r- Transportation N•0 Til�EMP !♦!OFF- u 40 , r NOT TO SCALE Parks and Open Space SEE CENTRAL OMMUNITY "'"` rit- MASTER PLAN „:4,,+„„ ,cf) J ) Foothill Open Space Site Photos: Columbus Court PUD • - - • Looking South Looking Southeast Amok RY - t c ~f]t y.4 S'dux e-1,-"!-''. ' ;T Looking Southeast Looking East SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City & County Building 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Wednesday, September 14, 2011 Present for the Planning Commission meeting were Chair Michael Fife, Vice Chair, Angela Dean, Commissioners, Babs De Lay, Emily Drown, Charlie Luke, Michael Gallegos, Matthew Wirthlin and Mary Woodhead. Commissioner Kathleen Hill was excused. The field trip was cancelled. A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained in the Planning Office for an indefinite period of time. Planning staff members present at the meeting were: Wilf Sommerkorn, Planning Director; Nick Norris, Planning Manager, John Anderson, Principal Planner; Katia Pace, Principal Planner; Michaela Oktay, Principal Planner; Daniel Echeverria, Planning Intern; Paul Nielson, Land Use Attorney; and Angela Hasenberg, Senior Secretary. 0111111 5:32:55 Work Session Chapter 21.44 Parking: the Planning Commission will receive a briefing regarding the City's parking regulations. Mr. Sommerkorn gave a presentation Chairperson Fife recognized Planning Director Wilf Sommerkorn as staff representative. Planning Director Sommerkorn discussed the issues regarding parking for businesses around neighborhoods. Planning Director Sommerkorn stated that the initial discussion for parking standards in the City, particularly relating to neighborhood businesses, was initiated in July of 2002. He said that the basic issue became the parking requirements in neighborhoods for restaurants, retail goods stores, and retail service businesses. There was discussion about shared parking and offsite parking and the changing of small neighborhood businesses. Salt Lake City Planning Commission, September 14, 2011 Page 1 The zoning requirements in 2002: • Restaurants: standard 6 spaces per 1000 sq ft • Retail Goods: standard 3 spaces per 1000 sq ft • Retail Services: standard 2 spaces per 1000 sq ft The Planning Commission recommended the following regulations in 2006 • Large Restaurants: 40+seats: standard 6 spaces per 1000 sq ft • Small Restaurants: less than 40: standard 3 spaces per 1000 sq ft. • Retail Goods and services: 3 spaces per 1000 sq ft. In April, 2008, a memo was sent from the Community Economic Development department to David Everett. The memo proposed a uniform parking standard of 2 spaces per 1000 sq ft for all restaurants; all retail goods and all retail service businesses City wide. In June, 2008 most small businesses supported the change, but neighborhood councils expressed concern. July 1, 2008, The City Council had a briefing on the parking topic. After discussing walkability and flexibility for small neighborhood business, the idea of pedestrian amenities was brought forward, which meant if a small business provided benches, bike racks, and stroller parking, the small business could get credits to reduce the parking requirement even more. The Council approved, and instructed the staff to incorporate that into the proposed ordinance. The Council also discussed tools to help mitigate the impact to residents from the parking standard, but no details were given. On July 22, 2008 the ordinance came forward with the inclusion of the pedestrian friendly amenities. The ordinance was adopted with the standard of 2 parking spaces per 1000 sq ft. The City Council included in their motion a statement of legislative intent which said that there would be a program developed to help mitigate neighborhood spillover impacts. There was no definition, and the program has never been developed. The Planning Commission asked for options for directions they could take. Questions from the Commissioners: The Planning Commission discussed the issue of spillage from the parking lots of the Dodo Restaurant. Salt Lake City Planning Commission, September 14, 2011 Page 2 Commissioner Luke stated that he felt like this was an issue that was more about neighborhoods and restaurants within them. Mr. Sommerkorn asked what the Planning Commission would like to see happen. Commissioner De Lay said that constituents should be more active in the community and go to their City Councilperson to discuss their issues. The Planning Commission discussed small neighborhood businesses and parking. They determined that they would like the Planning Commission and Parking Enforcement to work together. The Planning Commission discussed the possibilities of having Community Councils discuss the parking issues and give the Planning Commission their feedback and input. Commissioner Wirthlin .request additional training in order to know what the tools they can use to deal with items such as these. 5:50:31 Public Hearing Amok 6:07:45 Approval of Minutes from August 10 and August 24, 2011: Motion: Commissioner Drown moved to approve the minutes of August 10, 2011. Second: Commissioner Wirthlin seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioners Drown, Gallegos, and Wirthlin, all voted "aye". Commissioners Woodhead, Luke and De Lay abstained. The motion passed. Motion: Commissioner Woodhead moved to approve the minutes of August 24, 2011 Second: Commissioner Wirthlin seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioners Drown, Gallegos, Wirthlin and Woodhead, all voted "aye". Commissioners Luke and De Lay abstained. The motion passed. Salt Lake City Planning Commission, September 14, 2011 Page 3 Report of the Chair and Vice Chair: Chairperson Fife had nothing to report. Report of the Director: Planning Director Wilf Sommerkorn stated that the City Council voted on the Walmart rezone, he added that the City Council had been briefed on electric fences and would be voting on it at the next meeting. **Planning Commissioner Dean entered the meeting. Mr. Sommerkorn added that there had been some street closures approved by the City Council. 5:53:15 PLNPCM2010-00591 Noise Regulations Text Amendment, a request by Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker to amend the Environmental Performance Standards in regards to noise to require review by the Salt Lake Valley Health Department when specific non-residential uses are proposed to locate near residential uses. The amendment will affect sections 21A.36.180, 21A.24.190, 21A.26.080, 21A.30.050, 21A.31.050 and 21A.32.140 of the zoning ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A- Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. (Staff Contact: Elizabeth Reining at 801-535-6313 or elizabeth.reining@slcgov.com) Chairperson Fife recognized Elizabeth Reining as staff representative. Ms. Reining stated that this item last came before the Planning Commission at the August 10, 2011 meeting. The proposed ordinance language had not changed since that time. However; since that time, staff had since spoken with a sound engineer. Findings: • Acoustical studies can range in price from S800-10,000.00. o Basic study from the $800-3000 range Examines the existing structure and sound attenuation score is assigned. Salt Lake City Planning Commission, September 14, 2011 Page 4 Ms. Reining stated that based on this information, and further review of the case, staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward an unfavorable recommendation of the petition to the City Council. Ms. Reining added that while the petition had good intentions, it may have unintended consequences and may not address the issue it was created for. It may discourage 24 hour population centers and mixed use developments because of added requirements and cost for businesses located next to residences. Commissioner Woodhead asked if it would be possible to table the motion, and have staff do added research. Planning Manager Norris stated that the determination from staff was that this item would not address the problem it was created to solve. However, if the Planning Commission thought there was additional research that they would like more info on, that staff would be willing to research it. 5:56:30 Motion: Commissioner Luke made the motion in regard to PLNPCM2O1O- ION 00591 Noise Regulations Text Amendment based on the staff report, the testimony heard tonight, and prior testimony, I move that the Planning Commission transmit a negative recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Gallegos seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioners Dean, De Lay, Drown, Luke, Woodhead, Wirthlin, and Gallegos all voted "aye". The motion passed unanimously. 5:56:30 PLNPCM2011-00312 Zoning Text Amendment to Change the Land Use Authority- A request by Mayor Ralph Becker for a Zoning Text Amendment to Title 21A.02 that would eliminate the Board of Adjustment and the Land Use Appeals Board and would appoint a Hearing Officer to act as the city's land use appeal authority. Related provisions of Title 21A- Zoning, Title 2- Administration and Personnel, Title 20 Subdivisions, Title 14—Streets, Sidewalks and Public Places and Title 18—Buildings and Construction may also be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply citywide if adopted by the City Council. (Staff contact: John Anderson at 801-535-7214 or john.anderson@slcgov.com) Salt Lake City Planning Commission, September 14, 2011 Page 5 Chairperson Fife recognized Mr. John Anderson as staff representative. Mr. Anderson gave the history of the request. • State law prior to 2005, any city that had land use ordinance had an appeal board, i.e. a Board of Adjustment. • State law after 2005 stated that an appeal authority, but it did not define what an appeal board would need to be. • Options: o Appointing the Planning Commission or the City Council as the appeal authority. o Maintain the Board of Adjustment. o Using an Hearing Officer o Combination of any thereof. Currently, the City has two appeal authorities, the Board of Adjustment and the Land Use Appeal Board. Justification: • Lack of use. o Special Exceptions were 62% of the cases that the BOA would hear. o Difficulty in filling vacancies. o Administrative Officers could have professional expertise. Staff proposes that the City use an Administrative Hearing Officer, who would be appointed by the Mayor with the consensus of the City Council. It would be required that the individual have a legal background, or worked as an Administrative Hearing Officer in the past. Mr. Anderson stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt the changes that would change the Land Use Appeal process for the City to an Administrative Hearing Officer. Staff also recommended that the Attorney's Office should be given authority to make small technical changes to the proposed ordinance. 6:02:10 Questions from the Commissioners: Commissioner Woodhead asked if the Administrative Hearing Officer would be a full time City employee. Salt Lake City Planning Commission, September 14, 2011 Page 6 Planning Director Sommerkorn responded that it would be on a contract basis, somewhat like a justice court judge. Commissioner De Lay asked who would pay for the Administrative Hearing Officer, would it be the applicant. Planning Director Sommerkorn answered that it would be the City, but the applicant would pay an application fee. Commissioner Luke clarified that it would be only one person making the decision. Commissioner Woodhead added that while she can see the elimination of the Board of Adjustment, the Land Use Appeal board had very specific items that were worthwhile. She noted that she felt that citizens liked to come before a board, and wondered if there was a way to make the Land Use Appeals Board stay in play, but have it function better. Commissioner De Lay asked Mr. Nielson if the proposed authority given to the Legal Office would only apply to grammatical errors. ealek Land Use Attorney agreed. Commissioner Wirthlin asked Commissioner Woodhead if she felt decisions made by the Land Use Appeals Board made better because the decisions were made by more than one person. He asked if there were many split decisions. Commissioner Woodhead replied that there were some lively discussions and there had been, on occasion, some split decisions. Commissioner De Lay said that she thought the community would like to have a "quasi judge" to hear their cases. 6:10:18 Public Hearing: Chairperson Fife opened the Public Hearing, seeing no one chose to speak, he closed the public hearing. Salt Lake City Planning Commission, September 14, 2011 Page 7 Commissioner Woodhead asked for opinions regarding whether or not the other Planning Commissioners agreed with the idea of dismantling the Board of Adjustment and maintaining the Land Use Appeals Board. Commissioner Dean responded that she felt that the perception of the public would be that if the Hearing Officer was an employee of the City, then he or she would have a bias toward the City, where as a Board of volunteers, that perception would not be there. Commissioner Luke stated that he had a problem eliminating a board and replacing them with one individual person, it creates a precedence, regardless of the merits. Planning Manager Nick Norris said that a reason to eliminate these boards were in the nature of what they are hearing. They are hearing appeals of decisions that were made by someone else, and those appeals are very limited in what could have been heard, they are to verify that due process was followed and that ordinances were applied correctly, not to see if the right decision had been made. He noted that the Board of Adjustment and the Land Use Appeals board have the right to overturn a decision. He said that it would fall upon the administration to ensure that the hearing is handled in a fair and neutral way. 6:13:27 Motion: Commissioner De Lay made a motion in regard to PLNPCM2011- 00312, Zoning Text Amendment to change the Land Use Authority based on the information presented tonight, and the testimony heard and the staff report, she recommends that Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for a zoning text amendment that would allow for the appointment of a hearing officer as the Land Use Appeal Authority for the City, and that the Salt Lake'City's Attorney's office have the authority to correct grammatical or punctuation errors in this ordinance as found. Commissioner Gallegos seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioners Wirthlin, Gallegos and De Lay all voted "aye", Commissioners Drown, Luke, Woodhead and Dean all voted "no". The motion failed. Motion: Commissioner Woodhead made the motion as to PLNPCM2011- 00312 Zoning Text Amendment to chapter 21A.06.040 she moved that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Salt Lake City Planning Commission, September 14, 2011 Page 8 Council for a Zoning Text Amendment as attached, but changing the proposed amendment to remove all references to removing the Land Use Appeals Board but retaining references to removing the Board of Adjustment and that the Attorney's office have the authority to correct grammatical or punctuation errors in this ordinance as found. Commissioner Dean seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioners Drown, Woodhead and Dean all voted "aye", Commissioners Luke, Wirthlin, Gallegos and De Lay all voted "no". The motion failed. Chairperson Fife asked Planning Director Sommerkorn for direction. Mr. Sommerkorn responded that they would send the petition to the City Council with no recommendation from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Woodhead asked what would happen if it were sent with a negative recommendation with a paragraph explaining the way they were split. Motion: Commissioner Luke made a motion regarding amendments to chapter 21A.06.040 to eliminate the Board of Adjustment and the Land Use Appeals Board and to appoint a hearing officer to act as an Appeal Authority, case number PLNPCM2011-0031, he moved that the Planning Commission send a negative recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Woodhead seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioners Drown, Luke, and Woodhead all voted "aye". Commissioners Wirthlin, Gallegos, Dean and De Lay all voted "no". The motion failed. Planning Manager Norris asked the Planning Commission for direction on other ways to address the concerns the Planning Commission had. Commissioner Woodhead stated that she felt that the Planning Commissioner just disagreed. My Place Zoning Amendment and Planned Development - a request by Marie Ginman for a Zoning Amendment and a Planned Development at approximately 545 and 555 West 500 North and 446 Tuttle Court in the SR-1A and SR-3 Special Salt Lake City Planning Commission,September 14, 2011 Page 9 Development Pattern Residential Zoning Districts. The property is located in City Council District 3, represented by Stan Penfold. (Staff contact: Katia Pace at 801 535-6354 or katia.pace@slcgov.com) PLNPCM2O11-00203 - a request for a Zoning Amendment at 545 and 555 West 500 North from SR-1A and SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential) to TSA (Transit Station Area)and on the rear of 555 West 500 North from SR-lA to SR-3. PLNSUB2O11-00204 - a request for a Planned Development. The applicant is requesting the Planning Commission waive the standards for public street and sidewalk. Chairperson Fife recognized Katia Pace as staff representative. Ms. Pace stated that this was a request for a zoning amendment and a Planned Development located at 545-555 West 500 North and 446 Tuttle Court, the Guadalupe Neighborhood. Ms. Pace stated that it was an isolated area that was created in the 1890s and early 1900. It consists of a single family home and three duplexes built in1898 facing Tuttle Court and two multifamily buildings built in 1948 facing 500 North. The applicant is asking for a subdivision of three existing parcels, creating three new lots. Ms. Pace said that the request was also for a zoning amendment that would change the zoning from SR-3 and SR1-A to TSA on two apartments buildings. Ms. Pace gave a PowerPoint presentation Ms. Pace stated that staff recommended approval with three conditions: 1. A subdivision plat will be required subject to the Planned Development and Zoning Amendment being approved. As part of the subdivision, declarations will need to be established with an owners association and with long term maintenance mechanism for the lane and private utilities. 2. A deed restriction on the proposed TSA property will be required to guarantee that any future development will not exceed the building height of the existing buildings. 3. The applicant will be required to comply with all applicable recommendations made through the review process. Salt Lake City Planning Commission, September 14, 2011 Page 10 6:28:02 Questions from the Commissioners: Commissioner Dean asked the distance between the project and the closest transit station. Ms. Pace said that from the corner of the lot, 500 N, 500 W to the nearest transit station was exactly .58 which is a little over one half a mile. Ms. Pace added that it was consistent with the North Temple Master Plan. Commissioner Woodhead asked if the Community Councils had any input. Ms. Pace responded that both Community Councils involved were in support. Commissioner Gallegos asked about visibility challenges, he was also concerned about trash pickup. Commissioner Wirthlin asked about the restrictions regarding the height. He suggested that the actual height should be mentioned in the motion. Commissioner Dean asked if there was an alternate to the deed restriction. Ms. Pace said that staff had looked at five different zoning districts, RMF-35, RMF- 45, RMU-35, RMU-45, and MU, and all the zoning districts have a requirement of a minimum lot area that are higher than the TSA, which would preclude the applicant. Chairperson Fife asked about the parking. Ms. Pace responded that at that point, they would park in front of their homes. Comments from the applicant: Margaret Paul, representing the applicant, and Marie Ginman, the applicant spoke. Ms. Paul stated that each of the existing units in the project would have one dedicated parking stall per unit. She said there was adequate lot area available to increase the right of way area by one foot to allow on street parking and still meet the setbacks of the zone. She stated that the new homes in the development would have two off street parking stalls, some would have attached garages that would allow for tandem parking. One home would have a two car garage. Ms. Paul added that the streets will be fully paved. Ms. Paul added that they had not applied for the subdivision because of the zoning question. Questions from the Commissioners: Salt Lake City Planning Commission, September 14, 2011 Page 11 Commissioner Dean asked about the existing three structures, and asked about the parking. Ms. Paul answered that each unit would have a dedicated stall. Commissioner Dean asked about rear yard setback, noting that with the TSA there was no rear or side setbacks. Ms. Paul asked if the Planned Development approval would solidify the site plan. Commissioner Dean said that the only condition that would be added would be the height limitation of 35 feet. Planning Manager Norris stated that in TSA zone in transition areas, as this project would be, there were rear yard and side yard setbacks, there were also additional setbacks if they are next to single family- or two family residential zoning districts. He added that in the transition, the side yard setbacks when adjacent to a single family or two family zoning districts, which the SR-1A is, would be 15 feet. In the rear yard, in the transition, the rear yard setback is 25 feet. Commissioner De Lay asked why they were not changing the zoning to TSA on the entire project. Ms. Paul responded that the SR-3 was a better fit for the interior lot. The Planning Commission and applicant discussed the issues of on street parking. 6:49:39 Public Hearing: George Stuzenberger spoke in favor of the petition. He stated that he appreciated the effort the applicant was putting into the project to help improve their neighborhood. 6 51 :07 Close of Public Hearing 6:51 : 13 Motion: Commissioner Drown made a motion in regard to Planned Development PLNSUB2O11-00204, she moved that based upon the staff recommendation and those detailed on 1,2 and 3 on the staff report, that the Planning Commission approve the development including a deed restriction of 30 feet, subject to approval of the zoning mapamendment. Salt Lake City Planning Commission, September 14, 2011 Page 12 Commissioner Woodhead seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioners Wirthlin, Gallegos, Dean, De Lay, Drown, Luke and Woodhead all voted "aye". The petition passed unanimously. Motion: Commissioner Drown made a motion in regard to Zoning Amendment PLNPCM2011-00203 she moved that based on the staff recommendation and the testimony heard this evening, That the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to rezone the property from SR-1A to TSA and Sr-3.Commissioner Wirthlin seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioners Wirthlin, Gallegos, Dean, De Lay, Drown, Luke and Woodhead all voted "aye". The petition passed unanimously. Columbus Court PUD Zoning Amendment and Minor Subdivision- A request by Ensign Foreground L.C. for a Zoning Amendment and a Minor Subdivision amendment at approximately 700 N. Columbus Court in the FR-2/21,780 (Foothill Residential) Zoning District. The properties are located in Council District 3, represented by Stan Penfold. (Staff contact: Michaela Oktay at (801) 535-6003 or michaela.oktay@slcgov.com). a) PLNPCM2011-00091- A request to rezone properties from FR-2/21,780 dasibt (Foothill Residential) to R-1-5,000 (Single Family Residential) in order perform a minor subdivision to divide six lots into 12 lots. b) PLNSUB2011-00090- A request for a minor subdivision to divide six existing lots into 12 lots, and to combine three adjacent lots into one lot. Chairperson Fife recognized Michaela Oktay as staff representative. Ms. Oktay stated that the applicant Chris Robinson was in attendance representing Columbus Court HOA and Ensign Foreground L.C. Ms. Oktay stated that the applicant had two requests, a minor subdivision and a zoning map amendment. In 2007, Mr. Robinson owned approximately 45 acres of land in the foothills. In 2007, he dedicated 40 acres to the City for natural open space, he developed a 6 lot subdivision, Columbus Court PUD and came to the Planning Commission and received Planned Development approval for a six lot cluster development with a private street and vacated a right of way and transferred the land to abutting land owners. Salt Lake City Planning Commission, September 14, 2011 Page 13 Ms. Oktay said the Mr. Robinson would like to change the previously approved half acre lots and subdivide them and make them quarter acre size instead. To subdivide these lots the zoning would need to be changed from FR-2 to an R- 1/5000 Zoning District. The applicant was proposing 6 more homes and would need the rezone to accomplish that. Ms. Oktay noted the similarities and differences from the FR-2 and the R-1/5000. She stated that the land-uses are generally the same, save that conditional use would be required for a seminary or an assisted living facility. Houses in the R- 1/5000 are not generally as large as proposed, but because of the type of land, there is quite a lot of undevelopable area in each one of these proposed quarter acre lots. Ms. Oktay stated that staff was recommending that the Planning Commission approve both petitions. Questions from the Commissioners: Commissioner Dean asked if a FR-3 zone was considered. Mr. Robinson responded that he did not know what that meant, but he met with Joel Paterson and Doug Dansie and thought this was the best solution. Commissioner Dean added that an FR-3 zone was closer to the lot size the applicant was proposing, but would add the extra layers of protection of foothill.development in terms of landscape guidelines erosion controls, approval of landscape plans and maintenance of trees. Ms. Oktay stated that the current zoning was low density instead of foothill protection. Planning Manager Norris explained that the primary differences between an FR-2 and an FR-3 were lot size and minimum lot widths. The minimum lot width in an FR-2 is 100 feet, in FR-3 would be 80 feet for interior yards and 100 feet for corners. The properties in question were not corner yards. The foothill protection would not be in place in the proposal. Commissioner Woodhead asked if there could be a condition that the protections of the foothill development that the developer would need to follow the landscape environmental protections of the foothill zone as a condition. Salt Lake City Planning Commission, September 14, 2011 Page 14 Planning Manager Norris stated that you cannot apply the standards from one zoning district to another zoning district. Mr. Christopher Robinson, the applicant, described the history of the plots and explained the need for the change in zoning. Commissioner Dean asked for clarification on the Future Land Use map, page 6 item 1. It had been stated that this item was consistent with the Future Land Use Map, but on the Map it is labeled as Foothill Preservation, Residential. Ms. Oktay responded that the map in the staff report had not been updated, and it had been changed by the City Council in 2007, and was labeled as low density residential. 7:12:22 Public Hearing: George Stazenburger, spoke in opposition stating that the last vote at community council was nearly unanimous against changing the zone. He said that the traffic issue was a huge problem. He noted his concern over the additional lots. He added that he was also concerned about the on street parking at the four-plexes further to the south, and that many people turn around on their street. Commissioner Woodhead asked if there were issues other than the addition lots. Commissioner De Lay reiterated that it seemed that the complaints were that no one was enforcing parking, signage was poor. Commissioner Gallegos asked if the Capitol Community Council took a vote on this issue. Mr. Stazenburger said that it was nearly unanimous in opposition. Ms. Oktay clarified that staff was present at the first Community Council meeting with the applicant, and she felt that there was a favorable attitude in the room. There had been concerns regarding traffic, and the vote was taken later. Mr. Robinson responded by saying that the year prior to his proposal, he went before the Community Council and discussed the options available. He felt that he had their support. He stated that he understood Mr. Stazenburger's issues, but the parking issue was not his problem. Salt Lake City Planning Commission, September 14, 2011 Page 15 He stated that he believed that the addition of these lots would not impact the traffic. 7:28:34 Close of Public Hearing: Commissioner Dean stated that she understood the desire to increase the number of lots and decrease the size, but was hoping there could be some compromise that would offer protection of the foothill residential zone. Commissioner Woodhead asked if it was possible to change the zone to FR-3. Land Use Attorney, Paul Nielson responded that because it was not noticed to changed to FR-3, the item would need to be tabled and voted on later. Planning Manager Nick Norris said that this was a request by a property owner and the Commission should vote on it as proposed. Commissioner De Lay said that this was the zone change the applicant wanted, and that they should vote on it as it is. 7:30:08 Motion: Commissioner De Lay made a motion in regard in PLNPCM2011- 00091 Zoning Map Amendment, based on the testimony heard tonight, and the staff report, I move that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Woodhead seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Wirthlin, Gallegos, De Lay, Drown, Luke and Woodhead all voted "aye", Commissioner Dean voted "no". The motion passed. Motion: Commissioner De Lay made a motion in regard to PLNSUB2011- 00090, subdivision amendment, based on the testimony tonight, and the information in the staff report, I move that the Planning Commission grant approval for a preliminary plat for Columbus Court PUD, subdivision amendment, and plat 3 block 20, subject to the condition in the staff report and conditioned on the approval of the Zoning Map Amendment. Salt Lake City Planning Commission, September 14, 2011 Page 16 Commissioner Wirthlin seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioners De Lay, Drown, Luke, Woodhead, and Gallegos all voted "aye", Commissioner Dean voted "no". The motion passed. PLNSUB2011-00382 Planned Development Amendment- a request by Darlene Batatian, representing Dee's Inc., to amend a previous planned development proposal located at approximately 1345 S. Foothill Drive, in the CB, Community Business District. The property is in Council District 6 represented by JT Martin. The applicant is requesting to move and alter a legal non-conforming existing sign and to allow two signs fronting Foothill Drive. (Staff contact: Michaela Oktay at 801- 535-6003 or michaela.oktay@slcgov.com) Chairperson Fife recognized Ms. Michaela Oktay as staff representative. Commissioner Wirthlin recused himself from the issue due to professional involvement. Ms. Oktay stated that this was a request for an amendment to a planned development to allow both a pole sign and a monument sign on the frontage, — Foothill Drive. Ms. Oktay gave a brief history of the project, which received conditional use approval for a hotel in 2009 and also went through the Conditional Building and Site Design review and a Planned Development to reduce the front yard setback for the parking structure. The sign in question was part of the planned development. There were two requests involved in the plan development amendment. First, the applicants would like to keep the Scenic Motel sign, but they have found that the sign conflicts with the canopy and the architectural style of the building. The proposal was to move the legal non-complying sign to make way for the building construction. The applicant would like to move the sign and refurbish it to make it more energy efficient and meet the corporate needs for the Hampton Inn sign. The applicant was also requesting an additional monument sign. Statement from the Applicant: Darlene Batatian with Mountain Land Development Service, and working on behalf , of Dee's Corporation, spoke. She stated that it was their intention to maintain the sign on the property. However, they would like to repurpose the sign so that it will Salt Lake City Planning Commission, September 14, 2011 Page 17 fit the new site development. The applicant would alter the lighting and the wiring so that it would not be a high energy consumptive neon sign, instead be retrofitted with LED lighting in order to be more energy efficient. They would also like to relocate the sign. Ms. Batatian said that the sign ordinance did not allow them to move, alter or refurbish a non-conforming sign. However, the planned development process does allow for flexibility in the site development plan, they are coming to the Planning Commission to get input. Commissioner Woodhead asked if the wording "Scenic Motel" could be retained. Commissioner Woodhead stated that she felt those in support of keeping the sign wanted it to be kept intact. Mr. Wade Olsen, applicant, answered that the emails he received were in favor of changes to the sign. He said that they would not refurbish the sign exactly as it was. Commissioner Dean asked what was in the original planned development in regard to the sign. Ms. Batatian answered that the sign was not dealt with specifically, but the architectural elevations that were provided and reviewed at the time of the original planned development included the sign. Planning Commissioners discussed whether the renderings presented at the prior meeting protected the sign. Ms. Batatian stated that the sign was included on the architectural elevations, but not on the site plan. Commissioner Woodhead suggested that the item be tabled, and staff give an update to the legal status of the sign. 7:56:42 Public Hearing Chairperson Fife opened the public hearing, seeing no one chose to speak, he closed the public hearing. Discussion Salt Lake City Planning Commission,September 14, 2011 Page 18 Commissioner Dean said that it was her opinion that sign should be preserved as is, or should not be preserved at all. Commissioner De Lay added that she did not mind them moving the sign or having a monument sign because it would benefit the businesses there. Planning Director Sommerkorn stated the normal provision on a non-conforming sign was that it cannot be reconstructed, raised, moved, replaced, extended, altered or enlarged unless it was changed to conform to the requirements of the zone that it was in now. Alterations shall also mean changing the text or the message of the sign as a result in change of use of the property. Planning Director Sommerkorn said that planned development changes everything. Planning Manager Norris said that after looking the staff report from that meeting in 2010, in the discussion under the planned development standard that would deal with any historic architecture or environmental feature of the property. The finding said that there were no historic features. He said that the sign according to the zoning ordinances was not considered an historic sign, and was not protected. Commissioner Woodhead asked if the fact the sign was in the drawing had any bearing on its protection. Planning Manager Norris said that the staff report does say they could change text on the sign, on the pictures instead of motel, it said plaza. Commissioner Woodhead asked about the promise to not put a monument sign on 2300 East. Planning Commissioners discussed the placement of a monument sign on 2300 east. 8:05:45 Motion: Commissioner De Lay made a motion in regard to PLNSUB2011- 00382, based on the findings listed on the staff report, testimony heard this evening, i move that the Planning Commission approve the application as proposed subject to the following conditions: 1. Per staff report, 2. Per the staff report, 3. Allowed modifications from standards A. Move and only alter electronically by upgrading with LED lights and repainting the legal non-conforming, non-complying sign within approximately 25 feet, or as indicated by the site plan submitted and allow monument sign in addition to pole sign on Foothill Drive. Salt Lake City Planning Commission, September 14, 2011 Page 19 Commissioner Woodhead seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioners Dean, Gallegos, Woodhead, Luke, Drown and De Lay all voted "aye". The motion passed unanimously. PLNPCM2O11-00311 Former Fleet Block Surplus Property Request - A request by the Salt Lake City Property Management Division for a Declaration of Surplus Property for the vacated former Fleets and Sanitation Facility located at approximately 850 S 300 West. The subject property is located in a PL (Public Lands) zoning district in Council District 4, represented by Luke Garrott. (Staff Contact: Daniel Echeverria at 801-535-7152 or daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com) Chairperson Fife recognized Daniel Echeverria as staff representative. Mr. Echeverria stated that this was a surplus property request from the Property Management Division for what was known as the Fleet Block located at approximately 850 South and 300 West. The City used this property for the fleet Streets and Sanitation Service, that department had since moved its facility. There are three buildings and a vacant parking lot. Mr. Echeverria stated that the Redevelopment Agency will be evaluating and marketing the property for development. There were no exact plans. 8:10:02 Public Hearing Chairperson Fife opened the public hearing, seeing no one chose to speak he closed the public hearing. 8:10:05 Motion: Commissioner Gallegos made the motion in regard to PLNPCM2O1O-00311 based on the findings within this staff report, recommendations the Planning Commission declare this property at 850 S 300 W as surplus and forward a recommendation to the Mayor to surplus the property. Commissioner Dean seconded the motion. Salt Lake City Planning Commission, September 14, 2011 Page 20 Vote: Commissioners Dean, Gallegos, Woodhead, Luke, Drown and De Lay all voted "aye". The motion passed unanimously. 8:11:04 Meeting adjourned. • Salt Lake City Planning Commission, September 14, 2011 Page 21 OFFICE USE ONLY • "'" ' „"' Zoning Amendment Petition No.0i,Ni c. ut l—Oo 01` Iv 4:1',79i.1.-"S Date Received: 3 -N—; of( •Rai4_sr",--- =d; =i-► - o Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance by amending Section: Reviewed By: 7;t e,�,_ 4 [7,41 7 l --,,� 7l li{m'' • I b`mend the Zoning Map by reclassifying the above property from a • .one to a zone.(attach map or legal description) Address of Subject Property: Approximately 700 North Columbus Street, Salt Lake City, UT Name of Applicant: Christopher F. Robinson Phone: 801-599-4397 rr/�� Address of Applicant: P.O. Box 540478, North Salt Lake, UT 84054 V1 E-mail Address of Applicant: crobi nson@theensigngroup.com Cell/Fax: 801 -599-4397/801-677-6416 Applicant's Interest in Subject Property: Man er off Entity ty that Owns Pro erty L_I �■■� orF resident p Name of Property Owner: Ensign Foreground, L.C. * Phone: 801-599-4397 E-mail Address of Property Owner: crobi nson@theensi gngroup m.Cell/Fax:801-599-4397/801-677-4616 County Tax ("Bidwell t"): See attached Zoning: FR-2 Legal Description(if different than tax parcel number): See attached Proposed Property Use Existing Property Use Please include with the application: ra) 1. A statement of the text amendment or map amendment describing the purpose for the amendment and the exact language,boundaries and zoning district. *111.13 2. A complete description of the proposed use of the property where appropriate. 3. Reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area. )11111 4. Printed address labels for all property owners within 450 feet of the subject property. The address and Sidwell number of each property owner must be typed or clearly printed on gummed mailing label.Please include yourself and the appropriate Community Council Chair(s). Address labels are available at the address listed below.The cost of first class postage for each address is due at time of application.Please do not provide postage stamps. tilli 5. Legal description of the property. 6. Six(6)copies of site plans drawn to scale and one(1) 11 x 17 inch reduced copy of each plan and elevation drawing. 7. .lf applicable,a signed,'notarized statement of consent from property owner authorizing applicant to act as agent 8. Filing fee of S885.92,plus S110.74 for each acre over one acre and the cost of first class postage is due at time of application. Applications must be reviewed prior to submission.Please call 535-7700 for an appointment to review your ��,,..��,,�� application. Notice: Additional information may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate information is provided for staff analysis. 1 All information submitted as part of the application may be copied and made public including professional architectural or engineering drawings which will be made available to decision makers,public and any interested party. --..o.._, , 'V 1 * and the Columbus Court Homeowners ' Association Feb 2008 County tax parcel("Sidwell")maps and names of property owners are available at: File the complete application at: Salt Lake County Recorder Salt Lake City Buzz Center 2001 South State Street,Room N1600 451 South State Street,Room 215, Salt Lake City,UT 84190-1051 Salt Lake City,UT 841 1 1 Telephone:(801)468-3391 Columbus Court Homeowners' Association and Ensign Foreground, L.C. , (a Utah limited liability company Signature of Property Owner By� NA-4,11A- `� 1 "+' 3 32b I/ Christo r F . Robinson, Manager and Preside Or authorized ngent p g Q Il t February 28, 2011 • 4111144, ENSIGN FOREGROUND, L.C. AND COLUMBUS COURT HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION 925 West 100 North, Suite F P.O. Box 540478 North Salt Lake, Utah 84054 March 4, 2011 Mayor Ralph Becker do Salt Lake City Buzz Center 451 South State Street,Room 215 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 RE: Master Plan Amendment, Zoning Amendment, and Subdivision Amendment for Amended Plat of Lots 1-6 and Parcels 13, C, F, and G of Columbus Court PUD and Lots 12-14 of Salt Lake City Survey, Plat J, Block 20(the "Amended Plat") Dear Mayor Becker: We, Ensign Foreground, L.C., recorded the Columbus Court PUD subdivision plat (the "CC Plat") in early 2008. It consists of single family estate building Lots 1-6, which each is approximately IA acre in size or bigger and several non-buildable `alpha" parcels, including the 39 acre Parcel A which was deeded to the City and zoned as natural open space. All of the subdivision improvements for the CC Plat were completed in 2009 and all improvement bonds have been released. The CC Plat also provided access via a private driveway to Lots 12-14 of Salt Lake City Survey, Block 20, Plat J("Plat J" and the"Plat J Lots") which theoretically "front" on Cortez Street but which couldn't easily he accessed from Cortez Street due to very steep slopes. However, because of the "Great Recession" and the paradigm shift in attitudes away from high-end homes, coupled with the fact that the surrounding DeSoto/Cortez neighborhood is made up of more modest homes, we have been unable to sell these high-end lots. Nor do we believe that there will be a market for these lots as currently configured in the foreseeable future. Therefore, we desire to basically divide in half the six lots in the CC Plat into twelve (12) smaller lots. We also desire to amend Plat J to combine the Plat J Lots into one lot and officially make it a part of the Columbus Court development. Therefore, upon approval and recordation, the Amended Plat would consist of thirteen (13) lots, as conceptually shown in the attached drawing. 1 In order to process the Amended Plat,we understand that we must first amend the Capitol Hill Master Plan to change the area encompassed by the CC Plat from Foothill Preservation Residential to Very Low Density Residential 1-5 du/acre, which is the same Future Land Use now shown for the DeSoto/Cortez neighborhood. In essence, Columbus Court would become an extension of the DeSoto/Cortez neighborhood. Please find attached our application for the Master Plan Amendment. In addition to the Master Plan Amendment, we hereby request that the tracts of land described in the Amended Plat and shown by tax parcel number, address, and size in the Land Summary attached hereto be rezoned from FR-2 to R-1/5000 Single Family Residential District(except for the Plat J Lots which are alrea y zoned R-2, an acceptable zone). Please find attached our application for Zoning Amendment. • Finally, please find attached our Subdivision Amendment Application to allow us to amend the CC Plat and Plat J to create the Amended Plat. There will be very little additional improvements needed to finish these 13 lots in the Amended Plat. All of the roadways are in, but six additional sewer and water laterals will need to be stubbed into half of the lots and some of the dry utility (gas, electric, telecom, cable) boxes may need to be relocated. There should not be a need for any eartlunoving or grading, other than during the construction of the homes. We respectfully request that these applications be processed concurrently (as much as is possible) to allow us to make these changes during the upcoming construction season. Best regards, ENSIGN FOREGROUND, L.C. AND COLUMBUS COURT HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION By: Clk,A44.1310\9—. Pt4144-en Christopher F. Robinson Manager & President,respectively Attachments: Concept of Amended Plat Property Summary Master Plan Amendment Zoning Amendment Subdivision Amendment Application 2 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION ,��,▪,►,�\\1: ': //,/i 17"1 Buzz Center ittL: "��r;��� _' ' 451 South State Street,Room 215 Phone: (801)535-7700 L� h � P.O. Box 145471 Fax:(801)535-7750 Salt Lake City, • �, � Utah 84114 Date: Mar 04,2011 rrrl r Wit IN'S PLANNING COMMISSION PO BOX 540478 NORTH SALT LAKE,UT 84054 Project Name: Project Address: 50 E COLUMBUS CT Detailed Description: Amount Description Qty Dept C Ctr Obj Invoice Paid Due Invoice Number:844783 Filing Fee( 6 106 100900 125111 $1,439.62 Postage for Planning Petitions( 93 P6 100900 1890 $40.92 Total for invoice 844783 $1,480.54 $1,480.54 Total for PLNPCM2011-00091 $1,480.54 $1,480.54' OFFICE USE ONLY Intake By: AJ1631 CAP ID# -,' PLNPCM2011-00091 Total Due:$1,480.54 11111111111 II II III III II 1 II II II III 111 II www.slcpermits.eom P L N P C M 2 0 1 1 - O O O O 1 ENSIGN FORM ZOUND, L.C. AND COLUMBUS COURT HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION P.O. BOX 540478 NORTH SALT LAKE, UTAH 84054 CC Tax Parcels for Applications 3 3 2011.xls Attachment to Applications to Salt Lake City Corporation LAND SUMMARY LOT/PARCEL NUMBER OR TAX PARCEL NUMBER LETTER SIZE IN ACRES STREET ADDRESS OWNED BY ENSIGN FOREGROUND, L.C.: 09-30-351-042-0000 Lot 6 i 0.53 55 E Columbus Ct `'09-30-351-043-0000 Lot 5 0.49 65 E Columbus Ct 09-30-351-044-0000 Lot 4 1.35 72 E Columbus Ct �09-30-351-045-0000 Lot 1 _ _ 0.45 40 E Columbus Ct ✓ 09-30-351-046-0000 Lot 2 0.40 150 E Columbus Ct 09-30-351-047-0000 Lot 3 0.40 160 E Columbus Ct _^ "09-30-351-050-0000 Parcel C 0.09 09-30-351-051-0000 Parcel B 0.17 Lots 12-14, Plat J Block 20, Salt 09-30-354-003-0000 Lake Survey 0.51 695 N Cortez St Subtotal owned by Ensign Foreground, L.C. 4.39 OWNED BY COLUMBUS COURT HOA: 09-30-351-041-0000 Parcel F 1.85 09-30-351-052-0000 Parcel G 0.04 09-30-351-055-0000 Private Street within Parcel F 3.63 --- ------ — Subtotal owned by Columbus Court Homeowners Association 5.52 GRAND TOTAL 9.91 Date Printed:3/3/2011 1 MEMORANDUM DATE: November 10,2011 TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks RE: Proposed Ordinance Amendment to Allow Parking Enforcement Officers to Ride Bicycles on Downtown Sidewalks CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson,David Everitt,Ed Rutan,Neil Lindberg,Rick Graham,Chris Burbank,Frank Gray,Tim Harpst,Jennifer Bruno,Gina Chamness,Alden Breinholt,Robert Farrington,Boyd Ferguson,Nick Tarbet,Becka Roolf,Brady Wheeler,Patricia Williams This memorandum pertains to a proposed ordinance that would allow parking enforcement officers to ride bicycles on sidewalks downtown to check parking meters.The item is scheduled for a briefing during the City Council work session November 15.The work session is scheduled to start in Room 326 of the City&County Building,451 S.State Street,at 4:30 p.m.or after the end of the meeting of the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency Key Points o Salt Lake City Code section 12.80.160 prohibits anyone from riding a bicycle on sidewalks downtown except Salt Lake City police officers"in the scope and course of their employment." o According to the Administration transmittal letter,Parking Enforcement is considering having up to six parking enforcement officers operating downtown.Riding bicycles on the sidewalk would be a safer option for the officers than riding in the street,according to the transmittal letter. o The Downtown in this instance is defined as the Central Traffic District which is described in City Code section 12.104.010 as roughly bordered by North Temple,200 East,500 South and 400 West streets.The specific description is the area: Commencing at the northwest corner of the intersection of North Temple Street and 4th West Street,thence along the west curb line of 4th West Street to the southwest corner of the intersection of 4th West and 5th South Street,thence east along the north curb line of 5th South Street to the northeast corner of the intersection of 2nd East Street and 5th South Street, thence north along the east curb line of 2nd East Street to the northeast corner of the intersection of 2nd East Street and South Temple Street, thence west along the north curb line of South Temple Street to the northeast corner of the intersection of State Street and South Temple Street, thence north along the east curb line of State Street to the northeast corner of the intersection of State Street and North Temple Street,thence west along the north curb line of North Temple Street to the place of beginning. OPTIONS o Adopt the proposed ordinance. o Do not adopt the proposed ordinance. o Amend the proposed ordinance. POTENTIAL MOTIONS o I move that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending section 12.80.160 of the Sall Lake City Code,relating to the central traffic district bicycle riding restriction. o I move that the City Council consider the next item on the agenda. o I move that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending section 12.80.160 of the Salt Lake City Code,relating to the central traffic district bicycle riding restriction with the following amendments(Council Members may propose any amendment they deem appropriate.) ISSUES/QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION o The transmittal letter indicates there will be no budget impact from implementing the new program. • How will there be no effect on the budget? • Does no budget impact mean the Parking Enforcement group will be drawn from the current pool of parking enforcement officers? • Would the creation of a squad of up to six people represent an increase in parking enforcement downtown? • Would creation of a squad of up to six people mean a reduction in parking enforcement in other areas of the City? • o Would parking enforcement officers go through training similar to the Salt Lake City Police Department bicycle squad,if the proposed ordinance is adopted? BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The full text of City Code section 12.80.160 reads:"It is unlawful for operators of bicycles to ride any bicycle upon any sidewalk within the"central traffic district",as defined in section 12.04.090 of this title,or its successor,and as described in section 12.104.010,"Schedule 1,Central Traffic District,"of this title,or its successor,and made a part hereof by reference,or on any other area where prohibited by signs,provided,however,the foregoing shall not apply to police officers in the scope and course of their employment." People are allowed to ride bicycles on Salt Lake City sidewalks except"where prohibited by a traffic control device or ordinance."(Please see attachment:City Code section 12.80.105.) 2 The Administration would like to amend section 12.80.160 to allow parking enforcement officers to ride bicycles on sidewalks in the Central Traffic District to monitor vehicles parked at parking meters. According to the Administration transmittal letter, the Public Services Department is considering creating a parking enforcement group of up to six people to ride bicycles in the district to monitor vehicles at meters. According to the transmittal letter, riding bicycles on the sidewalks would be safer than riding bicycles on streets in the district. People generally are prohibited from riding bicycles on sidewalks downtown for the safety and convenience of pedestrians who walk there. However,the Police Department has operated a bicycle patrol downtown for several years. As part of their assignment to the patrols, officers take a course in bicycle safety and operating on sidewalks. One potential benefit to allowing parking enforcement officers to operate on downtown sidewalks is an increase in the number of people with the ability to contact police officers if illegal activity is observed. • • • • • Sterling Codifiers, Inc. Page 1 of 2 12.80.105: BICYCLES AND HUMAN POWERED VEHICLES OR DEVICES TO YIELD RIGHT OF WAY TO PEDESTRIANS ON SIDEWALKS, PATHS, OR TRAILS; USES PROHIBITED; NEGLIGENT COLLISION PROHIBITED; SPEED RESTRICTIONS; RIGHTS AND DUTIES SAME AS PEDESTRIANS: A. A person operating a bicycle or a vehicle or device propelled by human power shall: 1. Yield the right of way to any pedestrian; and 2. Give an audible signal before overtaking and passing a pedestrian. B. A person may not operate a bicycle or a vehicle or device propelled by human power on a sidewalk, path, or trail, or across a roadway in a crosswalk, where prohibited by a traffic control device or ordinance. C. A person may not operate a bicycle or a vehicle or device propelled by human power in a negligent manner so as to collide with a: 1. Pedestrian; or 2. Person operating a: a. Bicycle; or b. Vehicle or device propelled by human power. D. A person operating a bicycle or a vehicle or device propelled by human power on a sidewalk, path, or trail, or across a driveway, or across a roadway on a crosswalk may not operate at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions, giving regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing. E. Except as provided under subsections A and D of this section, a person operating a bicycle or a vehicle or device propelled by human power on a sidewalk, path, or trail, or across a roadway on a crosswalk, has all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances. F. A person operating a bicycle or a vehicle or device propelled by human power on a sidewalk shall proceed only in single file. (Ord. 2-06 § 19, 2006) http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/printnow.php 11/9/2011 ���y SCANNED TO:O� RICHARD GRAHAM R1 Y.GUI W�� 0��_, 1 SCA NNE j2'�"LPH'@E B KE PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR D` •�j • E �g�AVOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES � • / lA DIRECTORS OFFICE /� CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL _ OCT 18 2011 Al 7 [RECEIVED Date Received: �. veritt, 1 of of Staff Date sent to Council: ----�- /b/Z 7z..oii SLC COUNCIL OFCli;l: TO: Jill Remington Love, Chair DATE: October 14, 2011 Salt Lake City Council FROM: Rick Graham, Director c\1 Public Services Department SUBJECT: 12.80.160: Central Traffic District Bicycle Riding Restriction Amendment STAFF CONTACT: Rick Graham, Director 535-7774 Public Services Department Alden Breinholt Operations Division Director 535-7778 RECOMMENDATION: We are recommending that ordinance 12.80.160 be amended to incorporate the addition of Parking Enforcement Officers into the language of the exception that allows biking on sidewalks in the Central Traffic District. The exception currently only includes police officers. BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: The City Compliance Program in concert with the Mayor's Office desires to further improve the environment through reduced fuel and vehicle usage, by implementing a bike Parking Enforcement group. This group will be equipped with bikes and needed protective gear to perform their duties year round in the Central Traffic District. This group would be equipped very similar to the police bike units currently in place within the City. Currently it is anticipated that up to six (6) Parking Enforcement Officers will form this group and the safety of the officers is of paramount concern. Allowing the Parking Enforcement Officers to perform enforcement activities from the sidewalks will support their ongoing safety as it will keep them out of the vehicle traffic lanes during a majority of their shift. PUBLIC PROCESS: None LOCATION: 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 136, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1.3104 MAILING ADDRESS: PD BOX 145469, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 14.5469 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7775 FAX: B01-535-7963 WW W.S LCGO V.COM !T REcrcEEo PAPER SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2011 (Central Traffic District Bicycle Riding Restriction) An ordinance amending Section 12.80.160 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the central traffic district bicycle riding restriction. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Section 12.80.160 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the central traffic district bicycle riding restriction, be, and the same hereby is, amended as follows: 12.80.160: CENTRAL TRAFFIC DISTRICT BICYCLE RIDING RESTRICTION: It is unlawful for operators of bicycles to ride any bicycle upon any sidewalk within the "central traffic district,";as defined in section 12.04.090 of this title, or its successor, and as described in section 12.104.010, "Schedule 1, Central Traffic District,";of this title, or its successor, and made a part hereof by reference, or on any other area where prohibited by signs,provided, however,the foregoing shall not apply to police officers or parking enforcement officers in the scope and course of their employment. SECTION 2. That this ordinance shall take effect immediately upon the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of , 2011. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney's Office Date /o—i —IL SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2011 (Central Traffic District Bicycle Riding Restriction) An ordinance amending Section 12.80.160 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the central traffic district bicycle riding restriction. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Section 12.80.160 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the central traffic district bicycle riding restriction, be, and the same hereby is, amended as follows: 12.80.160: CENTRAL TRAFFIC DISTRICT BICYCLE RIDING RESTRICTION: It is unlawful for operators of bicycles to ride any bicycle upon any sidewalk within the "central traffic district," as defined in section 12.04.090 of this title, or its successor, and as described in section 12.104.010, "Schedule 1, Central Traffic District," of this title, or its successor, and made a part hereof by reference, or on any other area where prohibited by signs, provided, however, the foregoing shall not apply to police officers or parking enforcement officers in the scope and course of their employment. SECTION 2. That this ordinance shall take effect immediately upon the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of , 2011. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney's Office Date (0- is'-f By - r( - — • • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: November 15,2011 SUBJECT: Briefing—Revisions to the City's Waste Water Pre-Treatment Ordinance STAFF REPORT BY: Lehua Weaver ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Department of Public Utilities 11 AND CONTACT PERSON: Tom Ward,Deputy Director AFFECTED DISTRICTS: Citywide The Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities oversees the Water,Storm Water,and the Sewer or Waste Water utilities. In order to prevent contaminants from entering the Waste Water(sewer) system,the City has a pre-treatment section of the code that regulates business activity pertaining to the pre-treatment and discharge of pollutants or materials into the waste water system.Some businesses are required to obtain a permit related to discharge activities,depending on several factors. The permitting and protection processes are under regulation from the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)through the Federal Clean Water Act,and the Utah State Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ),whose rules apply to the City's Waste Water system. c, In response to routine audits conducted by DEQ,some updates to the City Code are necessary.Many of the revisions reflect the language of EPA's model pre-treatment ordinance. The State's requirements have included an extensive public process and review by the City Council. PUBLIC PROCESS • The City Council held a briefing in December 2010 and a public hearing on January 18,2011.The State has also held two open comment periods over the past year.The changes have been reviewed at the State level,and the Council's role is to review and vote on the proposed amendments. The ordinance is scheduled for the Council's consideration on November 22,2011 under Unfinished Business. SUMMARY OF CHANGES For the most part,the recommended changes mirror what the EPA and DEQ set as standard practice for Waste Water utilities.The changes affect permitting,reporting requirements(business to the City), clarity of definitions,and streamlines administrative functions. A more detailed summary of the changes to the City Code are provided below: Permitting process—the following items are clarified in the amended ordinance: • ability of businesses to transfer their permit upon sale(with 60-days notice to the City) r" • increases time allowed for resolving compliance issues • specifications about building and pretreatment procedures to be documented • permit appeal process o Objections would be lodged within 45 days or the permit deemed accepted by the business/user o Appeals to the Director's decision would be taken to Third District Court The Council may wish to consider whether it would be valuable to insert another appeal/review step, even as an option, before an applicant would go through a Court process. Changes to the Reporting Requirements clarify: • reporting frequency • pollutant measurement specifications • compliance with the permit conditions and pretreatment requirements • conditions for reporting waivers • changes to conditions, materials, or occurrence of potential problems Clarity of Definitions - several changes in the ordinance include various housekeeping changes to clarify the following: • quantifies the amount of material that constitutes a pollutant/harmful substance, and measurable units, limits for daily and monthly levels, etc. • definition of a business entity, and what represents a"significant industrial user" • analysis and sample collection and techniques Streamlines Administrative Functions: There are some changes that clarify the Administration's role in handling issues, and clarify the authority to the Public Utilities Director(or designee). According to the Administration, these changes are to provide clarity to the process, streamline the Administration's work, and are consistent with DEQ requirements. Some of the items may be optional, and are recommended by the Administration to increase efficiency. • establish Best Management Practices • clarify that"approval" authority is the State DEQ, and clarifies their role in enforcement actions • allow the Director of the Utility flexibility to permit and regulate unique situations based on impact to the Waste Water system, and to make some changes to permitted actions when necessary to meet the objectives of the Program. Some examples listed in the ordinance include: o apply the discharge requirements and limitations more"stringently" o request additional wastewater analysis; • o make amendments to permits in certain situations o handle enforcement issues with consent orders, require a hearing to show cause, establish terms of compliance, impose emergency shutoff or suspension conditions o identify a"zero discharge facility" for businesses that may elect to dispose of pollutants another way o may downgrade the significance of a user based on discharge characteristics; o calculate equivalent limits or categories for substances not specifically identified in the ordinance • o restrict discharge amounts during peak flow times or other times o require users to prepare an"accidental discharge control plan" o determine the effective duration of a the permit, not to exceed five years The Administration has explained that many of these items give the Director the necessary ability to respond to changing environments,pollutant levels, waste water system fluctuations, and other unique circumstances that might not otherwise be defined or addressed by ordinance, DEQ, or EPA standards, but may impact public health or safety. It should be noted that there are no proposed changes that affect how fees or fines are applied to users. MATTERS AT ISSUE 1. Issues or complaints related to the Waste Water utility are rare. However, of the few calls received, some constituents raise a question about the Council's awareness of items that have been delegated to the Department Director's authority. When the Council delegated authority recently to the Airport, it required that rules established by the Airport be in writing, available to the public, and be established through an Administrative public process that includes a public comment period. This could be reviewed by the Public Utilities Advisory Committee. This approach is consistent with the State rule making process, and the Council may wish to consider the process with the pre-treatment ordinance, too. Documenting the rules would enhance transparency and assure consistency, and would allow City elected officials to point to written requirements when they receive complaints from developers, property/business owners, or Legislators. 2. Fees & Fines a. When the ordinance was being drafted, the City had not started the process with the Consolidated Fee Schedule; therefore the ordinance as drafted refers to a"Salt Lake City Pretreatment Fee document."The Council may wish to either request an updated ordinance that references the Consolidated Fee Schedule, or request that staff draft a motion making the change. b. The changes currently before the Council relate to procedures for pretreatment and permitting and no changes are proposed to how fees have been charged for those activities. However, in staffs review of the ordinance, there are some (pre-existing) sections that give authority to the Department on recovering costs, establishing fines and penalties. When the Council and staff were preparing the first round of the Consolidated Fee Schedule it was designed to capture fees for services, and at least two follow-up steps were identified: evaluate fines and review sections that give Administrative authority over fees. This might be one section that the Council could direct staff to review as part of those future Consolidated Fee Schedule projects. 3. Most of the proposed amendments outline the responsibilities of businesses and users of the waste water system. The list of reporting requirements,permit requirements, and testing responsibilities is outlined in significant detail. The Council may wish to ask for a better understanding of how much additional work this will create for permit applicants. • • BACKGROUND/CONTEXT: Any industry or business considered to discharge a significant amount or type of potentially hazardous material into the waste water system is required to obtain a permit through the Department of Public Utilities and follow related pre-treatment and discharge requirements. The City's requirements for pre-treatment of waste water discharge are regulated by the Federal Clean Water Act and the Utah Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ).The requirements help to prevent harmful materials from entering the waste water system and causing injury or damage to residents,City workers,City infrastructure,or the environment through the post-treatment process at the Waste Water Treatment Plant.The water treated at the Plant is re-introduced to the environment and flows to the Great Salt Lake. Pollutants may include,but are not limited to:oil,grease,hazardous waste,untreatable substances, medical waste,various types of industrial waste,explosives,excessive amounts of material that would negatively impact the Treatment Plan,and material with other characteristics such as`solids'or`heat'. During the Council's last briefmg on the proposed changes,the Council asked about whether impacted businesses would be notified of the changes.The Administration has confirmed that a notification letter was sent to each of the industrial businesses under the Program. Council Members, Attached is a memo from the Administration for the briefing last year, December of 2010. The memo lists items that the Administration identified as "optional", which are items that were not specifically required by DEQ or the EPA, but were suggested by the Administration for streamlining. Some items give the Administration more authority, and if the Council does request that the Administration put their rules in writing as suggested in Council staffs report, there may be some items that the Council may want to include. • PRESENTATION TO CITY COUNCIL DATE: December 7, 2010 TO: Salt Lake City Council Members FROM: Jeff Niermeyer, Tom Ward RE: Proposed Amendments to the Wastewater Pretreatment Ordinance CC: Cindy Gust-Jensen, David Everitt SUBJECT:Wastewater Pre-Treatment Ordinance Revisions The City's Wastewater Pretreatment Program is required and regulated under the Federal Clean Water Act and Utah Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ)rules. The purpose of the pretreatment program is to prevent the introduction of pollutants that put the community or environment at a health or safety risk, or impact the City's sewer collection or treatment system in an adverse way. Examples can include chemicals that create explosive conditions in the sewer, industrial waste streams that disrupt the chemical or biological treatment processes at the City's Water Reclamation Plant, or trace minerals which pass through the treatment plant and result in plant effluent or biosolids violations of the City permit with the State. Pretreatment Regulatory Background: • Clean Water Act(1977 Amendments) • State DEQ Rule R317-8-8 (1983) • SLC program initiated May(1984) • 2009 State Annual Audit The DEQ 2009 annual audit of the pretreatment program resulted in several directives, generally including: • Ordinance revision • Improve tracking/documentation • Local Limits implementation • Review staffing Wastewater Pretreatment Ordinance Revisions: • update using the EPA 2007 Model Sewer Use Ordinance • "streamlining" language and modifications required by EPA • "streamlining" options from the EPA Model Ordinance • Address comments from State 2009 audit • Utah State law modifications • Other changes recommended by City Attorney,consultant(EEC) and staff to improve administration and reduce customer burden The "Optional" EPA streamlining items are listed below. City Council could decide not to include these in the new ordinance. All of these "options" were selected by staff as they have the potential to reduce the regulatory burden for the industries, and once the policies/procedures are set up, reduce the administrative workload for the City. 1. Neel etlidentitil e-usterncrs-Residential customers arc no longer required to submit PU-1 form. Currently all residents are required to submit a PU-1 form by SLC ordinance, which places an unnecessary burden on City and customers. JEFFRY T.NIERMEYER �� RALPH BECKER ` DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES SLIj MAYpn. A WATER SUPPLY AND WATERWORKS WATER RECLAMATION AND STORMWATER Salt Lake City Mayor CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL SCANNED TO.tt c RECEIVED SCANNED BY•.vivylv. Date Received: DATE: 00Zg20// David veritt,Chi of Staff SLC COUNCIL OFFICEDate sent to Council: /p/2/20// TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE:September 28,2011 Jill Remington Love,Chair /j� FROM: Jeff Niermeyer,Department of Public Utilities DirectorOef '!s SUBJECT: Wastewater Pretreatment Ordinance Revisions STAFF CONTACT:Tom Ward,Deputy Director 801-483-6768 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The Department of Public Utilities recommends City Council adopt the attached revisions to Chapters 17.32,17.36,17.52,17.68 and 17.69 of the City Code which generally update the City's wastewater pretreatment program. It is requested the new ordinance be adopted and effective by December 1,2011 to facilitate staff program and permit revisions to meet a Utah DEQ end of year deadline. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The City's wastewater pretreatment program is governed by provisions of the Federal Clean Water Act and Utah Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) rules. The purpose of the pretreatment program and ordinances is to prevent introduction of pollutants into publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) that 1) put city or other personnel at a health or safety risk, 2) put city infrastructure at risk, 3) interfere with the operation of the facility or disposal of municipal biosolids, 4) pass through, interfere or are otherwise incompatible with the treatment works, and 5) to improve opportunities to recycle and reclaim municipal wastewaters and biosolids. DEQ conducts annual audits of the program and the 2009 audit resulted in several directives, including the requirement that the City update its ordinances that relate to wastewater pretreatment. The proposed ordinance revisions update the City's pretreatment program to effect changes recommended over the course of the past year by 1530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84115 TELEPHONE:BO1-4B3.6900 FAX:B01-483-6B 1B HB ATTY-#19915-v1-Pretreatment Ordinance_(Legislative_Version_9-11)_(2).DOC Salt Lake City Ordinance No. of 2011 (Amending Chapters 17.32, 17.36, 17.52, 17.68 and 17.69, relating to waste water pretreatment) An ordinance amending certain provisions of Chapters 17.32, 17.36, 17.52, 17.68 and 17.69, Salt Lake City Code,relating to waste water pretreatment. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: —SECTION 1. Chapter 17.32 of Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Article I. General Provisions 17.32.010: SHORT TITLE: This division shall be known as, and references in this division to "this chapter" shall be deemed to refer to,the SALT LAKE CITY WASTEWATER CONTROL ORDINANCE. The Chapters within the Salt Lake City Code that specifically refer to the Industrial Pretreatment Program are 17.32, 17.36, 17.52, 17.68 and 17.69. (Ord. 72-98 § 1, 1998: Ord. 36-93 § 2, 1993: prior code § 37-1-1) 17.32.020: PURPOSE OF PROVISIONS: A. _It is necessary for the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the POTW to regulate the collection of wastewater and treatment thereof to provide for maximum public benefit._The provisions set forth in this division are uniform requirements for direct and indirect contributors into the wastewater collection and treatment system for the POTW, and enable the POTW to comply with all applicable local, state and federal laws. B. _The objectives are: 1._To prevent the introduction of pollutants into the POTW which will interfere with the operation of the systemPOTW or contaminate the resulting sludge; 2._To prevent the introduction of pollutants into the POTW which will pass-tlireughPass Through the syster POTW, inadequately treated, into receiving waters or the atmosphere, or otherwise be incompatible with the systemPOTW; 3, 1 HB ATTY-#19915-v1-Pretreatment_Ordinance_(Legislative_Version_9-1 I)_(2).DOC 17.32.035: SEVERABILITY: If any provision of this Wastewater Control Ordinance is invalidated by any court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall not be affected and shall continue in full force and effect. Article II. Definitions 17.32.040: DEFINITIONS, GENERALLY: Unless the context specifically indicates otherwise, the following terms and phrases, as used in this-divisienthe Wastewater Control Ordinance, shall have the meanings hereinafter designated in this article._(Ord. 36-93 § 2, 1993:prior code § 37-1-3) 17.32.050: ABBREVIATIONS: The following abbreviations shall have the designated meanings: - - - I BMP: Best Management Practice BOD: Biochemical oxygen demand. CFR: Code of federal regulations. 3 CIU: ,Categorical Industrial User COD: Chemical oxygen demand. cP: Centipoise = 0.01 poise = cgs unit of absolute viscosity, gm sec x cm EPA: The United States Environmental Protection Agency or its successors. 1: Liter. mg: Milligrams. mgll: Milligrams per liter. NPDES: 3 HB_ATTY-#19915-v1-Pretreatment Ordinance_(Legislative_Version 9-11)_(2).DOC B. A general partner or proprietor if the industrial userl. The president, secretary, treasurer, or a vice-president of the corporation in charge of a principal business function, or any other person whoperforms similar policy or decision-making functions for the corporation; or 2. The manager of one or more manufacturing,production, or operating facilities,provided the manager is authorized to make management decisions that govern the operation of the regulated facility including having the explicit or implicit duty of making major capital investment recommendations, and initiate and direct other comprehensive measures to assure long-term environmental compliance with environmental laws and regulations; can ensure that the necessary systems are established or actions taken to gather complete and accurate information for wastewater discharge permit requirements; and where authority to sign documents has been assigned or delegated to the manager in accordance with corporate procedures. B. If the User is a partnership or sole proprietorship: a general partner or proprietor, respectively; and_ C ^ d ly authorized representative If the User is a Federal, State, or local governmental facility: a director or highest official appointed or designated to oversee the operation and performance of the activities of the government facility, or their designee. D. The individuals described in paragraphs A through C, above, may designate a Duly Authorized Representative if the authorization is in writing, the authorization specifies the individual designated above if such representative isor position responsible for the overall operation of the€asilitiesfacility from which the indirect discharge originates:or having overall responsibility for environmental matters for the company,and the written authorization is submitted to the Director . (Ord. 36-93 § 2, 1993: prior code § 37-1-3(3)) 17.32.090: BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES: "Best management practices" or BMPs means schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices to implement the prohibitions listed in section 17.36.060.A and B. BMPs include treatment requirements, operating procedures, and practices to control plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, or drainage from raw materials storage. BMPs also include alternative means (i.e., management plans) of complying with, or inplace of certain established categorical Pretreatment Standards and effluent limits. 17.32.100: BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (BOD): 5 HB_ATTY-#19915-v1-Pretreatment Ordinance_(Legislative_Vers)on_9-I l)_(2).DOC shall be made in accordance with methods set forth in 40 CFR 136 or its successor. (Ord. 36-93 § 2, 1993:prior code § 37-1-3(8)) 17.32.1404160: CHLORINE DEMAND: "Chlorine demand" means the amount of chlorine required to produce a free chlorine residual of 0.1 mg/I at the end of the contact period on a sample, in conformance with the procedures described in standard methods set forth in 40 CFR 136 or its successor._(Ord. 36-93 § 2, 1993: prior code § 37-1-3(9))) 17.32.150+170: CITY: "City"means the Salt Lake City Corporation, State of Utah. 17.32 180: COMPATIBLE POLLUTANT: "Compatible pollutant" means biochemical oxygen demand,total suspended solids,pH and fecal coliform bacteria, plus any additional pollutants identified in the works'N-PDE SPublicly Owned Treatment Works' UPDES permit, where the publicly treatment wor'ksPublicly Owned Treatment Works is designed to treat such pollutants and, in fact, does treat such pollutants to the degree required by the POTW's NPDESUPDES permit. (Ord. 36-93 § 2, 1993: prior code § 37-1-3(10)) 17.32. • installation of sewerage facilities. (Ord. 36 93 § 2, 1993:prior code § 37 1 3(11)) 17.32.170: CONTAMINATION: code § 37 1 3(12)) 17.32.180:190: CONTROL AUTHORITY: „ tyn 7 " ppro a1 ., t " delete the Control aut�2c�:ryrne-a-)�.r-��-re€e�'rt�e t�x, •�t�O�iC�acrmci��cFtic�e—, v':--a�� director, if the POTW has an a 4103.11, or its successor.Authority" means Salt Lake City Corporation (Ord. 36-93 § 2, 1993: prior code § 37-1-3(13)) 1 2.1 nn. NONCONTACT COOT JT C W E ,, • „ „ 7 HB ATTY-#19915-v1-Pretreatment Ordinance_(L.egislative_Version 9-11)_(2).DOC " n n n duly authorized official of that agency. (Ord. 36 93 § 2, 1993: prior code § 37 1 3(17)) 17.32.240: 17.32.250: EXISTING SOURCE: "Existing source"means any source of discharge that is not a"New Source." 17.32.260: FATS OILS AND GREASE: "Fats Oils and Grease" ("FOG") shall mean any fats oils or grease of animal or plant origin having a potential to cause Interference with or obstruction to the POTW. 17.32.270: FOOD PREPARATION AND PROCESSING ESTABLISHMENTS: "Food preparation and processing establishments" means establishments engaged in the preparation of food or drink to be consumed on the premises and/or to be delivered or picked up for resale and/or consumption. _(Ord. 36-93 § 2, 1993:prior code § 37-1-3(18)) 17.32.250:280: GARBAGE: "Garbage" means solid wastes from the preparation, cooking and dispensing of food, and from handling, storage and sale of produce._(Ord. 36-93 § 2, 1993: prior code § 37-1-3(19))) 17.32.260:290: GRAB SAMPLE: "Grab sample" means a sample which is taken from a waste stream on a onetimeone-time basis with no regard to the flow in the waste stream and over a period of timer not to exceed fifteen(15) minutes. (Ord. 36-93 § 2, 1993: prior code § 37-1-3(20)) 17.32. 300: HAZARDOUS WASTE: "Holding tank sewage" means any wastewater from holding tanks such as vessels,chemical § 2, 1993: prior code § 37 1 3(21)) "Hazardous waste" means any material having the characteristics identified under or listed pursuant to section 3001 of RCRA and listed in 40 CFR 261; 17.32.280:310: INCOMPATIBLE POLLUTANT: 9 HB_ATTY-#19915-v1-Pretreatment_Ordinance_(Legislative_Version 9-1 1)_(2).DOC B. Causes therefore is a cause of a violation of any requirement of the POTW's NPDESUPDES permit(including an increase in the magnitude or duration of a violation) or of the prevention of sewage sludge use or disposal in compliance with any of the following statutory provisions and regulations or permits issued thereunder or more stringent state or local regulations; secctienSection 405 of the clean water actClean Water Act; the Solid Waste Disposal Act(SWDA), including titleTitle II, more commonly referred to as the resource eenservatienResource Conservation and recovery actRecovery Act (RCRA);stateState regulations contained in any Utah stateState sludge management plan prepared pursuant to subtitle Subtitle D of the SWDA; the clear air actClean Air Act;the aetToxic Substances Control Act; and the arine Protection Research and sanctuaries act.Sanctuaries Act. (Ord. 36-93 § 2, 1993: prior code § 37-1-3(26)) 17.32.330. DIRECTOR. "Di ♦ " tl, di t ,.£..,,blic„til;tie of the POTW r h s or her de ,,.,.,te representative. Ord. 36 93 § 2, 1993:prior code § 37 1 3(27) t b Y ll t t ,1' ch.,~a a limits r~ a �,lgated by_th EP .aA •th t' 307(b) 1 ! \ f'tl, t «z USC 1 3 1'7) t ,,.1,ic n plino to a specific .,to...ry o f vu yF, , 1993: prior code § 37 1 3(28)) 17. 2 0—NA ION C>c T.i iMIN A T ON SYS M (NPDES) PERMI zuc,uuo u v c+ pursuant to section 102 of the act(33 USC 1312), or its successor. (Ord. 36 93 § 2, 1993: prior code § 37 1 3(31)) 17 60 N A T PROHIRITWE DIc Cri rY,Cii STANDARD OR PROHIBITI[7E n n n n , or successor sections. (Ord. 36 93 § 2, 1993: prior code § 37 1 3(29)) 17.32.370: 17.32.370: LOCAL LIMIT: "Local Limit" means specific discharge limits referred to in section 17.36.090 and developed and enforced by the City upon industrial or commercial facilities to implement the general and specific discharge prohibitions listed in section 17.36.060 and 40 CFR 403.5(a)(1) and(b). 11 HB ATTY-#19915-v1-Pretreatment Ordinance_(Legislative_Version 9-II)_(2).DOC which the new facility is engaged in the same general type of activity as the existing source, t'' con,t.u..tio_. of ..h__h-..should be considered. B. Construction on a site at which an existing source is located results in a modification rather than a new source if the construction does not create a new building, structure, facility, or installation meeting the criteria of section A 2 or 3 above but otherwise alters,replaces, or adds to existing process or production equipment. C. Construction of a new source as defined under this paragraph has commenced aftefif the dateowner or operator has: 1. Begun, or caused to begin, as part of pfenatIgatiena continuous onsite construction program a. Any placement, assembly, or installation of facilities or equipment; or b. Significant site preparation work including clearing, excavation, or removal of existing buildings, structures, or facilities which is necessary for the standarplacement, assembly, or installation of new source facilities or equipment; or 2. Entered into a binding contractual obligation for the purchase of facilities or equipment which are intended to be used in its operation. Options to purchase or contracts which can be terminated or modified without substantial loss, and contracts for feasibility, engineering, and design studies do not constitute a contractual obligation under this paragraph. (Ord. 36-93 § 2, 1993:prior code § 37-1-3(30)) 17.32.380+420: NONCONTACT COOLING WATER: "Noncontact cooling water" means water used for cooling that does not come into direct contact with any raw material, intermediate product, waste product, or finished product. (Ord. 36-93 $ 2, 1993: prior code § 37-1-3(14)) 17.32.425: OIL AND GREASE • set forth in'10 CFR 136 or its successor. (Ord.36 93 § 2, 1993) 17.32.390: "Oil and Grease" means the total oil and grease measured in a wastewater sample by methods set forth in 40 CFR 136 or its successor. Oil and Grease is composed of a mixture of all those polar and non polar materials which are soluble in hexane at pH 2 or less, and remain after boiling off the solvent. If an environmental sample is composed of non-polar material (such as petroleum hydrocarbons), and polar materials (such as animal or vegetable oils and fats), EPA Method 1664A will directly quantify all the materials as hexane extractible materials (HEM). 13 • HB ATTY-#19915-v1-Pretreatment Ordinance_(Legislative_Version 9-II)_(2).DOC > > > > > indastfialTmanieipal-and-agFieultur-al-wast-e-dischafgeEl-inte-water,,(Ord. 36-93 § 2, 1993: prior code § 37-1-3(34)) 17.32.43- 470: PRETREATMENT-OR-TREATMENT: "Pretreatment" or "treatment" means the reduction of the amount of pollutants,the elimination of pollutants, or the alteration of the nature of pollutant properties in wastewater to a less harmful state prior to or in lieu of discharging or otherwise introducing such pollutants into a POTW. The reduction or alteration can be obtained by physical, chemical or biological processes,OF process changes, or by other means, except as-prohibited-by/10 CFR section 403.6(d), or its suaeessel.diluting the concentration of the pollutants unless allowed by an applicable Pretreatment Standard. (Ord. 36-93 § 2, 1993: prior code § 37-1-3(35)) 17.32.440:480: PRETREATMENT REQUIREMENTS: "Pretreatment requirements" means any substantive or procedural requirement related to pretreatment, other than a retreatment Standard imposed on an industrial a User. (Ord. 36-93 § 2, 1993:prior code § 37-1-3(36))) 17.32.45W490: PRETREATMENT STANDARDS OR STANDARDS: "Pretreatment Standard" or"Standard"means any regulation containing pollutant discharge limits promulgated by the EPA in accordance with section 307 (b) and(c) of the Act, which applies to Industrial Users. This term includes prohibitive discharge limits established pursuant to 40 CFR 403.5. 17.32.500: PROHIBITED DISCHARGE STANDARDS OR PROHIBITED DISCHARGES: "Prohibited Discharge Standards" or"prohibited discharges" means absolute prohibitions against the discharge of certain substances; these prohibitions appear in section 17.36.060. 17.32.510: PUBLIC SEWER: "Public sewer" shall mean any sewer dedicated to public use and which is controlled by a public corporation or governmental agency. 17.32.520: PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS (POTW): 15 FIB ATTY-#19915-v1-Pretreatment Ordinance_(Legislative_Version_9-II)_(2).DOC 17.32.550: SEWAGE: "Sewage" means thew terborne w steGhuman excrement and gray water(household showers, dishwashing operations, etc.) and any of the wastewater of the community which has been contaminated by use such that treatment is required before it may be safely discharged to the " Wastewater"a " ewag " th„ they „terel,a alalo environment or reused. (Ord. 36-93 § 2, 1993:prior code § 37-1-3(42)) 17.32.5101560: SHALL, WILL AND MAY: "Shall" and "will" are mandatory; "may" is permissive._(Ord. 36-93 § 2, 1993: prior code § 37-1- 3(43))- 17.32.520:570: SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER,(SIU): Except as provided in paragraphs C and D of this definition, a Significant Industrial User is: A. An Industrial User subject to categorical Pretreatment Standards; or B. An Industrial User that: 1. Discharges an average of twenty-five thousand(25,000) gpd or more of process wastewater to the POTW(excluding sanitary,noncontact cooling and boiler blowdown wastewater); 2. Contributes a process wastestream which makes up five (5)percent or more of the average dry weather hydraulic or organic capacity of the POTW treatment plant; or 3. Is designated as such by the City on the basis that it has a reasonable potential for adversely affecting the POTW's operation or for violating any Pretreatment Standard or Requirement. C. The City may determine that an Industrial User subject to categorical Pretreatment Standards is a Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User rather than a Significant Industrial User on a finding that the Industrial User never discharges more than 100 gallons per day (gpd) of total categorical wastewater(excluding sanitary,non-contact cooling and boiler blowdown wastewater, unless specifically included in the Pretreatment Standard) and the following conditions are met: 1. The Industrial User,prior to City's finding,has consistently complied with all applicable categorical Pretreatment Standards and Requirements; 17 HB ATTY-#19915-vl-Pretreatment_Ordinance_(Legislative_Version 9-11)_(2).DOC D.-_Any discharge of a pollutant that has caused imminent endangerment to , teethe public or to the environment, or has resulted in the POTW'sDirector's exercise of its-emergency authority to halt or prevent such a discharge; E.-_Failure to meet, within ninety(90) days after-of the sehedulescheduled date,a compliance schedule milestone contained in a wastewater discharge permit or enforcement order for starting construction, completing construction, or attaining fmal compliance; F.-_Failure to provide;within thirty(34forty-five (45) days after the due date, any required reports such as, including baseline monitoring reports,ninety(90` da reports on compliance fepeftswith categorical Pretreatment Standard deadlines,periodic self_monitoring reports., and reports on compliance with compliance schedules; G.-_Failure to accurately report noncompliance; or H.-_Any other violation or group(s), which may include a violation of vielatiensbest management practices,which the eentfel-autherityDirector determines will adversely affect the operation or implementation of the local pretreatment program._(Ord. 36-93 § 2, 1993) 17.32. : 590: SLUG LOAD OR SLUG DISCHARGE: rr A. Is subject t ..t l .,tegefieai pretreatment standard - t.. my f r(21)hd 0 e 0 o •� O C. Contributes a process waste h' t r vr� . ,f_ (5 ) nt „f tho "g � dry weather hydraulic or organic capacity of the POTW treatment plant; or 19 HB ATTY-#19915-v1-Pretreatment Ordinance_(Legislative_Version 9-11)_(2).DOC "Stormwater" means any flow occurring during or following any form of natural precipitation and resulting therefrom.-, including snowmelt. (Ord. 36-93 § 2, 1993:prior code § 37-1-3(50)) 17.32.580:640: SUBDIVISION: A.-_"Subdivision" means the division of a tract, or lot, or parcel of land into three (3) or more lots, plots, sites or other divisions of land for the purpose, whether immediate or future, of sale or of building development or redevelopment; provided,however, that divisions of land for agricultural purposes or for commercial, manufacturing or industrial purposes shall be exempt._Further,the above defmition shall not apply to the sale or conveyance of any parcel of land which may be shown as one of the lots of a subdivision of which a plat has theretofore been recorded in the office of the county recorder. B.-_The word "subdivide" and any derivative thereof shall have reference to the term "subdivision" as herein defined._(Ord. 36-93 § 2, 1993:prior code § 37-1-3(451)) 17.32.590:650: TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS:OR SUSPENDED SOLIDS: Esuspended "Total suspended solids" or"suspended solids" means the total suspended matter that floats on the surface of or is suspended in water, wastewater or other liquids, and which is removable by laboratory filtering in accordance with methods set forth in 40 CFR 136 or its successor._(Ord. 36-93 § 2, 1993: prior code § 37-1-3(52)) 17.32.600:660: TOXIC POLLUTANT: "Toxic pollutant" means any pollutant or combination of pollutants found to be toxic or stipulated as toxic in regulations promulgated by the administrator of the environmental protection agency under the act. -(Ord. 72-98 § 4, 1998: Ord. 36-93 § 2, 1993:prior code § 37-1- 3(53)) 32 610: USER. "User 17.32.670: UTAH POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (UPDES) PERMIT: "Utah pollution discharge elimination system(UPDES)permit" means any-per-son-who contributes, causesa permit issued pursuant to section R317-8 of the Utah Administrative Code, or its successor. (Ord. 36-93 § 2, 1993: prior code § 37-1-3(5431)) 21 HB ATTY-#19915-v1-Pretreatment Ordinance_(Legislative_Version_9-lt)_(2).DOC 17.32.740: ZERO DISCHARGE INDUSTRIAL FACILITY: "Zero discharge industrial facility" means an industry which may be identified by the Director as a Significant Industrial User, as defined herein,which has voluntarily elected or is required by the categorical pretreatment standard not to discharge any of its process wastewater to the POTW, but to dispose of it by other legal means. For the purposes of inspection, sampling and enforcement, a zero discharge industrial facility shall be considered an Industrial User. SECTION 2. Chapter 17.36 of Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Chapter 17.36 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 17.36.010: SUPERVISION OF POTW: The POTW shall be supervised and directed by the director.Director. (Ord. 36-93 § 3, 1993: prior code § 37-2-1) 17.36.020: FEDERAL C A TT.CORI A T PRETREATMENT STANDARD S: e supefse,1 th 1' 't t' .i h The .lir 1+ctor_ 11 f:t' 11 ff 4 d f'th r e applicable reporting requirements uncle- 0 CF„ 03 1 (Ora 36 93 § 1_993 per code § 37 2 n) 17 -3 03n STATE REQUIREMr.NTS A PPT I! AB E WHEN. t ' t th f ,1 1 t d 1imit.,tie tr aine = this division (Or 36 a en 93 § 3, 1993: prior code § 37 2 7) -7. 01 MORE STRINGENT LIMITATIONS; POTW RIGHTS: The POTW reserves the right to establish perms more stringent limitations or requirements on discharges to the wastewater disposal system if deemed necessary to comply with the objectives presented in section 17.32.020-4-tI}is title„or its successor._(Ord. 36-93 § 3, 1993: prior code § 37-2-8) 23 HB ATTY-#19915-v1-Pretreatment Ordinance_(Legislative_Version 9-11)_(2).DOC other national, stateNational, State, or local pretreatment standards or fequifetnentsPretreatment Standards or Requirements. BT n , e t „trib„te B. Specific Prohibitions: No User shall introduce or cause to be introduced into the POTW the following pollutants, substances to and POTW: , or wastewater: 4, 1. Explosives:_Any liquids, solids or gases which by reason of their nature or quantity are, or may be, sufficient either alone or by interaction with other substances to cause fire or explosienexplosive hazard or be injurious in any other way to the POTW or to the operation of the POTW._At no time shall two (2) successive readings on any explosion hazard meter, at the point of discharge inteto the systemPOTW (or at any point in the system)be more than five percent(5%), nor any single reading over ten percent (10%) of the lower explosive limit (LEL) of the meter, er have ^ closed cup f ashpoint of i t t, a a f . a 1Gahren eit( nn°F), „test methods � cif:ea i nn CFR 261.26 or its successor;. 2. Fire Explosion: Pollutants which create a fire or explosion hazard in the POTW including, but not limited to,wastestreams with a closed cup flashpoint of less than one hundred forty degrees Fahrenheit(140°F) (60 °C)using test methods specified in 40 CFR 261.21 or its successor; 3. Solids: a. Solid or viscous substances in amounts which maywill cause obstruction to the flow in a sewer or other interferencethe POTW resulting in Interference. 2 b. Solid or viscous pollutants in amounts which will interfere with the operation of the wastewater treatment facilities such as,but not limited to:fats oils and grease, garbage with particles greater than one-fourth inch(1/4") in any dimension, animal guts or tissues, paunch manure, bones, hair,hides or fleshings, entrails, whole blood, feathers, ashes, cinder, sand, spent lime, stone or marble dust, metal, glass, plastics, gas, tar, asphalt residues, residues from refining or processing of fuel or lubricating oil, mud or glass grinding or polishing wastes; 4. Low pH Limits:Limit: Any wastewater pH-which will cause corrosive structural damage to the POTW,but in no case discharges with pH of less than 6.0-ef 5.0, unless the POTW is specifically designed to accommodate such discharges. 25 HB_ATTY-#19915-v1-Pretreatment Ordinance_(Legislative_Version_9-1 1)_(2).DOC 10. UPDES Permit Violation:_Any substances which will cause the POTW to violate its NPDESUPDES and/or state disposal system permit or the receiving water quality standards; 11. Objectionable Color:_Any wastewater with objectionable color not removed in the POTW treatment process, such as,but not limited to, dye wastes and vegetable tanning solutions which consequently imparts color to the treatment plant's effluent,thereby violating the POTW's UPDES permit; 9. Temperature: 12. Heat: Any wastewater with heat in amounts which exceeils-any-of the f l owi.,g• a. One hundred twenty degrees Fahrenheit (120°F)at the user's point of discharge; b. O e b.un re,l f„r degrees Fahrenheit at the r „t of entry to th DOT\V* * t c. A temperature which inhibitawill inhibit biological activity in the POTW resulting in Interference,but in no case heat in such quantities that the temperature at the POTW tl en� lant Treatment Plant exceeds 40 °C (104°F); d. A temperature�� i� ne tely or over times caur�tge to the POTW collection facilities. 4-0: 13. Radioactive Wastes:_Any wastewater containing any radioactive wastes or isotopes of such half-life or concentration as may exceed limits established by the direeterDirector in compliance with applicable rtateState or federalFederal regulations; nuisance; 14. Oil Andand Grease: Any wastewater containing petroleum oil,neniodegradablenon- biodegradable cutting oil,products of mineral oil origin or petroleum based grease, in excess of one hundred milligrams per liter(100 mg/1). Biodegradable oil or grease may be permittedte �e hundre er-liter 50 ng i) erag�- -ire these ^ oducts be a11owea i ^ts amounts that will cause inteencelnterference or Pass Through. (Ord. 72-98 § 6, 1998: Ord. 63- 95 § 1, 1995: Ord. 36-93 § 3, 1993:prior code § 37-2-2(5))56718190121 27 HB_ATTY-#19915-v1-Pretreatment Ordinance_(Legislative_Version 9-11)_(2).DOC A. Where a categorical Pretreatment Standard is expressed only in terms of either the mass or the concentration of a pollutant in wastewater, the Director may impose equivalent concentration or mass limits in accordance with paragraphs D and E of this section. B. When the limits in a categorical Pretreatment Standard are expressed only in terms of mass of pollutant per unit of production,the Director may convert the limits to equivalent limitations expressed either as mass of pollutant discharged per day or effluent concentration for purposes of calculating effluent limitations applicable to individual Industrial Users. C. When wastewater subject to a categorical Pretreatment Standard is mixed with wastewater not regulated by the same Standard,the Director shall impose an alternate limit in accordance with 40 CFR 403.6(e). D. When a categorical Pretreatment Standard is expressed only in terms of pollutant concentrations, an Industrial User may request that the City convert the limits to equivalent mass limits. The determination to convert concentration limits to mass limits is within the discretion of the Director. The City may establish equivalent mass limits only if the Industrial User meets all the conditions set forth in sub-sections 1 a, through e,below. 1. To be eligible for equivalent mass limits, the Industrial User must: a. Employ, or demonstrate that it will employ,water conservation methods and technologies that substantially reduce water use during the term of its wastewater discharge permit; b. Currently use control and treatment technologies adequate to achieve compliance with the applicable categorical Pretreatment Standard, and not have used dilution as a substitute for treatment; c. Provide sufficient information to establish the facility's actual average daily flow rate for all wastestreams,based on data from a continuous effluent flow monitoring device, as well as the facility's long-term average production rate. Both the actual average daily flow rate and the long-term average production rate must be representative of current operating conditions:, d. Not have daily flow rates,production levels, or pollutant levels that vary so significantly that equivalent mass limits are not appropriate to control the discharge; and 29 HB_ATTY-#19915-v1-Pretreatment Ordinance_(Legislative_Version_9-11)_(2).DOC E. The Director may convert the mass limits of the categorical Pretreatment Standards of 40 CFR Parts 414, 419, and 455 to concentration limits for purposes of calculating limitations applicable to individual Industrial Users. The conversion is at the discretion of the Director. F. Once included in its permit, the Industrial User must comply with the equivalent limitations developed in this section in lieu of the promulgated categorical Pretreatment Standards from which the equivalent limitations were derived. G. Many categorical Pretreatment Standards specify one limit for calculating maximum daily discharge limitations and a second limit for calculating maximum monthly average, or 4-day average, limitations. Where such standards are being applied,the same production or flow figure shall be used in calculating both the average and the maximum equivalent limitation. H. Any Industrial User operating under a permit incorporating equivalent mass or concentration limits calculated from a production-based standard shall notify the Director within two (2) business days after the User has a reasonable basis to know that the production level will significantly change within the next calendar month. Any User not notifying the Director of such anticipated change will be required to meet the mass or concentration limits in its permit that were based on the original estimate of the long term average production rate. 17.36.080: STATE PRETREATMENT STANDARDS: State requirements and limitations on discharges shall apply when they are more stringent than federal requirements and limitations or those in this chapter. 17.36.090: LOCAL LIMITS: The director shall establish local limits for each of the following: Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mereury Molybdenum Nickel Selenium Silver Zino C-hemioal-oxygen-demand-(COD) 31 HB_ATTY-#19915-v1-Pretreatment_Ordinance_(Legislative_Version_9-I I)_(2).DOC No User shall ever increase the use of process water, or in any way attempt to dilute a discharge as a partial or complete substitute for adequate pretreatment to achieve compliance with a discharge limitation unless expressly authorized by an applicable Pretreatment Standard or Requirement. The Director may impose mass limitations on Users who are using dilution to meet applicable Pretreatment Standards or Requirements, or in other cases when the imposition of mass limitations is appropriate pursuant to 40 CFR 403.6(c)(1). (Ord. 36-93 § 3, 1993: prior code § 37-2-9)) 17.36.120: PRETREATMENT REQUIREMENTS: Users shall provide wastewater treatment as necessary to comply with the Wastewater Control Ordinance and shall achieve compliance with all categorical Pretreatment Standards, local limits, and the prohibitions set out in 17.36.060 within the time limitations specified by EPA, the State, or the Director, whichever is more stringent. Any facilities or equipment (e.g. continuous pH meters, ORP meters) necessary for ensuring consistent compliance shall be provided, operated, and maintained at the User's expense. Detailed plans describing such facilities, equipment and operating procedures shall be submitted to the Director for review, and shall be acceptable to the Director before such facilities are constructed and equipment installed. The review of such plans and operatingprocedures shall in no way relieve the User from the responsibility of modifying such facilities or equipment as necessary to produce a discharge acceptable to the City under the provisions of the Wastewater Control Ordinance. Following completion of construction the Director may request the User to provide copies of as-built drawings to be retained by the Director. Subsequent alterations or additions to such pretreatment or flow control facilities shall not be made without prior notice to the Director. New sources shall install and operate all pollution control equipment required to meet applicable Pretreatment Standards prior to discharging to the POTW; 17.36.130: ADDITIONAL PRETREATMENT MEASURES: A. Whenever deemed necessary, the Director may require Users to restrict their discharge during peak flow periods, designate that certain wastewater be discharged only into specific sewers, relocate and/or consolidate points of discharge, separate sewage wastestreams from industrial wastestreams, and such other conditions as may be necessary to protect the POTW and determine the User's compliance with the requirements of the Wastewater Control Ordinance. B. The Director may require any person discharging into the POTW to install and maintain, on their property and at their expense,a suitable storage and flow-control facility to ensure 33 1-1B_ATTY-#19915-v1-Pretreatment_Ordinance_(Legislative_Version 9-1 I)_(2).DOC E.-_In the event a food processing or preparation establishment installs or has installed an interceptor pursuant to this section,the installation shall not in and of itself,relieve the userUser from complying with section 17.52.090220 of this title.. (Ord. 72-98 § 8, 1998: Ord. 36-93 § 3, 1993:prior code § 37-2-14) n Special User n „t:No statement c ntainea i., this tion shall ben nstrued_as ci c prohibitions r, .ided herei T e 7 f f conditions and for such periods of time as may be deemed reasonable. (Ord. 36 93 § 3, 1993: prior code § 37 2 13) 17.36.120: 17.36.150: ACCIDENTAL DISCHARGE/SLUG DISCHARGE CONTROL PLANS: A. The Director shall evaluate whether each SIU needs an accidental discharge/slug discharge control plan or other action to control slug discharges within one year after the industrial User has been designated an SIU. The Director shall re-evaluate each SIU every two (2) years after the initial evaluation. The Director may require any User to develop, submit for approval, and implement such a plan or take such other action that may be necessary to control slug discharges. Alternatively, the Director may develop such a plan for any User. An accidental discharge/slug discharge control plan shall address, at a minimum, the following: 1. Description of discharge practices, including nonroutine batch discharges; 2. Description of stored chemicals; 3. Procedures for immediately notifying the Director of any accidental or slug discharge, as required by section 17.52.160 F; and 4. Procedures to prevent adverse impact from any accidental or slug discharge. Such procedures include,but are not limited to, inspection and maintenance of storage areas, 35 HB_ATTY-#199 15-v1-Pretreatment Ordinance_(Legislative_Version_9-I I) (2).DOC stoppage in any drain or sewer, and further conditioned that the principal will faithfully observe all ordinances, rules and regulations of said POTW pertaining to plumbing and sewers._(Ord. 36- 93 § 3, 1993: prior code § 37-2-16) 17.36.1301180: PRIVATE FACILITIES; MANDATORY CONNECTION TO SEWERS: A.-_Connection Required When:_The owner or the owner's agent of all houses, buildings or properties used for human occupancy, employment, recreation or other purposes, situated within the Salt Lake City sewer service area and abutting on any street, alley or right of way in which there is now located or may in the future be located a city sewer line, shall, when notified and required in writing by the cityCity, at owner's expense, install suitable toilet facilities therein, and connect such facilities directly with the eityCity sewer system in accordance with the provisions herein within ninety(90) days after date of official notice to do so, provided that the cityCity sewer line is within three hundred feet (300') of the owner's property line. B.-_Discontinuance Ofof Privy Vaults, Cesspools wand Septic Tanks: 1.-_After date of official notice in subsection A of this section, no userUser, or his/her agent, or other person having charge of or occupying any property within three hundred feet (300') of a city sewer shall maintain or use or cause or permit to exist any privy vault, septic tank or cesspool upon such property without the c-ity'sCity's written consent. 2.-_In no case shall any plumbing in any house or building not complying with subsection A of this section and official notice remain unconnected to any public sewer for more than ninety (90) days after written notice from the cityCity. C.-_Outhouses Prohibited:_No useiUser shall erect or maintain any outhouse or privy within the cityCity sewer service area, except as licensed by the eityCity. (Ord. 36-93 § 3, 1993: Ord. 59-87 § 1, 1987: prior code § 37-2-12) 17.36.4401190: PRIVATE SEWAGE DISPOSAL; LIMITATIONS: A.-_Private Disposal Prohibited When: 1. _No tiserUser shall construct, use or maintain any privy,privy vault, septic tank, cesspool or other facility intended or used for the disposal of sewage within the boundaries of POTW where POTW service is available within three hundred feet (300') of the property line of any property upon which any building,privy, privy vault, septic tank, cesspool or 37 HB ATTY-#19915-v1-Pretreatment Ordinance_(Legislative_Version_9-II)_(2).DOC 17.36.150:200: PROHIBITED CONNECTIONS TO POTW: No person, either in person or through an agent, employee or contractor, shall make, allow or cause to be made any sewer connection to the POTW for service, or for the purpose of servicing property outside the boundaries of the POTW, except upon the written approval of the director.Director. Such connection to the POTW shall be made by a person who is either a bonded, state licensed sewer contractor or plumber who has obtained necessary sewer and street permits._(Ord. 36-93 § 3, 1993:prior code § 37-2-15) 17.36.160:210: DISCONTINUANCE OF SERVICE: Any usefUser desiring to discontinue service shall notify the POTW in writing of such fact at least thirty(30) days before the date when such service shall be discontinued._ Upon giving such written notice, the usefUser shall not be responsible for bills incurred after the termination date specified in the notice._Any unused credit balance in favor of the customer as a result of an advance payment of bills or deposit will be promptly refunded upon discontinuance of service. (Ord. 36-93 § 3, 1993: prior code § 37-2-18) 17.36.470k220: MANHOLE COVERS: No usefUser or other person shall open any POTW sewer manhole without permission from the director.Director. (Ord. 36-93 § 3, 1993: prior code § 37-2-11) No user shall ever increase the use of process water, or in any way attempt to dilute a discharge specific-1 tations. d.36-93 § 3 1993:prier code-§ 37 2-9) 17.36.190:17.36.230: DAMAGING SEWER SYSTEM PROHIBITED: No person shall damage, break or remove any part or portion of any POTW sewer or system, or any sewer appliance or appurtenance,without the POTW's prior written consent._(Ord. 72-98 § 9, 1998: Ord. 36-93 § 3, 1993:prior code § 37-2-10) SECTION 3. Chapter 17.52-of Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Chapter 17.52 39 HB ATTY-#19915-v1-Pretreatment_Ordinance_(Legislative_Version_9-I I)_(2).DOC a wastewater discharge permit is required, the user ho was discharging wastewater into the POTW prior to the effective date of this ordinance and who wishes to continue such discharges in the future, shall complete and file with the POTW,within ninety(90) days after said date, apply to the Director for a wastewater discharge permit in accordance with section 17.52.030, and shall not cause or allow discharges to the POTW to continue after ninety(90) days of the effective date of this ordinance except in accordance with a wastewater discharge permit issued by the Director. C. New Connections: Any User required to obtain a wastewater discharge permit who proposes to begin or recommence discharging into the POTW must obtain such permit prior to the beginning or recommencing of such discharge. An application for this wastewater discharge permit,in accordance with section 17.52.030 of this chapter or this title or its suec-esseF17.52.030,must be filed at least ninety(90) days prior to the date upon which any discharge will begin or recommence. with th P01W t' f DTT 1 'f th 1, + ewater-disc g A A tt, t' o f i DTT 1 the direct„r sh ll o i , th d' h + tl, P0-1W ' ord.�nee with the_ ivy f divi sion T of this yo f P0-11W--,1-Nvastewater-ilissharge--peftnit-applieatieufenn-P-14-2-in-aseer-danne-with-seetien 17.52.030 of this chapter or its successor. rA-t, d' t t„ f PU 2. (Ord. 36 93 § 7, 1993:prior code § 37 5 2(1)) 17.52.030:17.52.030: WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT; APPLICATION REQUIREMENTSCONTENTS: A.-_Users required to obtain a wastewater discharge permit shall complete and file with the POTW an application in the form prescribed by the POTW-andTwhen-requiredTaseenipanied by a fee as set forth in the schedule of fees for the PO�P'W..The POI\V— ant permit ya t ' a t 1 hll .,rr �„ly at least•, „et..(90) days « r-to anticipated t• t^ tributi„g to the accompanied bya fee as set forth in Section �s�o�can��s�o ��� ., p 41 FIB_ATTY-#19915-vl-Pretreatn nt_Ordinance_(Legislative_Versan 9-1l)_(2).DOC a. A brief description of the nature, average rate ofproduction(including each product produced by type,amount,processes, and rate of production), and standard industrial classifications of the operation(s) carried out by such User. This description should include a schematic process diagram,which indicates all points of discharge to the POTW from the regulated and unregulated processes and from dilute flows such as the domestic waste,boiler blowdown and noncontact cooling water, if any. b. Types of wastes generated, and a list of all raw materials and chemicals used or stored at the facility which are, or could accidentally or intentionally be, discharged to the POTW. Material safety data sheets(MSDSs) of all chemicals shall be included. c. Number and type of employees, hours of operation, and proposed or actual hours of operation; d. Type and amount of raw materials processed(average and maximum per day); e_Site plans, floor plans, mechanical and plumbing plans, and details to show all sewers, floor drains, and appurtenances by size, location,and elevation.-, and all points of discharge. If deemed necessary by the POTW, such plans shall provide for separate systems for handling sanitary and industrial wastewater; 5. Time and processes on--duration of discharges; 6. The location for monitoring all wastes covered by the pisespermit; 7. Flow Measurement: Information showing the measured average daily and maximum daily flow, in gallons per day, and peak wastewater flow rates, including all-materials whieh-afe-er-eould-be-ElisellargeEldaily, monthly and seasonal variations, if any, to the POTW from regulated process streams and other streams, as necessary, to allow use of the combined wastestream formula set out in 40 CFR 403.6(e) to determine alternate limits as described in 17.36.070.C; 8. Measurement of Pollutants. a. The categorical Pretreatment Standards applicable to each regulated process and sus-any new categorically regulated processes for existing sources. b. The results of sampling and analysis identifying the nature of-any-and concentration, and/or mass, where required by the Standard or by the Director, of regulated pollutants in the discharge whiell-ar-e-1 mitedby-P-0-T-W , to or f de i pretreatment standards, and a statement regarding whether or not the pretreatment standards are 43 HB ATTY-#19915-v1-Pretreatment_Ordinance_(Legislative_Version 9-II)_(2).DOC 12. A statement signed by an authorized representative of the industrial User as follows: "I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is,to the best of my knowledge and belief,true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations". B. Incomplete or inaccurate applications will not be processed and will be returned to the User for revision. 17.52.040: ZERO PROCESS WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT: Zero discharge industrial facilities as defined in 17.32.740 must apply for and obtain a zero process wastewater discharge permit. The Director may require the completion of a wastewater analysis as described in 17.52.020.A. The application contents for a zero process wastewater discharge permit shall be the same as that for an industrial wastewater discharge permit as described in 17.52.030. The zero process wastewater discharge permit shall require the permittee,to submit in December and June of each year,a written certification signed by an authorized representative that the facility has not discharged any process wastewater to the sanitary sewer in the last six month period and does not intend to discharge process wastewater in the coming six month period. Failure to submit this certification shall be deemed a violation of this ordinance. Any detected discharge of process wastewater to the City's sanitary sewer system by a zero process discharge industrial facility at any time shall immediately subject the user to the enforcement remedies included in section 17.68. The zero process wastewater discharge permit may contain other limitations and requirements as deemed necessary by the Director and this ordinance. The duration of zero process wastewater discharge permits shall be the same as wastewater discharge permits as defined in 17.52.070. 17.52.050: APPLICATION SIGNATORIES AND CERTIFICATIONS: A. All wastewater discharge permit applications, User reports and certification statements must be signed by an authorized representative of the User and contain the certification statement in sections 17.52.210 A and 17.52.030 A 12. B. If the designation of an authorized representative is no longer accurate because a different individual or position has responsibility for the overall operation of the facility or overall responsibility for environmental matters for the company, a new written authorization 45 HB ATTY-#19915-v1-Pretreatment_Ordinance_(Legislative_Version 9-11)_(2).DOC 4.. 17.52.044:I080: WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT; CONDITIONS APP-LICABLECONTENTS: A wastewater discharge permit shall include such conditions as are deemed reasonably necessary by the Director to prevent Pass Through or Interference,protect the quality of the water body receiving the treatment plant's effluent,protect worker health and safety, facilitate sludge management and disposal, and protect against damage to the POTW. A. Wastewater discharge permits shall contain: 1. A statement that indicates the wastewater discharge permit issuance date,expiration date and effective date; (see section 17.52.070.) 2. A statement that the wastewater discharge permit is nontransferable without prior notification to the City in accordance with section 17.52.110, and provisions for furnishing the new owner or operator with a copy of the existing wastewater discharge permit; 3. Effluent limits, including BMPs,based on applicable Pretreatment Standards; 4. Self monitoring, sampling, reporting,notification, and record-keeping requirements. These requirements shall include an identification of pollutants(or BMP)to be monitored, sampling location, sampling frequency, and sample type based on Federal, State, and local law; 5. The process for seeking a waiver from monitoring for a pollutant neither present nor expected to be present in the discharge in accordance with section 17.52.160.D.2; 6. A statement of applicable civil and criminal penalties for violation of Pretreatment Standards and Requirements, and any applicable compliance schedule. Such schedule may not extend the time for compliance beyond that required by applicable Federal, State, or local law; 7. Requirements to control slug discharge, if determined by the Director to be necessary; and 8. Any grant of the monitoring waiver by the Director(section 17.52.160.D.2) shall be included as a condition in the User's permit. 47 HB_ATTY-#19915-vl-Pretreatment_Ordinance_(Legislative_Version 9-I1) (2).DOC Requirements for the Director to implement the judicially enforceable remedies outlined in sections 17.68.010 through 17.68.170 according to the City's Enforcement Response Plan. 7. Requirements for submission of technical reports or discharge reports; 18. Requirements for maintaining and retaining records relating to wastewater discharge, as specified by the POTW, and affording POTW access thereto; 1,9. Requirements for development and implementation of waste minimization plans to reduce the amount of pollutants discharged to the POTW; 10. Requirements for notification of the POTW of any new introduction of wastewater constituents or any substantial change in the volume or character of the wastewater constituents being introduced into the wastewater treatment system. The City reserves the ability to accept or deny any proposed changes to the wastewater discharges at the facility; J-11. Requirements for separate systems to handle sanitary and industrial wastewater, such that in the event that the user=sUser's industrial wastewater is or could cause an inteelnterference or a potential interfcrencoInterference with the POTW, that the industrial wastewater could be severed,preventing discharge into the POTW and still allowing the user's-User's sanitary wastewater to discharge into the POTW; 12. A statement that compliance with the wastewater discharge permit does not relieve the permittee of responsibility for compliance with all applicable Federal and State Pretreatment Standards, including those which become effective during the term of the wastewater discharge permit ; 13. Production rates where mass discharge limits are required; and 14. Other conditions as deemed appropriate by the Director to ensure compliance with this chapter,and State and Federal laws, rules, and regulations. (Ord. 36-93 § 7, 1993:prior code § 37-5-2(4)) 17.52.090: WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT; ISSUANCE APPEAL PROCESS: Upon issuance of the wastewater discharge permit, any person including the applicant shall have 45 days to file in writing objections to any term or condition of the permit and: 49 FIB ATTY-#19915-vl-Pretreatrrent_Ordinance_(Legislative_Version_9-I 1)_(2).DOC 4. Information indicating that the permitted discharge poses a threat to the POTW personnel, beneficial sludge use or the receiving waters; 5. Violation of any terms or conditions of the wastewater discharge permit; 6. Misrepresentations or failure to fully disclose all relevant facts in the wastewater discharge permit application or in any required reporting; 7. Revision of or a grant of variance from categorical Pretreatment Standards pursuant to 40 CFR 403.13; 8. To correct typographical or other errors in the wastewater discharge permit; or 9. To reflect a transfer of the facility ownership or operation to a new owner or operator where requested in accordance with section 17.52.110. (Ord. 36-93 § 7, 1993:prior code § 37-5-2(3)) 17.52.110: WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT; TRANSFER: A. Wastewater discharge permits may be transferred to a new owner or operator only if the permittee gives at least sixty(60) days advance notice to the Director and the Director approves the Wastewater discharge permit transfer. The notice to the Director must include a written certification by the new owner or operator which: 1. States that the new owner and/or operator has no immediate intent to change the facility's operations and processes; 2. Identifies the specific date on which the transfer is to occur,, 3. Acknowledges full responsibility for complying with the existing wastewater discharge permit; and 4. The conditions of the permit will not change. B. Failure to provide advance notice of a transfer renders the wastewater discharge permit void as of the date of facility transfer. (Ord. 36-93 § 7, 1993:prior code § 37-5-2(6)) 17.52.120: WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT; SUSPENSION AND REVOCATION 51 HB_ATTY-#19915-v1-Pretreatment Ordinance_(Legislative_Version_9-I I)_(2).DOC 17.52.130: WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT; REISSUANCE: A User with an expiring wastewater discharge permit shall apply for a wastewater discharge permit reissuance by submitting a complete permit application, in accordance with section 17.52.030, a minimum of ninety(90) days prior to the expiration of the User's existing wastewater discharge permit. 17.52.140: SPECIAL AGREEMENTS AND CONTRACTS: A. Special User agreement: No statement contained in this section shall be construed as prohibiting special written agreements between the POTW and any other User allowing industrial waste or wastewater of unusual strength or character to be admitted to the POTW,provided the User compensates the POTW for any additional costs of treatment. The POTW shall determine the wastewater criteria, and volume characteristics used to calculate any additional cost and shall b •tt d + th POTW a "of treatment. In no case will a special agreement waive compliance with a Pretreatment Standard or Requirement. However, the Industrial User may request a variance from the categorical Pretreatment Standard from the EPA. Such a request will be approved by the PO TW bef re tfuetion of the_fac:lity wr industrial ti s discharge t„ the POTW only if the Industrial User can prove that factors relating to its discharge are fundamentally different from the factors considered by EPA when establishing that Pretreatment Standard. An Industrial User requesting a fundamentally different factor variance must comply with the procedural and substantive provisions in 40 CFR 403.13 and Rule R317-8-8.17 U.A.C.; B. Contracts With Other POTWs: Whenever there is excess POTW sewage treatment capacity, the POTW may contract with any other organized and established sewage treatmentplant or with any other governmental agency or private enterprise for the discharge into the POTW from any part or parts thereof, or person living outside the boundaries of the POTW, upon such terms and conditions and for such periods of time as may be deemed reasonable. (Ord. 36-93 § 3, 1993:prior code § 37-2-13) 53 HB_ATTY-#19915-v1-Pretreatment Ordinance_(Legislative_Version_9-1 l)_(2).DOC 5. Limits on the nature, quality, and volume of the contributing municipality's wastewater at the point where it discharges to the POTW; 6. Requirements for monitoring the contributing municipality's discharge; 7. A provision ensuring the City access to the facilities of Users located within the contributing municipality's jurisdictional boundaries for the purpose of inspection, sampling,and any other duties deemed necessary by the City; and 8. A provision specifying remedies available for breach of the terms of the intermunicipal agreement. 17.52.160: REPORTING REQUIREMENTS: A. Baseline Monitoring Reports: Within either one hundred eighty(180) days after the effective date of a categorical Pretreatment Standard, or the final administrative decision on a category determination under 40 CFR 403.6(a)(4),whichever is later, existing CIUs currently discharging to or scheduled to discharge to the POTW shall submit to the Director a report which contains the information listed in paragraphs (1) through(5),below. At least ninety (90) days prior to commencement of their discharge,new sources, and sources that become CIUs subsequent to the promulgation of an applicable Categorical Standard, shall submit to the Director a report which contains the information listed in paragraphs Cl)through(5), below. A new source shall report the method of pretreatment it intends to use to meet applicable categorical Standards. A new source also shall give estimates of its anticipated flow and quantity of pollutants to be discharged. Users described above shall submit the information set forth below. 1. All information required in section 17.52.030.A.1.a, section 17.52.030.A.3, section 17.52.030.A.4.a, and section 17.52.030.A.7. 55 HB_ATTY-#19915-v1-Pretreatment_Ordinance_(Legislative_Version_9-11)_(2).DOC 5. Signature and Report Certification: All baseline monitoring reports must be certified in accordance with section 17.52.210 A and signed by an authorized representative as defined in section 17.32.080. B. Compliance schedule progress reports: The following conditions shall apply to the compliance schedules required by sections 17.52.030.A.10 and 17.52.160.A.4: 1. The schedule shall contain progress increments in the form of dates for the commencement and completion of major events leading to the construction and operation of additional pretreatment required for the User to meet the applicable Pretreatment Standards (such events include,but are not limited to,hiring an engineer, completing preliminary and fmal plans, executing contracts for major components, commencing and completing construction, and beginning and conducting routine operation); 2. No increment referred to above shall exceed nine (9)months nor shall the total compliance period exceed eighteen(18)months; 3. The User shall submit a progress report to the Director no later than fourteen(14) days following each date in the schedule and the final date of compliance including, as a minimum, whether or not it complied with the increment of progress, the reason for any delay, and, if appropriate, the steps being taken by the User to return to the established schedule; and 4. In no event shall more than nine(9) months elapse between such progress reports to the Director. C. Reports on compliance with categorical Pretreatment Standard deadline. 1. Within ninety(90) days following the date for fmal compliance with applicable categorical Pretreatment Standards, or in the case of a new source following commencement of the introduction of wastewater into the POTW, any User subject to such Pretreatment Standards and Requirements shall submit to the Director a report containing the information described in section 17.52.030 A 7 and 8 and 17.52.160.A.2. For Users subject to equivalent mass or concentration limits established in accordance with the procedures in section 17.36.070,this report shall contain a reasonable measure of the User's long-term production rate. For all other Users subject to categorical Pretreatment Standards expressed in terms of allowable pollutant discharge per unit of production(or other measure of operation),this report shall include the User's actual production during the appropriate sampling period. All compliance reports must be 57 HB_ATTY-#19915-v1-Pretreatment Ordinance_(Legislative_Version 9-Il)_(2).DOC e. Non-detectable sample results may be used only as a demonstration that a pollutant is not present if the EPA approved method from 40 CFR Part 136 with the lowest minimum detection level for that pollutant was used in the analysis; f. Any grant of the monitoring waiver by the Director must be included as a condition in the User's permit. The reasons supporting the waiver and any information submitted by the User in its request for the waiver must be maintained by the Director for 5 years after expiration of the waiver; g. Upon approval of the monitoring waiver and revision of the User's permit by the Director, the industrial User must certify on each report with the statement in section 17.52.210.C, that there has been no increase in the pollutant in its wastestream due to activities of the Industrial User; h. In the event that a waived pollutant is found to be present or is expected to be present because of changes that occur in the User's operations, the User must immediately: Comply with the monitoring requirements of section 17.52.160.D.1 above, or other more frequent monitoring requirements imposed by the Director, and notify the Director; and i. This provision does not supersede certification processes and requirements established in categorical Pretreatment Standards, except as otherwise specified in the categorical Pretreatment Standard. 3. The City may reduce the requirement for periodic compliance reports (see section 17.52.160 D 1 above)to a requirement to report no less frequently than once a year, unless required more frequently in the Pretreatment Standard or by the EPA/State, where the Industrial User's total categorical wastewater flow does not exceed any of the following: a. 0.01 percent of the POTW's design dry-weather hydraulic capacity, or five thousand (5,000) gallons per day,whichever is smaller, as measured by a continuous effluent flow monitoring device unless the Industrial User discharges in batches. b. 0.01 percent of the POTW's design dry-weather organic treatment capacity; and c. 0.01 percent of the POTW's maximum allowable headworks loading for any pollutant regulated by the applicable categorical Pretreatment Standard for which approved local limits were developed in accordance with section 17.36.090. 59 HB_ATTY-#19915-v1-Pretreatment Ordinance_(Legislative_Version 9-1l)_(2).DOC F. Reports of potential problems. 1. In the case of any discharge, including, but not limited to, accidental discharges, discharges of a nonroutine, episodic nature, a noncustomary batch discharge, a slug discharge or slug load,that might cause potential problems for the POTW, the User shall immediately telephone and notify the POTWDirector of the incident. The This notification shall include the location of the discharge, type of waste, concentration and volume, if known, and corrective actions taken by the User. 1. Written Notice: 2. Within five (5)days following an accidentalsuch discharge, the ' User shall, unless waived by the Director,submit to the director a detailed written report describing the cause(s) of the discharge and the measures to be taken by the ' User to prevent similar future occurrences._Such notification shall not relieve the industrial userUser of any expense,loss, damages or other liability which niaymight be incurred as a result of damage to the POTW, fishIsnatural resources, or any other damage to person or property; nor shall such notification relieve the ' User of any fines, civil penalties.,or other liability which may be imposed lawpursuant to the Wastewater Control Ordinance. 3A notice shall be permanently posted on the industrial user'sUser's bulletin board or other prominent place advising employees who to call in the event of a dangerous-discharge: described in paragraph 1, above. Employers shall ensure that all employees,who n aycould cause or suffer such a dangerous-discharge to occur,are advised of the emergency notification procedure;_ ; M. Production rates where mass discharge limits are required. (Ord. 36 93 § 7, 1993:prior code § 37 5 2(4)) 1 . .ncn: PERMIT. A-waste-w2m r discha a tho ation-for eaf residential user shall remain effec i-1 tern�inatedby the4'01W Ail „thee,.o.-.,..;ts sha be ; ,e f � cifie,i time„eriod not t„ ewe-on-a-spec-ified-dat . the requirements of this chapter. (Ord. 63 95 § 2, 1995: Ord. 36 93 § 7, 1993: prior code § 37 5 2(5)) 61 HB_ATTY-#19915-v1-Pretreatn nt_Ordinance_(Legislative_Version 9-ll)_(2).DOC . Upon the request of the director, any user subject to a pretreatment standard, after the compliance date of such pretreatment standard, or, in the case of a new source,after fife-to-be-submitted, , techniques approved by the director. (Ord. 36 93 § 7, 1993:prior code § 37 5 3) "� 2.090:4. SIUs are required to notify the Director immediately of any changes at its facility affecting the potential for a slug discharge. G. Reports from unpermitted Users. All Users not required to obtain a wastewater discharge permit shall provide appropriate reports to the Director as the Director may require. H. Notice of violation/repeat sampling and reporting. If sampling performed by a User indicates a violation, the User must notify the Director within twenty-four(24)hours of becoming aware of the violation. The User shall also repeat the sampling and analysis and submit the results of the repeat analysis to the Director within thirty (30) days after becoming aware of the violation. Resampling by the Industrial User is not required if the City performs sampling at the User's facility at least once a month, or if the City performs sampling at the User between the time when the initial sampling was conducted and the time when the User or the City receives the results of this sampling, or if the City has performed the sampling and analysis in lieu of the Industrial User. If the City performs the sampling and analysis in lieu of the Industrial User and a violation occurs, the City will perform the repeat sampling and analysis unless it notifies the User of the violation and requires the User to perform the repeat sampling and analysis. 63 HB_ATTY-#19915-v1-Pretreatment_Ordinance_(Legislative_Version_9-1 I)_(2).DOC 5. This provision does not create a right to discharge any substance not otherwise permitted to be discharged by this ordinance, a permit issued thereunder, or any applicable Federal or State law. 17.52.170: ANALYTICAL REQUIREMENTS: A. All pollutant analyses, including sampling techniques, to be submitted as part of a wastewater discharge permit application or report shall be performed in accordance with the techniques prescribed in 40 CFR Part 136 "Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants, and amendments thereto, unless otherwise specified in an applicable categorical Pretreatment Standard. If 40 CFR Part 136 does not contain sampling or analytical techniques for the pollutant in question, or where the EPA determines that the Part 136 sampling and analytical techniques are inappropriate for the pollutant in question, sampling and analyses shall be performed by using validated analytical methods or any other applicable sampling and analytical procedures, including procedures suggested by the Director or other parties approved by EPA. B. All laboratory samples collected for this ordinance shall be analyzed by a laboratory that is either certified by the Utah Bureau of Laboratory Improvements or approved by the Director. (Ord. 36-93 § 7, 1993: prior code § 37-5-7) 17.52.180: SAMPLE COLLECTION: Samples collected to satisfy reporting requirements must be based on data obtained through appropriate sampling and analysis performed during the period covered by the report, based on data that is representative of conditions occurring during the reporting period. A. Except as indicated in sections B and C below,the User must collect wastewater samples using 24-hour flow proportional composite sampling techniques,unless time-proportional composite sampling or grab sampling is authorized by the Director. Where time-proportional composite sampling or grab sampling is authorized by the City, the samples must be representative of the discharge. Using protocols(including appropriate preservation) specified in 40 CFR Part 136 and appropriate EPA guidance, multiple grab samples collected during a 24-hour period may be composited prior to the analysis as follows: For cyanide, total phenols, and sulfides the samples may be composited in the laboratory or in the field:, for volatile organics and oil and grease, the samples may be composited in the laboratory. Composite samples for other parameters unaffected by the compositing procedures as documented in approved EPA methodologies may be authorized by the City, as appropriate. In addition, grab samples may be required to show compliance with instantaneous limits. 65 HB_ATTY-#19915-v1-Pretreatment_Ordinance_(Legislative_Version 9-11)_(2).DOC submitting periodic compliance reports required by section 17.52.160.D.1-4, and Users submitting an initial request to forego sampling of a pollutant on the basis of section 17.52.160.D.2 d. The following certification statement must be signed by an authorized representative as defined in section 17.32.080: I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is,to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fme and imprisonment for knowing violations. B. Annual certification for Non-Significant Categorical Industrial Users—A facility determined to be a Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User by the Director pursuant to sections 17.32.570.0 and 17.52.050.C,must annually submit the following certification statement signed in accordance with the signatory requirements in section 17.32.080. This certification must accompany an alternative report required by the Director: Based on my inquiry of the person or persons directly responsible for managing compliance with the categorical Pretreatment Standards under 40 CFR , I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief that during the period from to , [months, days,yearl: (a) The facility described as f facility namel met the definition of a Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User as described in section 17.32.570 C; (b)The facility complied with all applicable Pretreatment Standards and requirements during this reporting period; and (c) The facility never discharged more than 100 gallons of total categorical wastewater on any given day during this reporting period. This compliance certification is based on the following information. 67 HB_ATTY-#19915-v1-Pretreatment_Ordinance_(Legislative_Version 9-1I)_(2).DOC lE. Whether constructed on public or private property, the sampling and monitoring facilities shall be provided in accordance with the POTW's requirements and all applicable local construction standards and specifications._The construction schedule shall be submitted to the POTW for prior approval, and construction shall be completed within a time specified by written notification from the POTW. (Ord. 36 93 § 7, 1993:prior code § 37 5 1) 17.52.1W230: RIGHT OF ENTRY; INSPECTION AND SAMPLIN • The Director or the Duly Authorized Representatives shall have the right to enter the premises of any User to determine whether the User is complying with all requirements of this chapter all measurementsTtesttordinance and analysis of the characteristics e f water and w to shall be certified for the appropriate analysis by the Utah department of health. (Ord. 36 93 § 7, 1993: prior code § 37 5 7) 1 7 52 1 10: INSP CTruly. RI uT OF T+NTD V. A,-any wastewater discharge permit or order issued hereunder. All users-Users shall allow the POT\V or its represe tativesDirector or the Duly Authorized Representatives ready access at-all ^nable times to all parts of the premises for the purpose of inspection, sampling, records examination,-and copying, and/or in the performance of any of its duties. A. Identification shall be provided by the Director for all inspectors or other authorized personnel and these personnel shall identify themselves when entering any property for inspection purposes or when inspecting the work of any contractor. B.-_The POTW or other authorized regulatory agencies shall have the right to set upon the user'aUser's property or any other representative location such devices as are deemed necessary to conduct sampling inspection, compliance monitoring and/or metering of the User's operations. C.-_Where a usefUser has security measures in force prior arrangements will be made with their security guards so that upon presentation of suitable identification, personnel from the POTW, city, county, state and EPA will be permitted to enter,without delay, for the purposes of performing their specific responsibilities. (Ord. 63 95 § 3, 1995: Ord. 36 93 § 7, 1993: prior code § 37 5 5) D. Unreasonable delays in allowing the Director access to the User's premises shall be a violation of this ordinance. (Ord. 36-93 § 7, 1993:prior code § 37-5-4) 69 HB_ATTY-#19915-v1-Pretreatment_Ord Ina nce_(Le gislative_Version_9-I l)_(2).DOC A. to the n01W h n >.. Such facilities e�e�ided�e�ted--a �rt��ixed-awl}e�rse��-e�p ens�. responsi bilit f a•f< th f c:lity , 0 o to r oduce ffl e „ent a ept.,ble to the Fileth ,l F t' h ll he« ported to .,nd r ea by the p01W« r to the, er's introduced i„t„ the D01W -_The POTW shall,en-er before March 31 of each calendar year,publish in-a-annually, providing public notification in the largest daily newspaper of general c:rc„latien within-the boundariesf th POPAL li * f t" _h_' h published in Salt Lake City, of all Industrial Users which were in significant noncompliance with any-pretr-eatment applicable Pretreatment Standards and Requirements at any time during the previous twelve (12) month reporting period._All records relating to compliance with Pretreatment Standards shall be made available to officials of the EPA or Approval Authority and to the public pursuant to city policy and the Utah government records access and management act.(Ord. 72 98 § 10, 1998: Ord. 36 93 § 7, 1993:prior code § 37 5 8) 17 52 150 CONED&CTTNC FOR ADM NISTD A TLVE SERVICE.S. , zrxxx xv x xcx rix r n vnxc�i c— Tl, D01W h th r t• to nt ct with "y a., r r.-. .,t o ,nt ea o yt ntit ,ide -,h inrr , 71 HB ATTY-#19915-v1-Pretreat ment Ordinance_(Legislative_Version_9-11)_(2).DOC ; F D f; to llow the city timel„ ., s to the f c�lit,,prem ses and r or.ls• r Fa l„re to meet eFfl„ent lim ratio s• , H. Failure to pay finer; I. F.,il„re to p o o charges; , T Fail„re to .met c pliaffee sched les• , Tr F 1 t plete astewator e. r the, astewater-.1ischa .. rmit filed pursuant to the Wastewater Control Ordinance shall be accompanied by an application;fee. The fees for these services are listed in a separate document entitled"Salt Lake City Corporation Pretreatment Fees". This document is incorporated in this chapter by reference. ; discharger r t- r this chapter- , of business ownership. (Ord. 72 98 § 11, 1998) 73 HB ATTY-#19915-v1-Pretreatment Ordinance_(Legislative_Version 9-11)_(2).DOC The direeterDirector is hereby empowered to enter into consent orders, assurances of veluntaFy compliance, or other similar documents establishing an agreement with any userUser responsible for noncompliance. Such orders will include specific action to be taken by the user:User to correct the noncompliance within a time period specified by the order. Consent orders shall have 17.68.050 of this chapter, and shall be judicially enforceable._(Ord. 72-98 § 16, 1998) 17.68.030: SHOW CAUSE HEARING: The direeterDirector may order any userUser which causes or contributes to violation(s) of any provisions of the Wastewater Control Ordinance, or any wastewater discharge permit or order,rule or regulation issued or promulgated hereunder, or any other pretreatment standardPretreatment Standard or requirementRequirement, to appear before the direeterDirector and show cause why a proposed enforcement action should not be taken._Notice shall be served on the userUser, which notice shall specify the time and place for the meeting,the proposed enforcement action, the reasons for such action, and a request that the userUser show cause why this proposed enforcement action should not be taken._Such written notice shall be served in person on any authorize representativeAuthorized Representative of the userUser, or by certified mail, return receipt requested, at least seven(7)days prior to the hearing._Whether or not the userUser appears as ordered, immediate enforcement action may be pursued following the hearing date. A show cause hearing shall not be a prerequisite for taking any other actions against the user.User. (Ord. 72-98 § 16, 1998) 17.68.040: COMPLIANCE ORDERS: When the direeterDirector fmds that a userUser has violated or continues to violate any provision of the Wastewater Control Ordinance, or any wastewater discharge permit, order, rule or regulation issued or promulgated hereunder, or any other pretreatment standardPretreatment Standard or requirement,hoRequirement,the Director may issue an order to the userUser responsible for the violation directing that the userUser come into compliance within thirty«0) E'ays.a specified time. If the userUser does not come into compliance within the time provided, sewer service may be discontinued._Compliance orders may also contain other requirements to address noncompliance, including additional self-monitoring, and management practices designed to minimize the amount of pollutants discharged to the POTW._A compliance order may not extend the deadline for compliance established for a Pretreatment Standard or Requirement, nor does a compliance order release the userUser of liability for any violation, including any continuing violation. _Issuance of a compliance order shall not be a prerequisite to taking any other action against the userUser. (Ord. 72-98 § 16, 1998) 75 HB_ATTY-#19915-vl-Pretreatment Ordinance_(Legislative_Version 9-II) (2).DOC C.-_Assessments for fines and/or administrative costs may be added to the user'sUser's next scheduled sewer service charge, and the directorDirector shall have such other collection remedies as may be available for other service charges and fees. D.- Unpaid charges, fines, assessments and penalties shall, after sixty (60) calendar days, be assessed an additional penalty of ten percent (10%) of the unpaid balance._Thereafter, interest on any unpaid balances, including penalties, shall accrue at a rate of one percent (1%) per month._A lien against the individual user'sUser's property will be sought for unpaid charges, fines, and penalties. E. -Users desiring to dispute such fines or assessments must file a written request for the directorDirector to reconsider the fine or assessment, along with full payment thereof within thirty (30) days of being notified of the fme or assessment._The Director may convene a hearing on the matter within fourteen(14)days of receiving the request from the user,User. In the event the user'sUser's appeal is successful, any amounts paid by the userUser to the POTW shall be returned to the userUser, without interest. F.-_The imposition of an administrative fme, assessment or other charge shall not be a prerequisite for or bar against taking any other action against the user:User. (Ord. 72-98 § 16, 1998) 17.68.070: EMERGENCY SUSPENSIONS: The directorDirector may order the immediate suspension or shutoff of a user'sUser's discharge (after informal notice to the userUser), whenever such suspension or shutoff is necessary in order to stop an actual or threatened discharge which reasonably appears to present or cause a risk of an imminent or substantial: a) damage to the POTW,b) endangerment to the health or welfare of any residents of the POTW, c)interferencelnterference with the operation of the POTW, or d) endangerment to the environment._Any useFUser notified of a suspension of its discharge shall immediately stop or eliminate its contribution._In the event of a usefsUser's failure to immediately comply voluntarily with the suspension order, the directorDirector shall take such steps as deemed necessary, including immediate severance of the sewer connection, to enforce such order._The director-shallDirector may allow the userUser to recommence its discharge when the userUser has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the POTWDirector that the period of endangerment has passed, unless the termination proceedings set forth in section 17.68.080 of this rare initiated against the user.User. A userUser that is responsible, in whole or in part, for any discharge presenting imminent endangerment, shall submit to the directorDirector a detailed written statement describing the causes of the harmful contribution and the measures taken to prevent any future occurrence,prior to the date of any show cause or termination of discharge hearing under sections 17.68.030 and 17.68.080 of this chapter.. Nothing in this 77 HB ATTY-#19915-v1-Pretreatment Ordinance_(Legislative_Version_9-II)_(2).DOC Whenever a userUser has violated a pretreatment standard or requirement or continues to violate any provisions of the Wastewater Control Ordinance, or any wastewater discharge permit, or order, rule or regulation issued or promulgated hereunder, or any other pretreatment requirement,the POTWPretreatment Standard or Requirement, the Director may petition any seurtthe Third District Court of the State of Utah for the issuance of a temporary or permanent injunction, as appropriate, which restrains or compels the specific performance of the wastewater discharge permit,or order,rule, regulation or other requirement.- imposed by the Wastewater Control Ordinance on activities of the User. In addition, the POTWCity may recover reasonable attorney fees, court costs, and other expenses of litigation by appropriate legal action against the userUser found to have violated any provision hereof, or of any wastewater discharge permit, or order, or any other rule or regulation issued or promulgated hereunder._ Such other action as appropriate for legal and/or equitable relief may also be sought by the POTW.Director including a requirement for the User to conduct environmental remediation. A petition for injunctive relief need not be filed as a prerequisite to or a bar against taking any other action against a user:User. (Ord. 72-98 § 16, 1998) 17.68.100: CIVIL FINEPENALTY PASS-THROUGH RECOVERY: In the event that a userUser discharges such pollutants which cause the POTW to violate any conditions of its UPDES permit and the POTW is fined by the EPA,the stateState of Utah or Salt Lake County for such violations,then such userUser shall be fully liable for the total amount of the fines and civil penalties assessed against the POTW by the EPA or the stateState of Utah or Salt Lake County and administrative costs incurred. (Ord. 72 98 § 16, 1998) A. A User who has violated, or continues to violate, any provision of this ordinance, a wastewater discharge permit, or order issued hereunder, or any other Pretreatment Standard or Requirement may be liable to the City for a maximum civil penalty of$10,000 per violation,per day. In the case of a monthly or other long-term average discharge limit, penalties shall accrue for each day during the period of the violation. B. The Director may recover reasonable attorneys' fees, court costs, and other expenses associated with enforcement activities, including sampling and monitoring expenses, and the cost of any actual damages incurred by the City. C. In determining the amount of civil liability,the Court may take into account all relevant circumstances, including,but not limited to, the extent of harm caused by the violation, the magnitude and duration of the violation, any economic benefit gained through the User's violation, corrective actions by the User, the compliance history of the User, and any other factor as justice requires. 79 HB_ATTY-#19915-v1-Pretreatment Ordinance_(Legislative_Version_9-I I)_(2).DOC Salt Lake County any way it can with appropriate support for the action taken._(Ord. 72-98 § 16, 1998) 17.68.120: PERFORMANCE BONDS: The direeterDirector may decline to reissue a wastewater discharge permit to any userUser which has failed to comply with the provisions of this chapterordinance, or of any previous wastewater discharge permit, order, rule or regulation issued or promulgated hereunder, unless such userUser first files a satisfactory bond, payable to the POTW, in a sum not to exceed a value determined by the directerDirector to be necessary to achieve consistent compliance. (Ord. 72-98 § 16, 1998) 17.68.130: LIABILITY INSURANCE: The direeterDirector may decline to reissue a wastewater discharge permit to any usefUser which has failed to comply with the provisions of the Wastewater Control Ordinance, or of any previous wastewater discharge permits or order, rule or regulation issued or promulgated hereunder, or any other Pretreatment Standard or Requirement, unless the usefUser first submits proof that it has obtained fmancial assurances sufficient to restore or repair damage to the POTW caused by its discharge._(Ord. 72-98 § 16, 1998) 17.68.140: WATER SUPPLY SEVERANCE: Whenever a userUser has violated or continues to violate the provisions of the Wastewater Control Ordinance, or of any wastewater discharge permit, or order, rule or regulation issued or promulgated hereunder, or any other Pretreatment Standard or Requirement, water service to the userUser may be discontinued._Service will only recommence, at the user'sUser's expense, after it has satisfactorily demonstrated its ability to comply. _(Ord. 72-98 § 16, 1998) 17.68.150: PUBLIC NUISANCES: Any violation of the provisions of the Wastewater Control Ordinance, or of any individual wastewater discharge permit,or order, rule or regulation issued or promulgated hereunder, or any other Pretreatment Standard or Requirement, is hereby declared a public nuisance and shall be corrected or abated as directed by the direeter.Director. Any person(s) creating a public nuisance shall be subject to the provisions of this code governing nuisances, including reimbursing the POTWCity for any costs incurred in removing, abating or remedying said nuisance._(Ord. 72-98 § 16, 1998) 81 HB_ATTY-#19915-v1-Pretreatment_Ordinance_(Legislative_Version_9-1 1)_(2).DOC C.-_A userUser who wishes to establish the affirmative defense of upset shall demonstrate, through properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs, or other relevant evidence that: 1. _An upset occurred and the userUser can identify the cause(s)of the upset; 2.-_The facility was at the time being operated in a prudent and workmanlike manner and in compliance with applicable operation and maintenance procedures; 3.-_The userUser has submitted the following information to the POTWDirector and treatment plant operator within twenty four(24)hours of becoming aware of the upset(if this information is provided orally, a written submission must be provided within 5 days): a._A description of the indirect discharge and cause of noncompliance; b. _The period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times or, if not corrected, the anticipated time the noncompliance is expected to continue; and c. _Steps being taken and/or planned to reduce, eliminate and prevent recurrence of the noncompliance. D.-_In any enforcement proceeding, the userUser seeking to establish the occurrence of an upset shall have the burden of proof. E._Users willshall have the opportunity for a judicial determination on any claim of upset only in an enforcement action brought for noncompliance with categorical pretreatment standardsPretreatment Standards. F. _The userUser shall control production of all discharges to the extent necessary to maintain compliance with categorical Pretreatment Standards upon reduction, loss, or failure of its treatment facility until the facility is restored or an alternative method of treatment is provided._This requirement applies in the situation where, among other things, the primary source of power of the treatment facility is reduced, lost or has failed._(Ord. 72- 98 § 17, 1998) 17.69.020: : PROHIBITED DISCHARGE STANDARDS: A userUser shall have an affirmative defense to an enforcement action brought against it for noncompliance with the general and specific prohibitions in uhaptersection 17.36 of this 83 HB_ATTY-#19915-v1-Pretreatment Ordinance_(Legislative_Version_9-11)_(2).DOC be provided within five (5) days of the time the userUser becomes aware of the bypass. The written submission shall contain a description of the bypass and its cause; the duration of the bypass, including exact dates and times and, if the bypass has not been corrected, the anticipated time it is expected to continue._The userUser shall also set forth in writing the steps taken or planned to reduce,eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the bypass._The POTWDirector may waive the written report on a case by case basis if the oral report has been received within twenty four(24)hours. D. Bypass Prohibition; Exception: 1. _Bypass is prohibited, and the POTWDirector may take enforcement action against a userUser for a bypass, unless: a. _Bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life,personal injury, or severe property damage; b. _There were no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such as the use of auxiliary treatment facilities,retention of untreated wastes, or maintenance during normal periods of equipment downtime._ This condition is not satisfied if adequate backup equipment should have been installed in the exercise of reasonable engineering judgment to prevent a bypass which occurred during normal periods of equipment downtime or preventive maintenance; and c. _The userUser submitted notices as required under subsection C of this section. 2. _The POTWDirector may approve an anticipated bypass, after considering its adverse effects, if the POTWDirector determines that it will meet the three (3)conditions listed in subsection D4-D.1 of this section. _(Ord. 72-98 § 17, 1998) SECTION 6. 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 2011. CHAIRPERSON 85 Salt Lake City Ordinance No. of 2011 (Amending Chapters 17.32, 17.36, 17.52, 17.68 and 17.69, relating to waste water pretreatment) An ordinance amending certain provisions of Chapters 17.32, 17.36, 17.52, 17.68 and 17.69, Salt Lake City Code,relating to waste water pretreatment. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Chapter 17.32 of Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Article I. General Provisions 17.32.010: SHORT TITLE: This division shall be known as, and references in this division to "this chapter" shall be deemed to refer to,the SALT LAKE CITY WASTEWATER CONTROL ORDINANCE. The Chapters within the Salt Lake City Code that specifically refer to the Industrial Pretreatment Program are 17.32, 17.36, 17.52, 17.68 and 17.69. (Ord. 72-98 § 1, 1998: Ord. 36-93 § 2, 1993:prior code § 37-1-1) 17.32.020: PURPOSE OF PROVISIONS: A. It is necessary for the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the POTW to regulate the collection of wastewater and treatment thereof to provide for maximum public benefit. The provisions set forth in this division are uniform requirements for direct and indirect contributors into the wastewater collection and treatment system for the POTW, and enable the POTW to comply with all applicable local, state and federal laws. B. The objectives are: 1. To prevent the introduction of pollutants into the POTW which will interfere with the operation of the POTW or contaminate the resulting sludge; 2. To prevent the introduction of pollutants into the POTW which will Pass Through the POTW, inadequately treated, into receiving waters or the atmosphere, or otherwise be incompatible with the POTW; 1 Article II. Definitions 17.32.040: DEFINITIONS, GENERALLY: Unless the context specifically indicates otherwise, the following terms and phrases, as used in the Wastewater Control Ordinance, shall have the meanings hereinafter designated in this article. (Ord. 36-93 § 2, 1993: prior code § 37-1-3) 17.32.050: ABBREVIATIONS: The following abbreviations shall have the designated meanings: -------- ------- --------- -------------- -------------- ------ BMP: Best Management Practice BOD: Biochemical oxygen demand. CFR: Code of federal regulations. CIU: Categorical Industrial User COD: Chemical oxygen demand. cP: Centipoise = 0.01 poise= cgs unit of absolute viscosity, gm sec x cm EPA: The United States Environmental Protection Agency or its successors. 1: Liter. mg: Milligrams. mg/1: Milligrams per liter. POTW: Publicly Owned Treatment Works. SIC: Standard industrial classification. SIU: Significant Industrial User SNC Significant Noncompliance SWDA: Solid waste disposal act, 42 USC 6901 et seq., or its successor. TRC: Technical review criteria. TSS: Total suspended solids. UPDES: Utah pollutant discharge elimination system. USC: United States Code. . ':-...i 2 -";• 'wT&b�w'�- .yy«r-,m i i' -F �:w v <::- f'wt<,.$:.. '+ . .�x 3 r C. If the User is a Federal, State, or local governmental facility: a director or highest official appointed or designated to oversee the operation and performance of the activities of the government facility, or their designee. D. The individuals described in paragraphs A through C, above, may designate a Duly Authorized Representative if the authorization is in writing, the authorization specifies the individual or position responsible for the overall operation of the facility from which the discharge originates or having overall responsibility for environmental matters for the company, and the written authorization is submitted to the Director . (Ord. 36-93 § 2, 1993: prior code § 37-1-3(3)) 17.32.090: BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES: "Best management practices" or BMPs means schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices to implement the prohibitions listed in section 17.36.060.A and B. BMPs include treatment requirements, operating procedures, and practices to control plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, or drainage from raw materials storage. BMPs also include alternative means(i.e.,management plans)of complying with, or in place of certain established categorical Pretreatment Standards and effluent limits. 17.32.100: BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (BOD): "Biochemical oxygen demand(BOD)" means the quantity of oxygen utilized in the biochemical oxidation of organic matter under standard laboratory procedures for five (5) days at twenty degrees centigrade(20°C),usually expressed as concentration(e.g., mg/L). Laboratory determinations shall be made in accordance with methods set forth in 40 CFR 136 or its successor. (Ord. 36-93 § 2, 1993: prior code § 37-1-3(4)) 17.32.110: BUILDING OR SEWER LATERAL: "Building or sewer lateral" means a sewer conveying the wastewater of a User from a residence building or other structure to a POTW sewer, including direct connections to a POTW sewer where permitted by the POTW. A sewer lateral is a building sewer owned by the User. (Ord. 36-93 § 2, 1993: prior code § 37-1-3(5)) 17.32.120: BUSINESS CLASSIFICATION CODE (BCC): "Business classification code (BCC)" means a classification of dischargers based on the "1972 5 pollutants and, in fact, does treat such pollutants to the degree required by the POTW's UPDES permit. (Ord. 36-93 § 2, 1993: prior code § 37-1-3(10)) 17.32.190: CONTROL AUTHORITY: "Control Authority" means Salt Lake City Corporation(Ord. 36-93 § 2, 1993: prior code § 37-1- 3(13)) 17.32.200: DAILY MAXIMUM: "Daily maximum" means the arithmetic average of all effluent samples for a pollutant collected during a calendar day 17.32.210: DAILY MAXIMUM LIMIT: "Daily maximum limit" means the maximum allowable discharge limit of a pollutant during a calendar day. Where daily maximum limits are expressed in units of mass,the daily discharge is the total mass discharged over the course of the day. Where daily maximum limits are expressed in terms of a concentration, the daily discharge is the arithmetic average measurement of the pollutant concentration derived from all measurements taken that day. 17.32.220: DIRECTOR: "Director" means the Director of Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities or his or her designated representative. (Ord. 36-93 § 2, 1993:prior code § 37-1-3(27)) 17.32.230: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY OR EPA: "Environmental Protection Agency" or "EPA" means the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or,where appropriate, the Regional Water Management Division Director, the Regional Administrator, or other duly authorized official of said agency. (Ord. 36-93 § 2, 1993: prior code § 37-1-3(17) 17.32.240: ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE PLAN; (ERP): "Enforcement Response Plan"means the policies and procedures developed by the Control Authority and accepted by the Approval Authority to track compliance and take enforcement 7 "Indirect discharge" means the introduction of pollutants into a POTW from any non-domestic source which is regulated under section 307(b), (c) or(d) of the Act (including septic tank waste discharged into the POTW). (Ord. 36-93 § 2, 1993:prior code § 37-1-3(23)) 17.32.330: INDUSTRIAL USER OR USER: "Industrial User or User" means a source of indirect discharge. (Ord. 36-93 § 2, 1993: prior code § 37-1-3(24)) 17.32.340: INDUSTRIAL WASTE: "Industrial waste" means solid, liquid or gaseous wastes, including cooling water(except where exempted by UPDES permit), resulting from any industrial, manufacturing or business process, or from the development, recovery or processing of a natural resource. (Ord. 36-93 § 2, 1993: prior code § 37-1-3(25)) 17.32.350: INSTANTANEOUS LIMIT: "Instantaneous limit means the maximum or minimum concentration of a pollutant allowed to be discharged at any time, determined from the analysis of any discrete, grab, or composited sample collected, independent of the industrial flow rate and the duration of the sampling event. 17.32.360: INTERFERENCE: "Interference" means a discharge that, alone or in conjunction with a discharge or discharges from other sources, either inhibits or disrupts the POTW, its treatment processes or operations or its sludge process use or disposal and therefore is a cause of a violation of any requirement of the POTW's UPDES permit (including an increase in the magnitude or duration of a violation) or of the prevention of sewage sludge use or disposal in compliance with any of the following statutory provisions and regulations or permits issued thereunder or more stringent state or local regulations; Section 405 of the Clean Water Act;the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), including Title II, more commonly referred to as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); State regulations contained in any Utah State sludge management plan prepared pursuant to Subtitle D of the SWDA; the Clean Air Act; the Toxic Substances Control Act; and the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act. (Ord. 36-93 § 2, 1993:prior code § 37-1- 3(26)) 17.32.370: LOCAL LIMIT: 9 new facility is engaged in the same general type of activity as the existing source, should be considered. B. Construction on a site at which an existing source is located results in a modification rather than a new source if the construction does not create a new building, structure, facility, or installation meeting the criteria of section A 2 or 3 above but otherwise alters, replaces, or adds to existing process or production equipment. C. Construction of a new source as defined under this paragraph has commenced if the owner or operator has: 1. Begun, or caused to begin, as part of a continuous onsite construction program a. Any placement, assembly, or installation of facilities or equipment; or b. Significant site preparation work including clearing, excavation, or removal of existing buildings, structures, or facilities which is necessary for the placement, assembly, or installation of new source facilities or equipment; or 2. Entered into a binding contractual obligation for the purchase of facilities or equipment which are intended to be used in its operation. Options to purchase or contracts which can be terminated or modified without substantial loss, and contracts for feasibility, engineering, and design studies do not constitute a contractual obligation under this paragraph. (Ord. 36-93 § 2, 1993: prior code § 37-1-3(30)) 17.32.420: NONCONTACT COOLING WATER: "Noncontact cooling water" means water used for cooling that does not come into direct contact with any raw material, intermediate product,waste product, or finished product. (Ord. 36-93 § 2, 1993: prior code § 37-1-3(14)) 17.32.425: OIL AND GREASE: "Oil and Grease" means the total oil and grease measured in a wastewater sample by methods set forth in 40 CFR 136 or its successor. Oil and Grease is composed of a mixture of all those polar and non polar materials which are soluble in hexane at pH 2 or less, and remain after boiling off the solvent. If an environmental sample is composed of non-polar material (such as petroleum hydrocarbons), and polar materials (such as animal or vegetable oils and fats), EPA Method 1664A will directly quantify all the materials as hexane extractible materials (HEM). The silica-gel-treated-hexane extractable material (SGT-HEM) procedure of the same EPA method will measure the non-polar material (petroleum hydrocarbons) after the polar material is removed. The difference between the two measurements will give the amount of polar material (animal and vegetable)present. 11 other means, except by diluting the concentration of the pollutants unless allowed by an applicable Pretreatment Standard. (Ord. 36-93 § 2, 1993:prior code § 37-1-3(35)) 17.32.480: PRETREATMENT REQUIREMENTS: "Pretreatment requirements" means any substantive or procedural requirement related to pretreatment, other than a Pretreatment Standard imposed on a User. (Ord. 36-93 § 2, 1993: prior code § 37-1-3(36) 17.32.490: PRETREATMENT STANDARDS OR STANDARDS: "Pretreatment Standard" or"Standard" means any regulation containing pollutant discharge limits promulgated by the EPA in accordance with section 307 (b) and(c) of the Act, which applies to Industrial Users. This term includes prohibitive discharge limits established pursuant to 40 CFR 403.5. 17.32.500: PROHIBITED DISCHARGE STANDARDS OR PROHIBITED DISCHARGES: "Prohibited Discharge Standards" or"prohibited discharges" means absolute prohibitions against the discharge of certain substances; these prohibitions appear in section 17.36.060. 17.32.510: PUBLIC SEWER: "Public sewer" shall mean any sewer dedicated to public use and which is controlled by a public corporation or governmental agency. 17.32.520: PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS(POTW): "Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW)" means a treatment works, as defined by section 212 of the Act(33 USC 1292), or its successor, which is owned by Salt Lake City Corporation having statutory authority to collect and treat sewage. This definition includes any sewers, pumping stations and appurtenances used in the collection, storage, treatment, recycling, and reclamation of sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature and any conveyances, which convey wastewater to a treatment plant. Building and sewer lateral shall not be included in this defmition. For the purposes of the Wastewater Control Ordinance, "POTW" shall also include any sewers that convey wastewater to the POTW by persons outside the POTW boundaries who are by contract or agreement with the POTW actually Users of the POTW. (Ord. 36-93 § 2, 1993: prior code § 37-1-3(37)) 17.32.530: SANITARY SEWER: 13 C. The City may determine that an Industrial User subject to categorical Pretreatment Standards is a Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User rather than a Significant Industrial User on a fording that the Industrial User never discharges more than 100 gallons per day (gpd) of total categorical wastewater(excluding sanitary, non-contact cooling and boiler blowdown wastewater, unless specifically included in the Pretreatment Standard) and the following conditions are met: 1. The Industrial User,prior to City's fording, has consistently complied with all applicable categorical Pretreatment Standards and Requirements; 2. The Industrial User annually submits the certification statement required in section 17.52.210.B, together with any additional information necessary to support the certification statement; and 3. The Industrial User never discharges any untreated concentrated wastewater. D. Upon a finding that a User meeting the criteria in Subsection B of this part has no reasonable potential for adversely affecting the POTW's operation or for violating any Pretreatment Standard or Requirement, the City may at any time, on its own initiative or in response to a petition received from an Industrial User, and in accordance with procedures in 40 CFR 403.8(0(6), determine that such User should not be considered a Significant Industrial User. (Ord. 72-98 § 3, 1998: Ord. 21-95 § 1, 1995: Ord. 36-93 § 2, 1993:prior code § 37-1-3(44)) 17.32.580: SIGNIFICANT NONCOMPLIANCE (SNC): "Significant noncompliance""(SNC)" shall be applicable to all Significant Industrial Users (or any other Industrial User that violates paragraphs C, D or H of this section) and shall mean: A. Chronic violations of wastewater discharge limits, defined here as those in which sixty-six percent (66%) or more of all the measurements taken for the same pollutant parameter taken during a six- (6-) month period exceed(by any magnitude) a numeric Pretreatment Standard or Requirement, including instantaneous limits as defined herein; B. Technical Review Criteria(TRC)violations, defined here as those in which thirty-three percent (33%) or more of wastewater measurements taken for the same pollutant parameter during a six- (6-) month period equals or exceeds the product of the numeric Pretreatment Standard or Requirement including instantaneous limits, as defined herein,multiplied by the applicable TRC (TRC equals 1.4 for BOD, TSS, fats, oils and grease, and TRC equals 1.2 for all other pollutants except pH); 15 • System (NAICS) is similar to the SIC and means a classification pursuant to the Office of Management and Budget, official 2007 U.S. NAICS Manual , as amended. (Ord. 36-93 § 2, 1993: prior code § 37-1-3(48)) 17.32.620: STORM SEWER: "Storm sewer" means a sewer that carries only stormwater, surface water and ground water drainage. (Ord. 36-93 § 2, 1993:prior code § 37-1-3(49)) 17.32.630: STORMWATER: "Stormwater" means any flow occurring during or following any form of natural precipitation and resulting therefrom, including snowmelt. (Ord. 36-93 § 2, 1993: prior code § 37-1-3(50)) 17.32.640: SUBDIVISION: A. "Subdivision" means the division of a tract, or lot, or parcel of land into three (3) or more lots, plots, sites or other divisions of land for the purpose, whether immediate or future, of sale or of building development or redevelopment; provided, however,that divisions of land for agricultural purposes or for commercial, manufacturing or industrial purposes shall be exempt. Further, the above definition shall not apply to the sale or conveyance of any parcel of land which may be shown as one of the lots of a subdivision of which a plat has theretofore been recorded in the office of the county recorder. B. The word "subdivide" and any derivative thereof shall have reference to the term "subdivision" as herein defined. (Ord. 36-93 § 2, 1993:prior code § 37-1-(51)) 17.32.650: TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS OR SUSPENDED SOLIDS: "Total suspended solids" or"suspended solids" means the total suspended matter that floats on the surface of or is suspended in water, wastewater or other liquids, and which is removable by laboratory filtering in accordance with methods set forth in 40 CFR 136 or its successor. (Ord. 36-93 § 2, 1993: prior code § 37-1-3(52)) 17.32.660: TOXIC POLLUTANT: "Toxic pollutant" means any pollutant or combination of pollutants found to be toxic or stipulated as toxic in regulations promulgated by the administrator of the environmental protection agency under the act. (Ord. 72-98 § 4, 1998: Ord. 36-93 § 2, 1993:prior code § 37-1- 3(53)) 17 accumulations of water, surface or underground, natural or artificial,public or private, which are contained within, flow through or border upon the State or any portion thereof. (Ord. 36-93 § 2, 1993: prior code § 37-1-3(56)) 17.32.740: ZERO DISCHARGE INDUSTRIAL FACILITY: "Zero discharge industrial facility"means an industry which may be identified by the Director as a Significant Industrial User, as defined herein,which has voluntarily elected or is required by the categorical pretreatment standard not to discharge any of its process wastewater to the POTW, but to dispose of it by other legal means. For the purposes of inspection, sampling and enforcement, a zero discharge industrial facility shall be considered an Industrial User. SECTION 2. Chapter 17.36 of Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Chapter 17.36 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 17.36.010: SUPERVISION OF POTW: The POTW shall be supervised and directed by the Director. (Ord. 36-93 § 3, 1993: prior code § 37-2-1) 17.36.020: MORE STRINGENT LIMITATIONS; POTW RIGHTS: The POTW reserves the right to establish more stringent limitations or requirements on discharges to the wastewater disposal system if deemed necessary to comply with the objectives presented in section 17.32.020, or its successor. (Ord. 36-93 § 3, 1993: prior code § 37-2-8) 17.36.030: GENERAL DISCHARGE REGULATIONS: A. Discharge into POTW: All sewage shall be discharged to public sewers except as provided hereinafter. B. Discharge of Sewage: No person shall discharge any sewage from any premises within the POTW service area into and upon any public highway, stream,watercourse or public place, or into any drain, cesspool, storm or private sewer, except as provided for hereafter. (Ord. 36-93 § 3, 1993: prior code § 37-2-2(1), (2)) 19 3. Solids: a. Solid or viscous substances in amounts which will cause obstruction to the flow in the POTW resulting in Interference. b. Solid or viscous pollutants in amounts which will interfere with the operation of the wastewater treatment facilities such as, but not limited to fats oils and grease, garbage with particles greater than one-fourth inch(1/4") in any dimension, animal guts or tissues,paunch manure, bones,hair, hides or fleshings, entrails, whole blood, feathers, ashes, cinder, sand, spent lime, stone or marble dust,metal, glass, plastics, gas, tar, asphalt residues,residues from refining or processing of fuel or lubricating oil, mud or glass grinding or polishing wastes; 4. Low pH Limit: Any wastewater which will cause corrosive structural damage to the POTW, but in no case discharges with pH of less than 5.0,unless the POTW is specifically designed to accommodate such discharges. 5. High pH Limit: Any wastewater with a pH greater than 11.0 or otherwise causing corrosive structural damage to the POTW or equipment; 6. Toxic Pollutants: a. Any pollutants including oxygen-demanding pollutants(BOD, etc.), released in a discharge at a flow rate and/or pollutant concentration which, either singly or by interaction with other pollutants,will cause Interference with the POTW. b. Toxic Pollutants: Any pollutants released in a discharge at a flow rate and/or pollutant concentration which, either singly or by interaction with other pollutants, will cause interference with wastewater treatment or sludge handling process, constitute a hazard to humans or animals, create an acute toxic effect in the receiving waters of the POTW, contaminate the sludge of the POTW systems, or exceed the limitations set forth in a categorical or local Pretreatment Standard or Requirement; 7. Noxious Substances: Any waste containing noxious or malodorous liquids, in such quantities that, alone or in combination with other waste substances are sufficient to create a hazard for humans, animals or the environment, interfere detrimentally with sewage treatment processes, Pass Through treatment facilities in concentrations exceeding discharge limitations,prevent entry into the sewers for their maintenance and repair, cause a public nuisance, or cause any hazardous condition to occur in the POTW; 21 16. Storm Water, surface water, ground water, artesian well water, roof runoff, subsurface drainage, swimming pool drainage, condensate, deionized water,noncontact cooling water, and unpolluted wastewater,unless specifically authorized by the Director in a wastewater discharge permit; 17. Sludges, screenings, or other residues from the pretreatment of industrial wastes; 18. Medical Wastes in amounts or concentrations that would cause a violation of any one of the objectives included in Section 17.32.020.B of this ordinance; 19. Wastewater causing, alone or in conjunction with other sources, the treatment plant's effluent to fail any toxicity test; 20. Detergents, surface-active agents, or other substances that might cause excessive foaming in the POTW; 21. Saltwater or brine from commercial or industrial establishments in concentrations that will interfere with wastewater collection, treatment or treated wastewater reuse including but not limited to commercial or industrial backwashes or similar wastestreams resulting from the direct addition of salt. 22. Any discharges containing compounds that are labeled for the control of pest species of any type, such as,but not limited to, acaricides,bactericides, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, molluscicides, nematicides and rodenticides in concentrations that would cause Interference or Pass-Through at the POTW or otherwise cause the POTW to violate its UPDES permit. Pollutants, substances, or wastewater prohibited by this Ordinance shall not be processed or stored in such a manner that they could be discharged to the POTW. 17.36.070: NATIONAL CATEGORICAL PRETREATMENT STANDARDS: Upon the promulgation of the Federal National Categorical Pretreatment Standard for a particular industrial subcategory, the Federal Standard, if more stringent than limitations imposed in this chapter for sources in that subcategory, shall immediately supersede the limitations imposed herein. Categorical Industrial Users must comply with the National Categorical Pretreatment Standards found at 40 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter N, Parts 405-471. 23 2. An Industrial User subject to equivalent mass limits must: a. Maintain and effectively operate control and treatment technologies adequate to achieve compliance with the equivalent mass limits; b. Continue to record the facility's flow rates through the use of a continuous effluent flow monitoring device; c. Continue to record the facility's production rates and notify the Director whenever production rates are expected to vary by more than 20 percent from its baseline production rates determined in paragraph 17.36.070.D.1.c of this section. Upon notification of a revised production rate, the Director will reassess the equivalent mass limit and revise the limit as necessary to reflect changed conditions at the facility; and d. Continue to employ the same or comparable water conservation methods and technologies as those implemented pursuant to paragraph 17.36.070. D.1 a of this section so long as it discharges under an equivalent mass limit. 3. When developing equivalent mass limits,the Director: a. Will calculate the equivalent mass limit by multiplying the actual average daily flow rate of the regulated process(es) of the Industrial User by the concentration-based daily maximum and monthly average standard for the applicable categorical Pretreatment Standard and the appropriate unit conversion factor, b. Upon notification of a revised production rate, will reassess the equivalent mass limit and recalculate the limit as necessary to reflect changed conditions at the facility; and c. May retain the same equivalent mass limit in subsequent wastewater discharger permit terms if the Industrial User's actual average daily flow rate was reduced solely as a result of the implementation of water conservation methods and technologies, and the actual average daily flow rates used in the original calculation of the equivalent mass limit were not based on the use of dilution as a substitute for treatment pursuant to section 17.36.110. The Industrial User must also be in compliance with section 17.69.030 regarding the prohibition of bypass. 25 D. Local limits are established to prevent Pass Through and Interference and shall be reviewed as needed. Any revision to the Control Authority's local limits shall be submitted for approval to the State. Upon State approval,the revised local limits shall be enforceable under the conditions of the Wastewater Control Ordinance. Copies of the most recently State approved local limits shall be made available upon request through the Office of the Director. E. The Director may develop best management practices(BMPs),by ordinance or in wastewater discharge permits, to implement local limits and the requirements of the Wastewater Control Ordinance. 17.36.100: CITY'S RIGHT OF REVISION: The City reserves the right to establish,by ordinance or in wastewater discharge permits, more stringent standards or requirements on discharges to the POTW consistent with the purpose of the Wastewater Control Ordinance. 17.36.110: DILUTION OF DISCHARGES PROHIBITED: No User shall ever increase the use of process water, or in any way attempt to dilute a discharge as a partial or complete substitute for adequate pretreatment to achieve compliance with a discharge limitation unless expressly authorized by an applicable Pretreatment Standard or Requirement. The Director may impose mass limitations on Users who are using dilution to meet applicable Pretreatment Standards or Requirements, or in other cases when the imposition of mass limitations is appropriate pursuant to 40 CFR 403.6(c)(1). (Ord. 36-93 § 3, 1993: prior code § 37-2-9)) 17.36.120: PRETREATMENT REQUIREMENTS: Users shall provide wastewater treatment as necessary to comply with the Wastewater Control Ordinance and shall achieve compliance with all categorical Pretreatment Standards, local limits, and the prohibitions set out in 17.36.060 within the time limitations specified by EPA, the State, or the Director, whichever is more stringent. Any facilities or equipment(e.g. continuous pH meters, ORP meters) necessary for ensuring consistent compliance shall be provided, operated, and maintained at the User's expense. Detailed plans describing such facilities, equipment and operating procedures shall be submitted to the Director for review, and shall be acceptable to the Director before such facilities are constructed and equipment installed. The review of such plans and operating procedures shall in no way relieve the User from the responsibility of modifying such facilities or equipment as necessary to produce a discharge acceptable to the City under the provisions of the Wastewater Control Ordinance. Following completion of construction the Director may request the User to provide copies of as-built drawings to be retained by the 27 B. Any existing floor drain, such as those from interior auto maintenance shops, garages or machine shop facilities,that discharges into a storm drain system shall be plugged, or require the installation and maintenance of a interceptor, sample box and sanitary sewer connection. All new facilities will be required to meet these regulations. C. All interceptors shall be constructed of impervious materials capable of withstanding abrupt and extreme changes in temperature. They shall be of substantial construction, watertight, and equipped with easily removable covers which,when bolted in place, shall be gastight and watertight. D. Where installed, interceptors must be inspected and approved by the City, and shall be maintained in continuous efficient operation at all times by the User at the User's sole expense. E. In the event a food processing or preparation establishment installs or has installed an interceptor pursuant to this section, the installation shall not in and of itself, relieve the User from complying with section 17.52.220. (Ord. 72-98 § 8, 1998: Ord. 36-93 § 3, 1993: prior code § 37-2-14) 17.36.150: ACCIDENTAL DISCHARGE/SLUG DISCHARGE CONTROL PLANS: A. The Director shall evaluate whether each SIU needs an accidental discharge/slug discharge control plan or other action to control slug discharges within one year after the industrial User has been designated an SIU. The Director shall re-evaluate each SIU every two (2) years after the initial evaluation. The Director may require any User to develop, submit for approval, and implement such a plan or take such other action that may be necessary to control slug discharges. Alternatively, the Director may develop such a plan for any User. An accidental discharge/slug discharge control plan shall address, at a minimum, the following: 1. Description of discharge practices, including nonroutine batch discharges; 2. Description of stored chemicals; 3. Procedures for immediately notifying the Director of any accidental or slug discharge, as required by section 17.52.160 F; and 4. Procedures to prevent adverse impact from any accidental or slug discharge. Such procedures include, but are not limited to, inspection and maintenance of storage areas, handling and transfer of materials, loading and unloading operations, control of plant site 29 ordinances, rules and regulations of said POTW pertaining to plumbing and sewers. (Ord. 36-93 § 3, 1993: prior code § 37-2-16) 17.36.180: PRIVATE FACILITIES; MANDATORY CONNECTION TO SEWERS: A. Connection Required When: The owner or the owner's agent of all houses,buildings or properties used for human occupancy, employment,recreation or other purposes, situated within the Salt Lake City sewer service area and abutting on any street, alley or right of way in which there is now located or may in the future be located a city sewer line, shall, when notified and required in writing by the City, at owner's expense, install suitable toilet facilities therein, and connect such facilities directly with the City sewer system in accordance with the provisions herein within ninety(90) days after date of official notice to do so,provided that the City sewer line is within three hundred feet (300') of the owner's property line. B. Discontinuance of Privy Vaults, Cesspools and Septic Tanks: 1. After date of official notice in subsection A of this section,no User, or his/her agent, or other person having charge of or occupying any property within three hundred feet(300') of a city sewer shall maintain or use or cause or permit to exist any privy vault, septic tank or cesspool upon such property without the City's written consent. 2. In no case shall any plumbing in any house or building not complying with subsection A of this section and official notice remain unconnected to any public sewer for more than ninety(90) days after written notice from the City. C. Outhouses Prohibited: No User shall erect or maintain any outhouse or privy within the City sewer service area, except as licensed by the City. (Ord. 36-93 § 3, 1993: Ord. 59-87 § 1, 1987: prior code § 37-2-12) 17.36.190: PRIVATE SEWAGE DISPOSAL; LIMITATIONS: A. Private Disposal Prohibited When: 1. No User shall construct,use or maintain any privy,privy vault, septic tank, cesspool or other facility intended or used for the disposal of sewage within the boundaries of POTW where POTW service is available within three hundred feet(300') of the property line of any property upon which any building, privy, privy vault, septic tank, cesspool or other facility as described above exists, except as provided in subsection B.1 of this section. 31 Any User desiring to discontinue service shall notify the POTW in writing of such fact at least thirty (30) days before the date when such service shall be discontinued. Upon giving such written notice, the User shall not be responsible for bills incurred after the termination date specified in the notice. Any unused credit balance in favor of the customer as a result of an advance payment of bills or deposit will be promptly refunded upon discontinuance of service. (Ord. 36-93 § 3, 1993: prior code § 37-2-18) 17.36.220: MANHOLE COVERS: No User or other person shall open any POTW sewer manhole without permission from the Director. (Ord. 36-93 § 3, 1993:prior code § 37-2-11) 17.36.230: DAMAGING SEWER SYSTEM PROHIBITED: No person shall damage,break or remove any part or portion of any POTW sewer or system, or any sewer appliance or appurtenance,without the POTW's prior written consent. (Ord. 72-98 § 9, 1998: Ord. 36-93 § 3, 1993:prior code § 37-2-10) SECTION 3. Chapter 17.52 of Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Chapter 17.52 WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMITS 17.52.010: WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT REQUIREMENT: A. No SIU shall discharge wastewater into the POTW without first obtaining a wastewater discharge permit from the Director, except that a SIU that has filed a timely application pursuant to section 17.52.020.B may continue to discharge for the time period specified therein. B. The Director may require other Users to obtain wastewater discharge permits as necessary to carry out the purposes of the Wastewater Control Ordinance. C. Any violation of the terms and conditions of a wastewater discharge permit shall be deemed a violation of the Wastewater Control Ordinance and subjects the wastewater discharge permittee to the sanctions set out in sections 17.68.010 through 17.68.170. Obtaining a wastewater discharge permit does not relieve a permittee of its obligation to comply with all 33 b. The name of an authorized representative duly authorized to act on behalf of the facility c. Description of activities, facilities, and plant production processes on the premises; 2. SIC number and/or NAICS number. 3. Environmental Permits: A list of any environmental control permits held by or for the facility. 4. Description of Operations: a. A brief description of the nature, average rate of production(including each product produced by type,amount,processes, and rate of production), and standard industrial classifications of the operation(s) carried out by such User. This description should include a schematic process diagram,which indicates all points of discharge to the POTW from the regulated and unregulated processes and from dilute flows such as the domestic waste,boiler blowdown and noncontact cooling water, if any. b. Types of wastes generated, and a list of all raw materials and chemicals used or stored at the facility which are, or could accidentally or intentionally be, discharged to the POTW. Material safety data sheets (MSDSs) of all chemicals shall be included. c. Number and type of employees, hours of operation, and proposed or actual hours of operation; d. Type and amount of raw materials processed(average and maximum per day); e. Site plans, floor plans, mechanical and plumbing plans, and details to show all sewers, floor drains, and appurtenances by size, location, and elevation, and all points of discharge. If deemed necessary by the POTW, such plans shall provide for separate systems for handling sanitary and industrial wastewater; 5. Time and duration of discharges; 6. The location for monitoring all wastes covered by the permit; 7. Flow Measurement: Information showing the measured average daily and maximum daily flow, in gallons per day, and peak wastewater flow rates, including daily, monthly and seasonal variations, if any,to the POTW from regulated process streams and other 35 12. A statement signed by an authorized representative of the industrial User as follows: "I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information,the information submitted is,to the best of my knowledge and belief,true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations". B. Incomplete or inaccurate applications will not be processed and will be returned to the User for revision. 17.52.040: ZERO PROCESS WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT: Zero discharge industrial facilities as defined in 17.32.740 must apply for and obtain a zero process wastewater discharge permit. The Director may require the completion of a wastewater analysis as described in 17.52.020.A. The application contents for a zero process wastewater discharge permit shall be the same as that for an industrial wastewater discharge permit as described in 17.52.030. The zero process wastewater discharge permit shall require the permittee, to submit in December and June of each year,a written certification signed by an authorized representative that the facility has not discharged any process wastewater to the sanitary sewer in the last six month period and does not intend to discharge process wastewater in the coming six month period. Failure to submit this certification shall be deemed a violation of this ordinance. Any detected discharge of process wastewater to the City's sanitary sewer system by a zero process discharge industrial facility at any time shall immediately subject the user to the enforcement remedies included in section 17.68, The zero process wastewater discharge permit may contain other limitations and requirements as deemed necessary by the Director and this ordinance. The duration of zero process wastewater discharge permits shall be the same as wastewater discharge permits as defined in 17.52.070. 17.52.050: APPLICATION SIGNATORIES AND CERTIFICATIONS: A. All wastewater discharge permit applications, User reports and certification statements must be signed by an authorized representative of the User and contain the certification statement in sections 17.52.210 A and 17.52.030 A 12. B. If the designation of an authorized representative is no longer accurate because a different individual or position has responsibility for the overall operation of the facility or overall responsibility for environmental matters for the company, a new written authorization 37 1. A statement that indicates the wastewater discharge permit issuance date,expiration date and effective date; (see section 17.52.070.) 2. A statement that the wastewater discharge permit is nontransferable without prior notification to the City in accordance with section 17.52.110, and provisions for furnishing the new owner or operator with a copy of the existing wastewater discharge permit; 3. Effluent limits, including BMPs,based on applicable Pretreatment Standards; 4. Self monitoring, sampling,reporting,notification, and record-keeping requirements. These requirements shall include an identification of pollutants (or BMP) to be monitored, sampling location, sampling frequency, and sample type based on Federal, State, and local law; 5. The process for seeking a waiver from monitoring for a pollutant neither present nor expected to be present in the discharge in accordance with section 17.52.160.D.2; 6. A statement of applicable civil and criminal penalties for violation of Pretreatment Standards and Requirements, and any applicable compliance schedule. Such schedule may not extend the time for compliance beyond that required by applicable Federal, State, or local law; 7. Requirements to control slug discharge, if determined by the Director to be necessary; and 8. Any grant of the monitoring waiver by the Director(section 17.52.160.D.2) shall be included as a condition in the User's permit. B. Wastewater discharge permits may contain,but need not be limited to,the following conditions: 1. Requirements for the payment of the then current unit charge or schedule of User charges and fees for the wastewater to be discharged to the POTW; 2. Limits on the average and/or maximum rate and time of discharge and/or requirements for flow regulation and equalization; 39 12. A statement that compliance with the wastewater discharge permit does not relieve the permittee of responsibility for compliance with all applicable Federal and State Pretreatment Standards, including those which become effective during the term of the wastewater discharge permit ; 13.Production rates where mass discharge limits are required; and 14. Other conditions as deemed appropriate by the Director to ensure compliance with this chapter,and State and Federal laws,rules, and regulations. (Ord. 36-93 § 7, 1993: prior code § 37-5-2(4)) 17.52.090: WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT; ISSUANCE APPEAL PROCESS: Upon issuance of the wastewater discharge permit, any person including the applicant shall have 45 days to file in writing objections to any term or condition of the permit and: A. If no objections are received by the City within this time,the permit is deemed to be accepted. B. In its objection, the appealing party must indicate the individual wastewater discharge permit provisions objected to, the reasons for this objection, and the alternative condition, if any, it seeks to place in the individual wastewater discharge permit sections. C. If a timely objection is filed and agreement cannot be reached with the POTW, the POTW may submit to the Director the proposed permit conditions and the written objections thereto. D. The effectiveness of the individual wastewater discharge permit shall not be stayed pending the appeal. E. The Director shall establish such special permit conditions as he or she deems advisable to ensure the applicant's compliance with the Wastewater Control Ordinance or applicable law or regulation, and direct the POTW to issue a wastewater discharge permit accordingly. The Director's decisions shall be considered final administrative actions for purposes of judicial review. F. Decisions by the Director not to reconsider an individual wastewater discharge permit, not to issue an individual wastewater discharge permit, or not to modify an individual wastewater discharge permit shall also be considered final administrative actions for purposes of judicial review; if a decision is not made by the Director within ninety (90) days of receipt of a written request, such request will be deemed denied. 41 A. Wastewater discharge permits may be transferred to a new owner or operator only if the permittee gives at least sixty(60) days advance notice to the Director and the Director approves the Wastewater discharge permit transfer. The notice to the Director must include a written certification by the new owner or operator which: 1. States that the new owner and/or operator has no immediate intent to change the facility's operations and processes; 2. Identifies the specific date on which the transfer is to occur, 3. Acknowledges full responsibility for complying with the existing wastewater discharge permit; and 4. The conditions of the permit will not change. B. Failure to provide advance notice of a transfer renders the wastewater discharge permit void as of the date of facility transfer. (Ord. 36-93 § 7, 1993:prior code § 37-5-2(6)) 17.52.120: WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT; SUSPENSION AND REVOCATION The Director may revoke a wastewater permit for good cause, including,but not limited to, the following reasons: A. Failure to notify the Director of significant changes to the wastewater prior to the changed discharge; B. Failure to provide prior notification to the Director of changed conditions pursuant to section 17.52.160.E; C. Misrepresentation or failure to fully disclose all relevant facts in the wastewater discharge permit application; D. Falsifying self-monitoring reports or certification statements; E. Tampering with monitoring equipment; F. Refusing to allow the Director timely access to the facility premises or records; G. Failure to meet effluent limitations; 43 An Industrial User requesting a fundamentally different factor variance must comply with the procedural and substantive provisions in 40 CFR 403.13 and Rule R317-8-8.17 U.A.C.; B. Contracts With Other POTWs: Whenever there is excess POTW sewage treatment capacity, the POTW may contract with any other organized and established sewage treatment plant or with any other governmental agency or private enterprise for the discharge into the POTW from any part or parts thereof, or person living outside the boundaries of the POTW, upon such terms and conditions and for such periods of time as may be deemed reasonable. (Ord. 36-93 § 3, 1993: prior code § 37-2-13) 17.52.150: REGULATION OF WASTE RECEIVED FROM OTHER JURISDICTIONS: A. If another municipality, special district, government entity, or other jurisdiction authority connects to or contributes wastewater to the POTW, the Director shall enter into an inter- agency agreement with that entity. B. Prior to entering into an agreement required by paragraph A, above,the Director shall request the following information from the contributing municipality: 1. A description of the quality and volume of wastewater discharged to the POTW by the contributing municipality; 2. An inventory of all Users located within the contributing municipality that are discharging to the POTW; and 3. Such other information as the Director may deem necessary. C. An intermunicipal agreement, as required by paragraph A, above shall contain the following conditions: 1. A requirement for the contributing municipality to adopt a sewer use ordinance which is at least as stringent as this ordinance and Local Limits, including required Baseline Monitoring Reports (BMRs) which are at least as stringent as those set out in section 17.36.090.E. The requirement shall specify that such ordinance and limits must be revised as necessary to reflect changes made to the City's ordinance or Local Limits; 2. A requirement for the contributing municipality to submit a revised User inventory on at least an annual basis; 45 2. Measurement of pollutants. a. The User shall provide the information required in section 17.52.030.A.8.a, through d; b. The User shall take a minimum of one representative sample to compile that data necessary to comply with the requirements of this paragraph; c. Samples should be taken immediately downstream from pretreatment facilities if such exist or immediately downstream from the regulated process if no pretreatment exists. If other wastewaters are mixed with the regulated wastewater prior to pretreatment the User should measure the flows and concentrations necessary to allow use of the combined waste stream formula in 40 CFR 403.6(e)to evaluate compliance with the Pretreatment Standards. Where an alternate concentration or mass limit has been calculated in accordance with 40 CFR 403.6(e)this adjusted limit along with supporting data shall be submitted to the Control Authority; d. Sampling and analysis shall be performed in accordance with sections 17.52.170 and 17.52.180; e. The Director may allow the submission of a baseline report which utilizes only historical data so long as the data provides information sufficient to determine the need for industrial pretreatment measures; and f. The baseline report shall indicate the time, date and place of sampling and methods of analysis, and shall certify that such sampling and analysis is representative of normal work cycles and expected pollutant discharges to the POTW. 3. Compliance certification: A statement, reviewed by the User's authorized representative as defined in section 17.32.080 and certified by a qualified professional, indicating whether Pretreatment Standards are being met on a consistent basis, and, if not, whether additional operation and maintenance (O&M) and/or additional pretreatment is required to meet the Pretreatment Standards and Requirements. 4. Compliance schedule: If additional pretreatment and/or O&M will be required for the user to meet the Pretreatment Standards, the shortest schedule by which the User will provide such additional pretreatment and/or O&M must be provided. The completion date in this schedule shall not be later than the compliance date established for the applicable Pretreatment Standard. A compliance schedule pursuant to this section must meet the requirements set out in section 17.52.160 B. 47 signed and certified in accordance with section 17.52.210.A. All sampling will be done in conformance with section 17.52.180. D. Periodic compliance reports. 1. Except as specified in paragraph 3 below, all SIUs must, at a frequency determined by the Director submit no less than twice per year(June and December or on dates specified) reports indicating the nature, concentration of pollutants in the discharge which are limited by Pretreatment Standards and the measured or estimated average and maximum daily flows for the reporting period. In cases where the Pretreatment Standard requires compliance with a BMP or pollution prevention alternative, the User must submit documentation required by the Director or the Pretreatment Standard necessary to determine the compliance status of the User. 2. The City may authorize an Industrial User subject to a categorical Pretreatment Standard to forego sampling of a pollutant regulated by a categorical Pretreatment Standard if the Industrial User has demonstrated through sampling and other technical factors that the pollutant is neither present nor expected to be present in the discharge, or is present only at background levels from intake water and without any increase in the pollutant due to activities of the Industrial User. This authorization is subject to the following conditions: a. The waiver may be authorized where a pollutant is determined to be present solely due to sanitary wastewater discharged from the facility provided that the sanitary wastewater is not regulated by an applicable categorical Standard and otherwise includes no process wastewater; b. The monitoring waiver is valid only for the duration of the effective period of the wastewater discharge permit,but in no case longer than 5 years. The User must submit a new request for the waiver before the waiver can be granted for each subsequent wastewater discharge permit; (see section 17.52.030.A.9.) c. In making a demonstration that a pollutant is not present, the Industrial User must provide data from at least one sampling of the facility's process wastewater prior to any treatment present at the facility that is representative of all wastewater from all processes; d. The request for a monitoring waiver must be signed in accordance with section 17.32.080, and include the certification statement in section 17.52.210.A; 49 • Reduced reporting is not available to Industrial Users that have in the last two (2) years been in Significant Noncompliance, as defined in section 17.32.580. In addition, reduced reporting is not available to an Industrial User with daily flow rates, production levels, or pollutant levels that vary so significantly that, in the opinion of the Director, decreasing the reporting requirement for this Industrial User would result in data that are not representative of conditions occurring during the reporting period. 4. All periodic compliance reports must be signed and certified in accordance with section 17.52.210.A. 5. All wastewater samples must be representative of the User's discharge. Wastewater monitoring and flow measurement facilities shall be properly operated, kept clean,and maintained in good working order at all times. The failure of a User to keep its monitoring facility in good working order shall not be grounds for the User to claim that sample results are unrepresentative of its discharge. 6. If a User subject to the reporting requirement in this section monitors any regulated pollutant at the appropriate sampling location more frequently than required by the Director, using the procedures prescribed in section 17.52.180,the results of this monitoring shall be included in the report. E. Reports of changed conditions Each User must notify the Director of any significant changes to the User's operations or system which might alter the nature, quality, or volume of its wastewater at least thirty (30) days before the change. 1. The Director may require the User to submit such information as may be deemed necessary to evaluate the changed condition, including the submission of a wastewater discharge permit application under section 17.52.030. 2. The Director may issue a wastewater discharge permit under section 17.52.130 or modify an existing wastewater discharge permit under section 17.52.100 in response to changed conditions or anticipated changed conditions. 51 analysis in lieu of the Industrial User and a violation occurs, the City will perform the repeat sampling and analysis unless it notifies the User of the violation and requires the User to perform the repeat sampling and analysis. I. Notification of the discharge of hazardous waste. 1. Any User who commences the discharge of hazardous waste shall notify the POTW, the EPA Regional Waste Management Division Director, and State hazardous waste authorities, in writing, of any discharge into the POTW of a substance which, if otherwise disposed of, would be a hazardous waste under 40 CFR Part 261. Such notification must include the name of the hazardous waste as set forth in 40 CFR Part 261, the EPA hazardous waste number, and the type of discharge (continuous,batch, or other). If the User discharges more than one hundred(100)kilograms of such waste per calendar month to the POTW,the notification also shall contain the following information to the extent such information is known and readily available to the User: an identification of the hazardous constituents contained in the wastes, an estimation of the mass and concentration of such constituents in the wastestream discharged during that calendar month, and an estimation of the mass of constituents in the wastestream expected to be discharged during the following twelve (12)months. All notifications must take place no later than one hundred and eighty(180) days after the discharge commences. Any notification under this paragraph need be submitted only once for each hazardous waste discharged. However,notifications of changed conditions must be submitted under section 17.52.160.E. The notification requirement in this section does not apply to pollutants already reported by Users subject to categorical Pretreatment Standards under the self-monitoring requirements of sections 17.52.160.A, C, and D. 2. Dischargers are exempt from the requirements of paragraph 1, above, during a calendar month in which they discharge no more than fifteen (15)kilograms of hazardous wastes, unless the wastes are acute hazardous wastes as specified in 40 CFR 261.30(d) and 261.33(e). Discharge of more than fifteen (15)kilograms of nonacute hazardous wastes in a calendar month, or of any quantity of acute hazardous wastes as specified in 40 CFR 261.30(d) and 261.33(e), requires a one-time notification. Subsequent months during which the User discharges more than such quantities of any hazardous waste do not require additional notification. 3. In the case of any new regulations under section 3001 of RCRA identifying additional characteristics of hazardous waste or listing any additional substance as a hazardous waste, the User must notify the Director, the EPA Regional Waste Management Waste Division Director, and State hazardous waste authorities of the discharge of such substance within ninety(90)days of the effective date of such regulations. 53 documented in approved EPA methodologies may be authorized by the City, as appropriate. In addition, grab samples may be required to show compliance with instantaneous limits. B. Samples for oil and grease, temperature,pH, cyanide,total phenols, sulfides, and volatile organic compounds must be obtained using grab collection techniques. C. For sampling required in support of baseline monitoring and 90-day compliance reports required in section 17.52.160.A and C a minimum of four(4) grab samples must be used for pH, cyanide, total phenols, oil and grease, sulfide and volatile organic compounds for facilities for which historical sampling data do not exist; for facilities for which historical sampling data are available, the Director may authorize a lower minimum. For the reports required by section 17.52.160.D, the Industrial User is required to collect the number of grab samples necessary to assess and assure compliance by with applicable Pretreatment Standards and Requirements. 17.52.190: DATE OF RECEIPT OF REPORTS: For written reports that are mailed through a mail facility serviced by the United State Postal Service, such reports will be deemed to have been submitted on the date postmarked. For written reports that are shipped using other common reliable carriers, the carrier's pickup or ship date will be deemed the submittal date. If a postmark or pickup/ship date is not available,the date of receipt of the report shall govern. 17.52.200: RECORDKEEPING: Users subject to the reporting requirements of this ordinance shall retain, and make available for inspection and copying by the Director, all records of information obtained pursuant to any monitoring activities required by this ordinance, any additional records of information obtained pursuant to monitoring activities undertaken by the User independent of such requirements, and documentation associated with BMPs established under section 17.36.090.E. Records shall include the date, exact place, method, and time of sampling, and the name of the person(s) taking the samples; the dates analyses were performed; who performed the analyses; the analytical techniques or methods used; and the results of such analyses. These records shall remain available for a period of at least five (5)years. This period shall be automatically extended for the duration of any litigation concerning the User or the City, or where the User has been specifically notified of a longer retention period by the Director. 17.52.210: CERTIFICATION STATEMENTS: A. Certification of permit applications, User reports and initial monitoring waiver—The following certification statement is required to be signed and submitted by Users submitting 55 C. Certification of Pollutants Not Present Users that have an approved monitoring waiver based on section 17.52.160.D.2 must certify on each report with the following statement that there has been no increase in the pollutant in its wastestream due to activities of the User. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons directly responsible for managing compliance with the Pretreatment Standard for 40 CFR [specify applicable National Pretreatment Standard part(s)],I certify that,to the best of my knowledge and belief, there has been no increase in the level of [list pollutant(s)] in the wastewaters due to the activities at the facility since filing of the last periodic report under section 17.52.160.D. 17.52.220: MONITORING FACILITIES FOR INDUSTRIAL USERS: A. The Director may require the Industrial User to provide and operate, a control manhole or sample box or other monitoring equipment at the owner's expense approved by the Director, at a point to be determined by the POTW where representative samples of all regulated discharges from the industry can be collected and flow measurements accurately made as necessary. The monitoring facilities shall be situated on the User's premises or such other location as allowed by the POTW. The POTW will be allowed to use these monitoring facilities to sample at any time and without notice in accordance with Section 17.52.230. B. There shall be ample room in or near such monitoring manhole or facility to allow accurate sampling and preparation of samples for analysis. The facility's sampling and monitoring equipment shall be maintained at all times in a safe and proper operating condition at the expense of the User. All devices used to measure wastewater flow and quality shall be periodically calibrated as specified by the Director to ensure their accuracy,but at a minimum, the calibration shall occur per the manufacture's requirements. C. Any temporary or permanent obstruction to safe and easy access to the facility to be inspected and/or sampled shall be promptly removed by the User at the written or verbal request of the Director and shall not be replaced. The costs of clearing such access shall be borne by the User. 57 believe that there may be a violation of the Wastewater Control Ordinance, or that there is a need to inspect and/or sample as part of a routine inspection and sampling program of the City designed to verify compliance with the Wastewater Control Ordinance or any permit or order issued hereunder, or to protect the overall public health, safety and welfare of the community, the Director may seek issuance of a search warrant from the Third District Court of the State of Utah. (Ord. 36-93 § 7, 1993:prior code § 37-5-6) 17.52.250: CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND TRADE SECRETS: Information and data on a User obtained from reports, surveys,wastewater discharge permit applications, wastewater discharge permits, and monitoring programs, and from the Director's inspection and sampling activities, shall be available to the public without restriction, unless the User specifically requests, and is able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director,that the release of such information would divulge information, processes, or methods of production entitled to protection as trade secrets under the provisions of the Utah Government Records Access and Management Act(GRAMA) or other applicable State law. Any such request must be asserted at the time of submission of the information or data. When requested and demonstrated by the User furnishing a report that such information should be held confidential, the portions of a report which might disclose trade secrets or secret processes shall not be made available for inspection by the public,but shall be made available immediately upon request to governmental agencies for uses related to the UPDES program or pretreatment program, and in enforcement proceedings involving the person furnishing the report. Wastewater constituents and characteristics and other effluent data, as defined at 40 CFR 2.302 shall not be recognized as confidential information and shall be available to the public without restriction. (Ord. 36-93 § 7, 1993: prior code § 37-5-9) 17.52.260: PUBLICATION OF USERS IN SIGNIFICANT NONCOMPLIANCE: A. The POTW shall, publish annually,providing public notification in the largest daily newspaper published in Salt Lake City, of all Industrial Users which were in significant noncompliance with applicable Pretreatment Standards and Requirements at any time during the previous twelve (12)month reporting period. All records relating to compliance with Pretreatment Standards shall be made available to officials of the EPA or Approval Authority and to the public pursuant to city policy and the Utah government records access and management act. B. The term Significant Noncompliance as defined in section 17.32.580 shall be applicable to all SIUs (or any other Industrial User that violates paragraph C, D or H of 17.32.580). (Ord. 72-98 § 10, 1998: Ord. 36-93 § 7, 1993:prior code § 37-5-8) 59 issued or promulgated hereunder, or any other Pretreatment Standard or Requirement, the Director may serve upon said User a written notice of violation. Such written notice shall be served in person or by certified mail, return receipt requested. Within ten (10) calendar days after the receipt of such notice, an explanation for the violation and a plan for the satisfactory correction and prevention thereof,which shall include specific required actions, shall be submitted by the User to the Director. Submission of this plan in no way relieves the User of liability for any violations occurring before or after receipt of the notice of violation. Nothing in this section shall limit the authority of the Director to take any action, including emergency actions or any other enforcement action, without first issuing a notice of violation. (Ord. 72-98 § 16, 1998) 17.68.020: CONSENT ORDERS: The Director is hereby empowered to enter into consent orders, assurances of compliance, or other similar documents establishing an agreement with any User responsible for noncompliance. Such orders will include specific action to be taken by the User to correct the noncompliance within a time period specified by the order. Consent orders shall be judicially enforceable. (Ord. 72-98 § 16, 1998) 17.68.030: SHOW CAUSE HEARING: The Director may order any User which causes or contributes to violation(s) of any provisions of the Wastewater Control Ordinance, or any wastewater discharge permit or order, rule or regulation issued or promulgated hereunder, or any other Pretreatment Standard or Requirement, to appear before the Director and show cause why a proposed enforcement action should not be taken. Notice shall be served on the User, which notice shall specify the time and place for the meeting,the proposed enforcement action,the reasons for such action, and a request that the User show cause why this proposed enforcement action should not be taken. Such written notice shall be served in person on any Authorized Representative of the User, or by certified mail, return receipt requested,at least seven(7) days prior to the hearing. Whether or not the User appears as ordered, immediate enforcement action may be pursued following the hearing date. A show cause hearing shall not be a prerequisite for taking any other actions against the User. (Ord. 72-98 § 16, 1998) 17.68.040: COMPLIANCE ORDERS: When the Director fords that a User has violated or continues to violate any provision of the Wastewater Control Ordinance, or any wastewater discharge permit, order, rule or regulation issued or promulgated hereunder, or any other Pretreatment Standard or Requirement, the Director may issue an order to the User responsible for the violation directing that the User come 61 B. The POTW may charge a User for the costs of preparing administrative enforcement actions, such as notices and orders, which charge may be assessed whether or not a fme under subsection A of this section is also imposed. The POTW may recover reasonable attorneys' fees, court costs, and other expenses associated with enforcement activities, including sampling and monitoring expenses, and the cost of any actual damages incurred. C. Assessments for fmes and/or administrative costs may be added to the User's next scheduled sewer service charge, and the Director shall have such other collection remedies as may be available for other service charges and fees. D. Unpaid charges, fines, assessments and penalties shall, after sixty(60) calendar days, be assessed an additional penalty of ten percent(10%)of the unpaid balance. Thereafter, interest on any unpaid balances, including penalties, shall accrue at a rate of one percent (1%)per month. A lien against the individual User's property will be sought for unpaid charges, fines, and penalties. E. Users desiring to dispute such fines or assessments must file a written request for the Director to reconsider the fme or assessment, along with full payment thereof within thirty (30) days of being notified of the fine or assessment. The Director may convene a hearing on the matter within fourteen(14) days of receiving the request from the User. In the event the User's appeal is successful, any amounts paid by the User to the POTW shall be returned to the User, without interest. F. The imposition of an administrative fine, assessment or other charge shall not be a prerequisite for or bar against taking any other action against the User. (Ord. 72-98 § 16, 1998) 17.68.070: EMERGENCY SUSPENSIONS: The Director may order the immediate suspension or shutoff of a User's discharge (after informal notice to the User), whenever such suspension or shutoff is necessary in order to stop an actual or threatened discharge which reasonably appears to present or cause a risk of an imminent or substantial: a) damage to the POTW,b) endangerment to the health or welfare of any residents of the POTW, c) Interference with the operation of the POTW, or d) endangerment to the environment. Any User notified of a suspension of its discharge shall immediately stop or eliminate its contribution. In the event of a User's failure to immediately comply voluntarily with the suspension order,the Director shall take such steps as deemed necessary, including immediate severance of the sewer connection, to enforce such order. The Director may allow the User to recommence its discharge when the User has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Director that the period of endangerment has passed, unless the termination proceedings set forth 63 Whenever a User has violated a pretreatment standard or requirement or continues to violate any provisions of the Wastewater Control Ordinance, or any wastewater discharge permit, or order, rule or regulation issued or promulgated hereunder, or any other Pretreatment Standard or Requirement, the Director may petition the Third District Court of the State of Utah for the issuance of a temporary or permanent injunction, as appropriate, which restrains or compels the specific performance of the wastewater discharge permit, or order,rule, regulation or other requirement imposed by the Wastewater Control Ordinance on activities of the User. In addition, the City may recover reasonable attorney fees, court costs, and other expenses of litigation by appropriate legal action against the User found to have violated any provision hereof, or of any wastewater discharge permit, or order, or any other rule or regulation issued or promulgated hereunder. Such other action as appropriate for legal and/or equitable relief may also be sought by the Director including a requirement for the User to conduct environmental remediation. A petition for injunctive relief need not be filed as a prerequisite to or a bar against taking any other action against a User. (Ord. 72-98 § 16, 1998) 17.68.100: CIVIL PENALTY PASS-THROUGH RECOVERY: In the event that a User discharges such pollutants which cause the POTW to violate any conditions of its UPDES permit and the POTW is fined by the EPA, the State of Utah or Salt Lake County for such violations, then such User shall be fully liable for the total amount of the fines and civil penalties assessed against the POTW by the EPA or the State of Utah or Salt Lake County and administrative costs incurred. A. A User who has violated, or continues to violate, any provision of this ordinance, a wastewater discharge permit, or order issued hereunder, or any other Pretreatment Standard or Requirement may be liable to the City for a maximum civil penalty of$10,000 per violation, per day. In the case of a monthly or other long-term average discharge limit, penalties shall accrue for each day during the period of the violation. B. The Director may recover reasonable attorneys' fees, court costs, and other expenses associated with enforcement activities, including sampling and monitoring expenses, and the cost of any actual damages incurred by the City. C. In determining the amount of civil liability, the Court may take into account all relevant circumstances, including, but not limited to, the extent of harm caused by the violation, the magnitude and duration of the violation, any economic benefit gained through the User's violation, corrective actions by the User, the compliance history of the User, and any other factor as justice requires. 65 Lake County any way it can with appropriate support for the action taken. (Ord. 72-98 § 16, 1998) 17.68.120: PERFORMANCE BONDS: The Director may decline to reissue a wastewater discharge permit to any User which has failed to comply with the provisions of this ordinance, or of any previous wastewater discharge permit, order, rule or regulation issued or promulgated hereunder,unless such User first files a satisfactory bond, payable to the POTW, in a sum not to exceed a value determined by the Director to be necessary to achieve consistent compliance. (Ord. 72-98 § 16, 1998) 17.68.130: LIABILITY INSURANCE: The Director may decline to reissue a wastewater discharge permit to any User which has failed to comply with the provisions of the Wastewater Control Ordinance, or of any previous wastewater discharge permit or order, rule or regulation issued or promulgated hereunder, or any other Pretreatment Standard or Requirement, unless the User first submits proof that it has obtained financial assurances sufficient to restore or repair damage to the POTW caused by its discharge. (Ord. 72-98 § 16, 1998) 17.68.140: WATER SUPPLY SEVERANCE: Whenever a User has violated or continues to violate the provisions of the Wastewater Control Ordinance, or of any wastewater discharge permit, or order, rule or regulation issued or promulgated hereunder, or any other Pretreatment Standard or Requirement, water service to the User may be discontinued. Service will only recommence, at the User's expense, after it has satisfactorily demonstrated its ability to comply. (Ord. 72-98 § 16, 1998) 17.68.150: PUBLIC NUISANCES: Any violation of the provisions of the Wastewater Control Ordinance, or of any individual wastewater discharge permit, or order, rule or regulation issued or promulgated hereunder, or any other Pretreatment Standard or Requirement, is hereby declared a public nuisance and shall be corrected or abated as directed by the Director. Any person(s) creating a public nuisance shall be subject to the provisions of this code governing nuisances, including reimbursing the City for any costs incurred in removing, abating or remedying said nuisance. (Ord. 72-98 § 16, 1998) 17.68.160: CONTRACTOR LISTING: Users which are found to be in significant noncompliance with any provisions of the Wastewater 67 2. The facility was at the time being operated in a prudent and workmanlike manner and in compliance with applicable operation and maintenance procedures; 3. The User has submitted the following information to the Director and treatment plant operator within twenty four(24)hours of becoming aware of the upset (if this information is provided orally, a written submission must be provided within 5 days): a. A description of the indirect discharge and cause of noncompliance; b. The period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times or, if not corrected, the anticipated time the noncompliance is expected to continue; and c. Steps being taken and/or planned to reduce, eliminate and prevent recurrence of the noncompliance. D. In any enforcement proceeding, the User seeking to establish the occurrence of an upset shall have the burden of proof. E. Users shall have the opportunity for a judicial determination on any claim of upset only in an enforcement action brought for noncompliance with categorical Pretreatment Standards. F. The User shall control production of all discharges to the extent necessary to maintain compliance with categorical Pretreatment Standards upon reduction, loss, or failure of its treatment facility until the facility is restored or an alternative method of treatment is provided. This requirement applies in the situation where, among other things,the primary source of power of the treatment facility is reduced, lost or has failed. (Ord. 72-98 § 17, 1998) 17.69.020: PROHIBITED DISCHARGE STANDARDS: A User shall have an affirmative defense to an enforcement action brought against it for noncompliance with the general and specific prohibitions in section 17.36.060, with the exception of the fire or explosion hazards or low pH, listed in section 17.36.60.B.2 and B.5, if it can prove that it did not know or have reason to know that its discharge, alone or in conjunction with discharges from other sources, would cause Pass Through or Interference and that either: A. A local limit exists for each pollutant discharged and the User was in compliance with each limit directly prior to, and during, the Pass Through or Interference, or 69 1. Bypass is prohibited, and the Director may take enforcement action against a User for a bypass, unless: a. Bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life,personal injury, or severe property damage; b. There were no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such as the use of auxiliary treatment facilities, retention of untreated wastes, or maintenance during normal periods of equipment downtime. This condition is not satisfied if adequate backup equipment should have been installed in the exercise of reasonable engineering judgment to prevent a bypass which occurred during normal periods of equipment downtime or preventive maintenance; and c. The User submitted notices as required under subsection C of this section. 2. The Director may approve an anticipated bypass, after considering its adverse effects, if the Director determines that it will meet the three (3) conditions listed in subsection D.1 of this section. (Ord. 72-98 § 17, 1998) SECTION 6. 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 2011. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER 71 I-./ NNLU I U: SCANNED By: T e`Y* �/y���I�� DATE: S��( i( RICHARD GRAHAM SM14 A� ��MjL Ii l� j RALPH BECKER PUBLIC•ERVICE■DIRECTOR �"+i �i�i MAYOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTORS OFFICE RECEIVF,D CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL RECEIVED AUG 1 1 2011 - • Salt La e City Mayor Date Received: i\ I Davi veritt, Chief of Staff SLC COUNCIL OFFICE Date sent to Council: IS L+ ( ( TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 11, 2011 Jill Remington Love, Chair FROM: Rick Graham, Director of Public Services SUBJECT: Zero Waste Resolution STAFF CONTACT: Debbie Lyons, Recycling Program Manager, 535-7795 DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution establishing waste reduction and recycling goals. BUDGET IMPACT: No funding required. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Zero Waste Resolution is an important step forward in acting on the City's commitment to sustainability by formally establishing waste reduction and recycling goals. Zero Waste is a sustainability principle that goes beyond recycling, taking a whole system approach to the flow of resources and waste through society and moving in logical increments to eliminate waste. Instead of seeing used material requiring disposal, under Zero Waste principles, discards are seen as valuable resources. Discards represent raw material for new products, which means more jobs and increased financial opportunity. Salt Lake City has already taken steps toward promoting sustainable use of resources and materials, which includes programs to recycle materials that would otherwise be disposed of as waste. The City recycled and composted 33% of the residential waste stream in Fiscal Year 2011. LOCATION: 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 13B, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1.3104 MAILING ADDRESS: PO BOX 145469, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 14.5469 TELEPHONE: B01-535.7775 FAX: B01.535.7963 W}WW./LCOO V.COM f)t'\N(CYCL[D P�P[C JOINT RESOLUTION NO. OF 2011 (Waste reduction and diversion goals and zero waste strategic plan) A joint resolution of the City Council and the Mayor of Salt Lake City adopting waste reduction and diversion goals for Salt Lake City and directing City staff to develop a zero waste strategic plan to achieve the City's goals. WHEREAS, Salt Lake City has taken steps toward promoting sustainable use of resources and materials, including programs and policy goals to reduce, reuse, and recycle materials that would otherwise be disposed as waste; and WHEREAS, Salt Lake City recycled or composted 30 percent of its residential waste in Fiscal Year 2011; and WHEREAS, Salt Lake City is conducting a baseline Waste Characterization Study that is expected to be completed by June 2012; and WHEREAS, the Waste Characterization Study is expected to provide data on types and quantity of waste from our entire community currently being recycled, composted and disposed as waste; and WHEREAS, the Waste Characterization Study is also expected to provide recommended strategies to improve recycling and waste reduction in Salt Lake City; and WHEREAS, the placement of materials in landfills can cause damage to human health, wastes natural resources, and wrongly transfers liabilities to future generations; and WHEREAS, waste prevention, reuse, recycling and composting are material management options that conserve resources while reducing environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, Zero Waste principles promote the highest and best use of materials to eliminate waste and pollution, emphasizing a close-loop system of production and consumption, and moving in logical increments toward the goal of zero waste through principles of: • Managing resources instead of waste; • Conserving natural resources through waste prevention and recycling; • Turning discarded resources into products with the highest and best use; • Stimulating local workforce and economic development through reuse of discarded resources; • Promoting products and materials that are durable and recyclable; • Discouraging products and materials that can only become trash after their use; and WHEREAS, a Zero Waste Strategic Plan will be necessary for the City to reach its sustainability and waste reduction goals. THEREFORE, BE IT JOINTLY RESOLVED by the City Council and the Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: 1. The City Council and the Mayor hereby adopt Zero Waste as a guiding principle for all City operations and for outreach and actions within the community; 2. The City Council and the Mayor hereby adopt a goal to recycle 50 percent of waste by 2015, 70 percent of waste by 2025, and eliminate waste by 2040; 3. The City Council and the Mayor hereby direct the City's Department of Public Services to prepare a Zero Waste Strategic Plan for Salt Lake City by December 2012; and 4. The Mayor and the City Council will consider and appropriate resources to implement these strategies in the course of planning and adopting the City's annual budget, and approve and consider policies that will implement these strategies. Passed and Adopted this day of , 2011. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER SALT LAKE CITY MAYOR ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM: SENI ALT LA((E CITY ATTORNEY HB_ATTY-k 19094•v I-Joint_Resolution_adopting_waste_reduction_and_diversion_goals.DOC ►✓'\ ,�� "MORMI01 RALPH BECKER FRANK B. GRAY ""� DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR RECrET THE DIRECTOR N. DE LA MARE-SCHAEFER.! SCANNED DEPUTY DIRECTOR «�' NN ED TO: p r, ROBERT FARRINGTON, JR. - ' D B///'' DEPUTY DIRECTOR DATE: P,x,y.. lIl' I n M SLC COUNCIL OFFICE '"" ` ��' {// ' M IJ LI D CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL AUG 1 5 2011 rithiA Date Received: : d David Eve tt, Chief of ff Date Sent to City Council: iv; 11`I I .7 b 1 I TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 11, 2011 Jill Love, Chair ....— FROM: Frank Gray, CE Director __' RE: PLNPCM2011-00207, ' era Alley V. ion- Request to vacate a public alley located at approximately 1370 East Bryan Avenue STAFF CONTACT: Lex Traughber, Senior Planner, at (801) 535-6184 or lex.traughber@slcgov.com RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a briefing and schedule a Public Hearing DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Baldomero and Lourdes Olivera are requesting the partial vacation of the alley that runs adjacent to their property in order to build a garage. The alley runs north to south and is accessed from Bryan Avenue at the north, dead-ending at the applicant's property line to the south. The alley is 110.88 feet long and 12 feet wide. The portion to be vacated is located at the southern end of the alley, beginning from the applicant's property line and extending north 27 feet for a total area of 324 square feet in size. The alley accesses two garages on adjacent properties to the east. MASTER PLAN CONSIDERATIONS: The alley has not been designated for a future trail in the Open Space Master Plan. The land use of adjacent properties is "Low Density Residential" and is consistent with the Future Land Use Map of the East Bench Master Plan. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B4114-5486 TELEPHONE: B0 1-535-6230 FAX: 801-535-6005 WWW.ELCGOV.COM/CED ter' RECYCLED PAPER TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. CHRONOLOGY 2. ORDINANCE 3. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 4. MAILING LABELS 5. PLANNING COMMISSION A) MAILING POSTMARK July 1, 2011 B) STAFF REPORT July 13, 2011 C) AGENDA AND MINUTES July 13, 2011 6. ORIGINAL PETITION PROJECT CHRONOLOGY April 27, 2011 Petition delivered to the Planning Division. April 29, 2011 Petition assigned to Lex Traughber. May 3, 2011 Routed the proposed ordinance to other City Departments/Division for review and comment. May 19, 2011 Held a public open house. July 1, 2011 Planning Commission agenda posted on the Planning Division and Utah Public Meeting Notice websites. Adjacent property owner notices mailed. July 13, 2011 Planning Commission held a public hearing and passed a motion to forward a favorable recommendation on to the City Council regarding the matter. July 14, 201 1 Planning Staff requested an ordinance from the City Attorney's Office. July 22, 2011 Received ordinance from the City Attorney's Office. August 10, 2011 Planning Commission ratified the minutes from their July 13, 2011, public hearing. August 11, 2011 Transmitted to Community & Economic Development. SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2011 (Closing and vacating an alley adjacent to property located at 1370 E. Bryan Avenue) An ordinance closing and vacating an alley as a public right-of-way adjacent to property located at 1370 E. Bryan Avenue, pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2011-00207. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") held a public hearing on July 13, 2011 to consider a request made by Baldomero and Lourdes Olivera ("Applicants") (Petition No. PLNPCM2011-00207) to close and vacate an unnamed City-owned alley adjacent to property located at 1370 E. Bryan Avenue and to declare same as surplus property; and WHEREAS, at its July 13, 2011 hearing, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation on said petition to the Salt Lake City Council ("City Council"); and WHEREAS, the City Council finds after public hearings that the City's interest in the alley described below is not necessary for use by the public as a street and that closing and vacating that City-owned right-of-way will not be adverse to the general public's interest; and NOW. THEREFORE. be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Closing and Vacating, Street. An unnamed City-owned alley adjacent to property located at 1370 E. Bryan Avenue, which is the subject of Petition No. PLNPCM2011- 00207, and which is more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto, hereby is, closed and vacated and declared no longer needed or available for use as a public right-of-way. SECTION 2. Reservations and Disclaimers. The above closure and vacation is expressly made subject to all existing rights-of-way and easements of all public utilities of any and every description now located on and under or over the confines of this property, and also subject to Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of , 2011. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorneys O11ice Date: tk 7 ?7/ , l _ (SEAL) Piil C.Nielson,.-Scni ,Cih',tilor/Icr Bill No. of 2011. Published: 1113_Al 1l'-±,159>_Al-On!mance vacating alley 13 0 L Bi an Ace.DOC 3 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering petition PLNPCM2011-00207— Olivera Alley Vacation, a request by Baldomero and Lourdes Olivera, property owners, represented by Pamela Wells, to partially vacate an alley adjacent to their property located at 1370 E. Bryan Avenue. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Room 315 City & County Building 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Lex Traughber at (801) 535-6184 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at lex.traughberr slcuov.com People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this hearing. Accommodations may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. This is an accessible facility. For questions, requests, or additional information, please contact the Planning Division at (801) 535-7757; TDD (801) 535- 6021. Erin Youngberg Elke Phillips Cabot Nelson 1910 Bridge Crest Circle 839 S.Washington St 984 E Simpson Avenue t Lake City UT 84116 Salt Lake City UT 84101 Salt Lake City UT 84106 Brad Bartholomew Thomas Mutter Michael Cohn 871 N Poinsettia Dr 228 East 500 South PO Box 520123 Salt Lake City UT 84116 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Salt Lake City, Utah 84125 Angie Vorher East Central Community Council 1988 Sir James Dr 606 Trolley Square Salt Lake City UT 84116 Salt Lake City UT 84102 Gordon Storrs DeWitt Smith 223 North 800 West 328 E Hollywood Ave Salt Lake City UT 84116 Salt Lake City UT 84105 Andrew Johnston Esther Hunter 716 Glendale Street 606 Trolley Square Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 Salt Lake City UT 84102 Randy Sorenson George Kelner 1184 S. Redwood Dr 1000 Military Drive Salt Lake City UT 84104-3325 Salt Lake City UT 84105 Katherine Gardner John Bennion 606 De Soto St 1684 E. Browning Ave Salt Lake City UT 84103 Salt Lake City UT 84105 Dave Van Langeveld Pete Taylor 807 Northcliffe Dr 933 S. 2300 E. Salt Lake City UT 84103 Salt Lake City UT 84108 Gene Fitzgerald Ellen Reddick 1385 Butler Ave 2177 Roosevelt Ave Salt Lake City UT 84102 Salt Lake City UT 84108 D. Christian Harrison R. Gene Moffitt Community Council Chairs 336 W. Broadway, #308 1410 Chancellor Way Last update from CC website 5.11.11 Salt Lake City UT 84101 Salt Lake City UT 84108 57, Salt Lake City Planning Division 451 S State Street,Room 406,PO Box 145480,Salt Lake City,Utah 84114-5480 Planning Commission Meeting Wednesday,July 13,2011 6:00 pm or immediately following the work session. Room 326 of the City and County Building PLNPCM2011-00207:Olivera Alley vacation—a request by Baldomero and Lourdes Olivera_property owners,represented by Pamela Wells,are requesting that the City vacate a portion of the alley located adjacent to the applicant's property at approxi- mately1370 E.Bryan Avenue. The alley runs north to south and abuts atotal of three properties. The subject property is zoned R-1/5,000(Single Family Residential)and is located inCity Council District 6 represented hp J.T.Martin(Staff-Lex Traughbet, (801)535-61841 Salt Lake City Corporation c n,plics,yith all AD.\guidelines.People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accornmodations no later than 48 hours i, adeance i, order to attend tId,meeting. Accommodations may nclude:alternati.e formats.interpreters,and other auxiliary aids.This is an accessible facility.Fur questions,regor ate,or additional information,please contact the Planning Of5ce t 30-7757;TDD 555-62220. Y "''t .1 f you could change anything in Salt Lake City what would it be? d}', Scannbis code ergo'-h_'n'//coo.g1/9HrnPv arcd les ns kne.. •y s.41:I LAKE CITY PLANNING DIVISIOS ., 4,1 S STATE STRFET ROOALa06 _ Y.r_9'rn 04 - - - SILT LAKE CITY LT 341145q.0 x_4,7: _ ---, --. Rid R,\SERVICE PLOt;ESTFD Z = - Salt Lake City P7arining PC Box 145450 Salt L<.,.a City UT a4114 RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Olivera Alley Vacation -�C= �r-i ce'=74,_E itrif 1370 E. Bryan Avenue •. 1iF ^' ,.. Petition PLNPCM2011-00207 "' 000 " July 13, 2011 Planning Division Department of Community& Economic Development Applicant: Baldomero and Lourdes Olivera, Request represented by Pamela Wells Baldomero and Lourdes Olivera,property owners, represented by Staff: Pamela Wells, are requesting to partially vacate an alley adjacent to Lcx Traughber their property which is located at 1370 E, Bryan Avenue, The alley (801)535-6184 runs north to south and abuts a total of three properties, lex.traughber@slegov.com p p Tax ID: 16-16-152-010 Recommendation Based upon the analysis and findings identified in this report, Current Zone: Planning Staff finds that the proposal meets the criteria for alley R-1/5,000(Single Family Residential) vacations, and therefore recommends that the Planning Commission Master Plan Designation_ forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to partially East Bench Master Plan: vacate and close the southern portion of the alley as proposed with Low Density Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) the following conditions: Council District: 1. The proposed method of disposition of the alley property Council District 6-J.T.Martin shall be consistent with the method of disposition expressed Lot size: in Section 14.52.020 Method of Disposition and Chapter 0.22 or 9,583 square feet 2.58 City-Owned Real Property of the Salt Lake City Ordinance, Current Use: 1 Compliance with all departmental comments with the Alley/Driveway,partially paved with some mature landscaping exception of the Transportation Divisions recommendation of a full alley vacation, based on Planning Staffs analysis. Notification Mailed:June 30,2011 Sign posted:June 30,201 I Agenda posted on the Planning Division and Utah Public Meeting Notice websitcs June 30,2011 Applicable Land Use Regulations: • Section: 14.52.020 Policy Considerations For Closure,Vacation Or Abandonment Of City Owned Alleys. • Section: 14.52.040 Method of Disposition. Attachments: A. Site Photographs B.Proposed Area Site Plan C,Department!Division Comments PLNPCM20 1 1-00207,Olivc-a Alley Vacation 1 Published July7,2011 • The project site is located within the Wasatch Hollow Community Council area and it is located within 600 feet of the Sugar House Community Council area. An Open House was held on May 19, 2011. One person attended the Open House, but did not comment on the proposal. Department Comments The proposal was reviewed by all applicable City Departments and Divisions. The review comments have been attached to this (Exhibit C). There were no issues raised by the City that would prevent the proposal from proceeding. The City's Transportation Division recommends a full alley vacation and a shared easement agreement to access the garages. Transportation supports the proposed location of the new garage in that it minimizes the length of the hard surface drive and for the most part maintains the existing green space associated with the three properties (Exhibit C). It is Planning Staff's opinion that a full alley vacation is not necessary due to the existing configuration of the alley/driveways and the proposed location of the new garage, and therefore supports the applicant's proposal for a partial alley vacation as outlined. Even though this "alley" is public, it functions solely as a dead-end drive approach to two (potentially three) garages. Analysis Chapter 14.52 of the Salt Lake City Code regulates the disposition of City owned alleys. When evaluating requests to close or vacate public alleys, the City considers whether or not the continued use of the property as a public alley is in the City's best interest. Noticed public hearings are held before both the Planning Commission and City Council to consider the potential adverse impacts created by a proposal. Once the Planning Commission has reviewed the request, their recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for consideration. The Planning Commission must also make a recommendation to the Mayor regarding the disposition of the property. If the Commission recommends that the alley property be declared surplus, the property should be disposed of according to Section 2.58 City-Owned Real Property of the Salt Lake City Code. The City Council has final decision authority with respect to alley vacations and closures. A positive recommendation from the Planning Commission requires an analysis and positive determination of the following considerations: Salt Lake City Code, Section 14.52.020: Policy Considerations for Closure, Vacation or Abandonment of City Owned Alleys The City will not consider disposing of its interest in an alley, in whole or in part, unless it receives a petition in writing which demonstrates that the disposition satisfies at least one of the following policy considerations: A. Lack of Use: The City's legal interest in the property appears of record or is reflected on an applicable plat; however, it is evident from an on-site inspection that the alley does not physically exist or has been materially blocked in a way that renders it unusable as a public right-of-way, PLNPCM201 1-00207,O0vcra Ailey Vacation 3 Published July7,2011 Finding: The appropriate City Departments and Divisions have reviewed this request and have no objections to the proposed disposition of the property. 2. The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations stated above; Discussion: The proposed alley vacation satisfies both the"Lack of Use" and the "Urban Design"policy considerations. Finding: The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations stated in Section 14.52,020 of the Salt Lake City Code. 3. The petition must not deny sole access or required off-street parking to any adjacent property; Discussion: It has been the City's policy not to close an alley if it would deny a property owner access to their lot. The subject right-of-way abuts three properties. The proposed partial alley vacation and garage would not interfere with access for the two other neighbors who share the alley. Finding: Closing the alley will not deny access or required off-street parking to any owner of property adjacent or in close proximity to the alley. 4. The petition will not result in any property being landlocked; Discussion: Should the alley be vacated, it would become part of the applicant's property and no parcel would become landlocked. Finding: The proposed alley closure would not create any landlocked parcels. 5. The disposition of the alley property will not result in a use which is otherwise contrary to the policies of the City, including applicable master plans and other adopted statements of policy which address, but which are not limited to, mid-block walkways, pedestrian paths, trails, and alternative transportation uses; Discussion: The alley has not been designated for a future trail in the Open Space Master Plan, The land use of adjacent properties is "Low Density Residential" and is consistent with the Future Land Use Map of the East Bench Master Plan. Finding: The proposed alley vacation meets this standard. 6. No opposing abutting property owner intends to build a garage requiring access from the property, or has made application for a building permit, or if such a permit has been issued, construction has been completed within 12 months of issuance of the building permit; Discussion: No abutting properties have filed for any building permits. The alley accesses two garages on adjacent properties to the east and ends at the property line of the applicant. The proposed partial alley vacation and garage would not interfere with access for the two other neighbors who share the alley. Finding: The proposed alley vacation meets this standard, 7. The petition furthers the City preference for disposing of an entire alley, rather than a small segment of it; and PLNPCM2011-00207,Myers Alley Vacation 5 Published July7,2011 ,., y. jai'""+. ,1- gas c.t r 3 se t. !�,':If - b t 3 V J, '` ,` i ' , t t •L.I .;J {Fit k. S > ` '47t rt }•a' 4ry t i r / L'�r S{ .4►`t ,':qt A' i' i icv1-1:�t,r y�-,a n �'✓r ,�5,x /� ( �tcY 1,f, .,"�q t�.,4 , k w 1•y •S Yn :a < ;, •.11r., t t , I 4 .nJ�ig 14 t t , ?a f-k 71.'. �1'-t,r..:a\1k -C „7 „>q. � f nl•1 l �r t !i ?'•i• ' at I t }•?'.'' •r.' v:v�� .A, �,' <♦ > t to ! 'S�, t t+. ,' +,��Kti Ltna L,NI.,..„, ‘, „.i.,„./...,,4„,....,...,..!,..,,iri;,„,,,,,j,,,v,i, .gyro ;h - •f,) i F. ` -,W.'- ti t h.,:(.0 J � - .. },� yr"�1 � !c j j , 1. { 'y. ��!t r 1 1 5 lit ib S,r ' -I; } ti T. . - t4Ny,. ? t3 1 Sys , n'i S ti.S(c ,► 'i•1 `V,r ; 4.A „•4:.s£.,". •`S,` Y gvY 4«74.`' f 3 a, ` W -,-• ti a at.'r-: j I,(:.-j A. bi-f.ck ..r. i^ , r{ib f Y�U` •' -�-s t g s�4i t'r "ems 3 a7 �''N�rrpt a �,,4`t1, t at' a ,r�. ;.- t ' �i`�. 33 5't� � ) �C'SY .� 1��r � tiz— L `cz' ij 0�t' e ", r7, kF r k V ' •r c ,.Yf"'�y:i.t x_k'•;-1• `"i�*1 �' 3`�f*'4;Fky�.,'"sf-' ;+�' '�k # L.l'. ▪ ,Y s S•i:.'--Zjr�- _ .tY..i V.,"'4 'ti i'' • .t.V.;',.....,,-=..M1a.''.. �. rii�:l r 1, _ - :. ;• 'it•w<:__ r;- - __�Y"r'::`t;�..' a�':4�.�c'u��r..�.. �8.,,. This is a'view of•the north portion of alley. The applicant received approval fora Special Exception to build a garage with similar setback to the neighboring garage seen on the left (east). n}. I i t� ,` ``, • ,i TOTAL'''' k;JSt j t sL�^, !F i? Y� ••A -•'• t"t, • •• - ' ;qa ^.rfir•,i' ftA*,ie�`i., id 's� � ,, t . M1I Ft i,l i i dr�4..----' i'`.,, t•, l 1 • ,` ''4'•t',•,X,..,,i, ''._• i�l r>�ii .r.. i'• ,'' ,,'': '+trii{><n� $./,,.' ' .,,> • L)... ''C,t 1* 5 t� ;xi�i '9�''. 1.t, . / fA: •,,p'y�K .ir G •to' i a o , �, ,, a �, 7• •:rA , t;ia•oWW''i1ti�� 4J,,,,,:t1_;exj .d,:W �Y '-� 'q�.k • 'Z ,. r r .� iL1.2 ., i ,I.'an}c' i�yvS hwr.,4 �� t � [�t' a ., �: ''i,��•�,n"C j i 1�'t JJ'Y a' r<tsi. ).4,1 ., i•ut a(}..4 SS a ,,:, y ,!\{; a• .;r.4 . r,.'y f1f `ig`,y t- `ep , '+T,yf.l)' ,�P. 1,'-t • i �•t ., 1�t 1,j, ,�. 1/40% t r ( i.. l; J• ?iYj; Z' '. r'{•f'• -•- + a iii r,Yr z/ �c ':y Y 1 t1�r # wx�.x,�� , . r t 3 j , ,A 00. 9r j l';4�..,., ,$3 °latY 'J n,k.;r"4i9 .. "4fk-•^ = { .t- fi' F t t i. 1. j}., , � �-�)��1,1i'7 ;+t�- $1 lti ; n••:,11. 7,- "'1 x.+•0 t 7,4�a "ct�¢ ,r3.. ?�+'•tj! r r .rl`f r`rtAN '1 .r>C? r t-i•.Lac V141 ' ;., ?.% 17,-11 kd`.A'-t✓.. tat' -5; ,t'-'Zi'r yti 4.-f. t .,.k .,,5'J' t6 V a r i F.j tt � XN. � S y r `" �;,; ,f t S 1R*4fi c .zjmWg .,....L.t., -i4., !taL>::; ,. ,.'...e. is✓t.•.ia .V'4 S.uit • ' r:.Tt "'y, �1 � ti • fi�t�'�i s>.•y4 j�C �.:'.'% *�' 1-.441,, f�'{;$•=� r'y'l�a'•�"(�-'•�'i�t' rt:P..,til?`+ .' r fkU f, I,�^L� t{.'•v.I�i, ,Jpi ,s ',,, �f Ss�tI" \O '-.'r:•:`„�_^•+�i .:{1 '�et`+,`tf.�'-S,y 1(�l t'l{- -^�"'+Ptl"aC�:,1:. �rt> •�4� , •�`.�"-' �i:',i�`i Ss 11 i.�.- t ! �..« '�''ii.,; ti+�'t•a�r-'y �'`�1Jy:: ���� �t1,�• •?' .'!�L \�ri.;11`.' �� ,.r�. m ci• :t. .r�' t?.53;���.'j��';`��t�•,r t•,�,1.• ",+;i i=.t'•."w��.`�',C� ^itJ�•.�. 11 :t, ?" y G qtJ �:ty .� i4'� t ��'.r;`r,.,`.',5`.ti: �';v.`. ti US"�9",t.q 1'/ lr� 'i yy ..,i} ( r'„:.'>>,.715.;k..Ii'>. `;t-w� �„i'�,'i,, •t(1.,4t,T +}L+L''i.•`, �'� ''i% "}i�'�7�C:'i tl�'l,f �`�k '. ;1 ,j� �y14•:�,�5�.�;;��t,�d �.�t, tl ,ii•;� `'IN' r�.. 5• it < kyC Q.; tV �Ml ,d y,�i ., „t, ` ni7.j,s •,i.i ,I�,t.��C}}j,,, .Jrt'ni•Ir' ;{ it. t.{r `,',1.,,1ti ,V. H. • ._ .:Y -":-- ..J - , tit'\-kt' r_.- L. •1, t �n YcL�l%4 t S' _� This is another view of the portion of alley that is being requested to be vacated. As can be seen, the alley is not currently in use as a public right-of-way, and appears to be part of the applicant's yard. Published July7,201 I PI,NPCN120 1 1-002 07,Olive-a Alle}'Vacation 9 60erieArkilc)Cirlertto1/4„..\ Traughber, Lex From: Walsh, Barry Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2011 10:58 AM • To: Traughber, Lex Cc: Young, Kevin; Weiler, Scott; Garcia, Peggy; Itchon, Edward; Butcher, Larry Subject: PLNPCM2011-00207 Categories: Other May 12, 2011 Lex Traughber, Planning Re; PLNPCM2011-00207, Olivera Alley Vacation. At 1370 E. Bryan Avenue. The division.of transportation review comments and recommendations are as follows: The existing alley only services three properties—the 1370 East Bryan Ave. and 1572 So. & 1576 So. 1400 East. The two properties on 1400 East have existing two car garages,the 1370 East site is proposing a new two car garage in line with the neighbor's garage. All three use the alley and therefore we propose a full alley vacation to the abutting properties as a shared easement access for the remaining alley corridor to access the garages. We support the proposed location of the new garage in that it minimizes the length of the hard surface drive isle and increases the green space available in conjunction with the three properties. Sincerely, Barry Walsh Cc Kevin Young, P.E. Scott Weiler, P.E. Peggy Garcia, Public Utilities Ted Itchon, Fire Larry Butcher, Permits File 1 Amended SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA In Room 326 of the City&County Building at 451 South State Street Wednesday,July 13,2011 at 6:00 p.m.or immediately following;the iVork Session The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m. Dinner will be served to the Planning Commissioners and Staff at 5:00 p.m.in Room 126. Work Session: 5:30 in Room 326. The Planning Commission will hold a work session from approximately 5.30-6:00 During the Work Session the Planning Staff will brief the Planning Commission on pending projects,discuss project updates and minor administrative matters This portion of the meeting is open to the public for observation Briefing: PLNPCM-2009-00615:Small Neighborhood Business Amendment. A discussion regarding the Small Neighborhood Business Amendment Present report and proposed text amendments Discussion Only (Staff contact Nole Walkingshaw at 801-535-7128 or m Se y..11; :n,i:Ic_s cost) Approval of Minutes:June 22,2011 • Report of the Chair and Vice Chair • Report of the Director • Public Hearings 6:00 or immediately following the work session Public Hearing Legislative Petitions I PLNPCM2010-00785:Special Exceptions--a request by Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker to transfer the approval authority irt,the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance for special exceptions from the Board of Adjustment to the Planning Commission. i❑addition to the transfer of approval authority,the Petition will address several minor fine tuning text amendments in various sections of Title 21 that reference special exceptions,including the removal of Chapter 21A 14. The applicable text of Chapter 21A.14 will be moved into Chapter2lA.52. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition, the changes would apply citywide if adopted by the City Council (Staff contact Maryann Pickering at(S01)535-7660 or nt<uvcnn t_Lenr.g i sl_m cort) Admisistratise Petitions PLNSUB2011-00187:Salt City Plaza-A request by Jeff Stockert of Salt City Plaza LLC for a planned development located at approximately 154\\'600 South in the D-1 Central Business District The purpose is to construct multiple hotels and a shared parking structure located in Council District 4 represented by Luke Garrott (Staff contact Doug Dansie at 501- 535-61 82or c', :r, cum) 3 Swaney Business Park Planned Development--a request by New Concepts Construction to amend a subdivision plat to create a new lot located at approximately 1303 South Swaner Road in the NI-I Light Manufacturing Zoning District Th_ property is located in Council District 2 represented by Van Turner(Staff Contact John Anderson at 801-535-7214 or (inn) a PI NSUB2011-00099-a request to amend Lot 2 of the Cambridge Industrial Park Subdivision b PLNSUB2011-00278-a request for a Planned Development The applicant is requesting the Planning Commission waive the requirement for perimeter parking lot landscaping 4 PLNPCM2011-00207:Olivers Alley y acation--a request by Baldomero and Lourdes Olivera.property owners,represented b: Pamela Wells.are requesting that the City vacate a portion of the alley located adjacent to the applicant's property at approximately 1370 E DO an Avenue The alley runs north to south and abuts a total of three properties. The subject property is zoned R-1/5,000(Single Family Residential)and is located in City Council District 6 represented by J T \lartin (St.f f-Lex Traughber,(801)535-61 S4 or 1,m ,on:) PLNSUB2011-00320:Tannach Properties LLC Planned Development-A request byTannach Properties,LLC for a planned development approval located at approximately 245-265 South State Street in the D-1 Central Business District The purpose is to allow two principal buildings on one lot,to exclude parking calculations for the galleria common corridor and residential restricted use spaces within the commercial ground floor,and to allow signage on a restored water tower and additional general building signs that reflect historic facades on the State Street elevation for a mixed-use des elopment at 247-2655 South State Street Council District 4,Luke Garrott (Staff Contact Everett Jos cc nt 801-7930 or 6 View Street dived Use Planned Development—A request bs Rinaldo Hunt for Baron Real Estate to construct a mixed use planned development located at approximately 1325-1339 E 2100 South,and 2004-2012 View Street(1345 East) The property is primarily zoned CN Neighborhood Commercial District,and partially zoned R-I/5,000 Single-Fa:ml: Residential District The property is located within Council District 6,represented hv J T Martin (Staff contact Michael Slabs at 801- _35-71IS orrii,'l ,el r,alov cisien,ovcons) a. PLNSUB2011-00196 View Street Mixed Use Subdivision—A preliminary subdivision request to combine five parcels i:ito one parcel b, PI-NSI'B2011-00307 View Street Mixed Ilse Planned Development—A planned development request to construct two buildings that contain approximately 30 residential apartments,along with commercial office and retail space The files fn.the above items are m'ailab/c tat the Planning Dnvsnotn offices,room-106 of the City and Cowen'Building. Please contact the staff planner for information, I'isi!the Planning Drtvsioit's hebsrte at sus h.slcgov.coot CED.planrrnng for copies of the Planning Commission agendas,staff reports,and minutes Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will he posted hro dais after they are ratified,it Inch usually occurs at the nest regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission Planning Cousinissrott hleetnrgs mats'he hatched Inc' oft ELC.Ti'ClrrrntcI 17;past meetings ore recorded and archived,and may be viewed at:_a ii cl.'tr.c ,,r_ Chairperson Fife opened the public hearing, seeing no one chose to speak, he closed the public hearing. 6:45:12 Motion: Commissioner Dean made the motion in regard to PLNSUB2011-00278 and PLNSUB2011-00099 based on the findings listed on the staff report, I move that the Planning Commission approve these petitions, I feel that we had adequate information based on the presentation and information provided on the maps to make a decision tonight. Commissioner Gallegos seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioners Dean, Wirthlin, Hill, De Lay, Luke, Woodhead and Gallegos all voted "aye", the motion passed unanimously. PLNPCM2011-00207: Olivera Alley vacation--a request by Baldomero and Lourdes Olivera, property owners, represented by Pamela Wells, are requesting that the City vacate a portion of the alley located adjacent to the applicant's property at approximately 1370 E. Bryan Avenue. The alley runs north to south and abuts a total of three properties. The subject property is zoned R-1/5,000 (Single Family Residential) and is located in City Council District 6 represented by J.T. Martin (Staff - Lex Traughber, (801) 535-6184 or lex.traughber@slcgov.com). Chairperson Fife recognized Mr. Lex Traughber as staff representative. Mr. Traughber stated that was request to partially vacate an alley adjacent to the property located at 1370 E Bryan Avenue. The alley runs north to south and abuts a total of three properties. Mr. Traughber gave a PowerPoint presentation that illustrated the request. Mr. Traughber stated that the applicant would like to build a garage. He added that the applicant had received a special exception to have an alternative location for their garage. 6:49:15 Public Hearing: Chairperson Fife opened the public hearing. Mr. Craig Morrow, a resident of 1360 E Bryan west of the property. He spoke in support of Planning Commission Minutes, July 13, 2011 Page 11 Remarks: Petition No: PLNPCM2011-00207 Also PLNBOA2011-00206- special exception request for the required five-foot By: Pamela Wells rear yard setback. Alley Vacation/Closure Date Filed: 04/27/2011 Address: 1372 E Bryan Avenue ALLEY VACATION OR CLOSURE PROCESS "'HAT IS AN ALLEY VACATION OR CLOSURE? ,cart of the subdivision process,early developers were required to create alleys which were then deeded to the City.These alleys were used to provide rear access to buildings for coal delivery, garbage pickup and other services.They also allowed access to garages built toward the rear of a lot.Today,the City is officially the owner of these alleys. In situations where it can be demonstrated that there is an over-riding public purpose for vacating the alley,the City may relinquish its property interest in the alley.This typically occurs as the result of a petition from a property owner abutting the subject alley.When an alley is next to or abuts a single family or duplex residential property,the City vacates the alley,divides it in half,and the property is conveyed to the abutting property owners.If an alley is next to or abuts a non-residential,or multifamily residential(3 or more dwelling units)property,the City may close the alley and then sell the land at fair market value to the abutting property owners. PROCESS •A complete application with all the required information listed on the application,the appropriate fees,and postage shall be submitted to the Planning Division located in the City 8 County Building,451 South State Street,Rm.406,Salt Lake City,Utah 84111.Prior to filing an application,the applicant should meet with City staff to discuss their plan and clarify any questions regarding the submittal requirements.Upon receipt of an application,the City administration will determine whether or not the petition is complete and assign a petition number for processing.When a petition is submitted for an alley closure,the petitioner should contact the Division of Property Management at 535-6447 to discuss the value of the land. •Following receipt of an application.the project planner will contact the appropriate neighborhood organization(s)to schedule a meeting for the applicant to explain the proposed alley vacation or closure.A written verification of the meeting must be submitted to receive an administrative determination that the petition is complete. •The project planner assigned to the petition will send the petition materials to other relevant City departments and divisions for their review.Each department or division will prepare a written report of its findings and recommendations.The project planner will then compile these findings and evaluate the effect of the vacation or closure upon the provisions of applicable master plans,the Zoning Ordinance,and other applicable objectives and regulations of the City. •A public hearing will be scheduled before the Planning Commission to receive input on the request.The project planner will present the petition,and identify any issues raised during the review process.The applicant and other interested parties will have the opportunity to address the Planning Commission and present any additional information and/or concerns they may have.Following the public hearing.the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council on the closure and/or vacation petition and subsequent disposition of the property.The Planning Commission's recommendation shall be based on an analysis of the following: 1. The City police department,fire department,transportation division,and all other relevant City departments have no reasonable objection to the proposed disposition of the property; _. The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations included in this application: 3. Granting the petition will not den'sole access or required off-street parking to any property adjacent to the alley: 4. Granting the petition will not result in any property being landlocked: 5. Granting the petition will not result in a use of the alley property which is otherwise contrary to the policies of the City_including applicable master plans and other adopted statements of C. Mixed Zoning: If an alley abuts both low density residential properties and either high density residential properties or nonresidential properties, those portions which abut the low density residential properties shall be vacated, and the remainder shall be closed, abandoned and sold for fair market value. (Ord. 24-02 § 1, 2002) 14.52.050: PETITION FOR REVIEW: Any party aggrieved by the decision of the city council as to the disposition of city owned alley property may file a petition for review of that decision within thirty(30)days after the city council's decision becomes final, in the third district court. (Ord. 24-02 § I, 2002) 1+1-= 4 \{ Ai 13 70 �� �� r-i � iztiki S f\-t 0 tzrH r t-) 1-rt,4 A A f iH v f'-!2_iT AlI2u�4�I�� Di�V l 9 , BUILD A cam. SA,ID Sir . 2�s�r i L [S l,i 0 c�rl� �jz �� 1 2poc, I r- 137c-- ( jam OL.lV A S mid �I�t� �N ALL' •I; I � T, w 1 ��ou r I-N r=�� FOP r N w I f t-1 I e C,(• I%07- -h r?; O cki I-} S;- r -`i -4� A LLe:r. wocgs5 fFrO VA-C4F-16 e- Lt_z_--;-y- w I Li-- l.n.I L O(%rt c l L>` �f`'S t 1!tom! 6 Trri f IJ . T- ��1)LL lrJ Ac sS i ItiJ C l l'1-r S A LL `( Il- I t— ICY 1t 4-(Z05CA rt LANJ ro, As \)A 01_-.I VEf roils (��1�� �r I'�12 N! T/ A L.r c1-1 -��� I°2J( =1z'� 1` I S v i e � f 1 i i j is G I KID IAJ 1 LI 6-1-0Z 15- ►7-6 CA Ni'' I iinZ- u g r-1 0 E?- WI D M CAS5 16 f-t S DtkHR1 ',,'S C Ir Cl ( A I 1 C- i_Ac i H iv -a4 I S I Z*7 r4 vrerfc,I j !CA I 12 Ltd ctc_U'AAt--t, 1D co i ice.!u > MEMORANDUM P'''' DATE: November 1,2011 TO: City Council Members FROM: Jennifer Bruno and Russell Weeks RE: Review of previous studies relating to a large-scale performing arts center in the Salt Lake Valley In an attempt to look at this issue in a comprehensive but digestible way,Council Staff has approached the analysis of this complex issue in two sections,each addressing a key question about this project. ➢ Section 1-Addresses the following question:Can the Salt Lake Market Support this project? ➢ Section 2-Addresses the following question:Can the City afford this project? (this Section begins on Page 5 of this report) Key points covered in this memo include: ✓ Recent and previous feasibility and economic impact studies indicate that there is pent up demand for a performing arts theater of this size. The methodologies that these studies have used,while containing minor flaws,are sound; ✓ A recent public opinion survey indicates there appears to be public support for a performing arts theater downtown; ✓ In Council Staff's analysis of the proposed funding plan for the project,there appears to be an immediate and possibly long term shortfall in funding for this project. I Key variables include Salt Lake County's participation,Interest rates at the time of bond issuance,and other City needs and priorities. Section 1—Can the Salt Lake Market support this project? At the request of the Salt Lake City Council Chair,City Council staff has gathered and reviewed all feasibility studies from recent history relating to construction of a large- scale performing arts center,in order to identify common themes,note any inconsistencies,identify areas not explored,and distill these analyses into a relevant set of conclusions for the Council's consideration as Council Members determine whether or not to fund construction of a large-scale performing arts center in downtown Salt Lake City. The following is a list of studies reviewed- •September 1997-Salt Lake City New Theater Needs Assessment-Interim Report-Webb Management Services(commissioned by Salt Lake County) •October 1997-A plan for New Performing Art Facilities in Salt Lake City- Webb Management Services(commissioned by Salt Lake County) 1 (for budget or calendar reasons),and"backfilling"those freed up dates with more appropriately-scaled events to those venues. Without a more thorough analysis,it is not possible for staff to guess whether these backfilled dates will be sufficient to keep all existing venues operating as they are today. However,using case studies of comparable areas as a guidepost,it is certainly possible. A number of case studies and other cities' experiences were reviewed by Council Staff. If the Council would like further information details can be provided. > Some of the key lessons learned from these various case studies on this topic are that negative impacts can be mitigated when the portfolio of venues is managed by a public entity,when cross-promotion of venues and support of existing organizations is a stated mission of the new facility,and when revenues or fundraising opportunities can be shared to the extent possible. The City is currently negotiating an Memorandum Of Understanding(MOU)for operations of the theater with Salt Lake County,although an agreement has not yet been reached and the County Council has not yet officially weighed in(see item G,page 10,and Matters At Issue#4). Based on the case studies reviewed by staff,shared management,goals,and revenue among facilities, or at the very least coordination,eventually increases the diversity in the portfolio of cultural offerings. > A key area of concern for Council Staff that was not analyzed to a detailed and long- term degree in these studies,is whether a theater is sustainable in the long term with no public subsidy. Some similarly-scaled projects have operated successfully with no public subsidy,although there are often naming or operating agreements that are key to this success. Other projects have required a"bail out"from the public when rental rates don't quite meet projections. The Council may wish to discuss this further in the context of the MOU for operations. Direct Discussions with other cities Some Council Members met September 28 with Reginald Johnson,interim director of the Durham,North Carolina,Department of Community Development;Ken Neufeld of the Benjamin and Maria Schuster Performing Arts Center in Dayton,Ohio; and Randy Weeks,president of the Denver Center for the Performing Arts to discuss their cities'experience in operating regional performing arts centers in their cities. All three speakers indicated that the centers were focal points of their respective downtowns and that their presence helped solidify the downtowns.Mr.Neufeld said the Schuster Center helped preserve Dayton's downtown when companies were moving out of the downtown.About 475,000 people attended events in the center last year,he said.Dayton has a population of about 175,000 people in an eight-county area containing about 1.3 million people,he said.Dayton also competes with Columbus and Cincinnati for business and attracting to people to events.Mr.Johnson said the Durham Performing Arts Center drew about 350,000 people in 2010.Other arts groups advertise in the Durham Center because it's a place where the groups know their ads will be seen. He said the Center was built across the street from a jail to keep better locations available for economic development which has occurred.Mr.Weeks said the Denver Center has been a part of downtown Denver for about 40 years and is somewhat unique 3 levels of interest were those with incomes between$25,000 and$50,000-41 percent-and those with incomes of more than$100,000-42 percent.) •When asked an open-ended question about the biggest motivator for coming downtown the majority of the people surveyed indicated arts and entertainment -including theater,concerts,festivals and events-were the biggest motivators. (In the question religious events,dining,and shopping followed respectively at 14 percent,12 percent,and 12 percent.) •A 2,500 seat Broadway style performing arts center was viewed as important by 52 percent of the people questions. •Reasons given for supporting the idea were in descending order economic development,enhancing downtown vitality and supporting the cultural heart of Utah,support for the arts generally,greater access to Broadway performances, and none. Part 2-Can the city afford to finance this project? The Administration has prepared a transmittal for Council consideration that includes a number of resolutions and a budget amendment ordinance that would finance the design of the Utah Performing Arts Center(estimated at$15 million),and pave the way for the overall financing of the project(estimated at$110 million). Because of the complexity of the project,and the likelihood that these complexities could dramatically affect the final construction cost of the theater,the Administration is recommending that the Council first fund a detailed design process with short term bonds. This would allow the City to have a more firm idea of what final construction costs would be,and allow the City to only take on the amount of debt needed to cover construction costs. Public Hearings have been scheduled for the various components relating to this decision(budget amendment,bond issuance,resolutions)on November 22nd. The Administration is hopeful that the City will vote to decide to fund the design of the theater and issue short term bonds by December 6th. A. Request to fund design-The Administration has submitted a budget amendment for Council consideration that would establish$15 million in expenditure authority to fund the design of the UPAC and other related soft costs. This budget would be funded with bond proceeds that the Administration would like the Council to issue on December 6th.This bond(likely a Bond Anticipation Note or other Short Term Note)would be slightly different than the typical bonds issued by the Council. It would be short term in nature and it would have a mechanism by which the Council could"pay it off"in about a year,likely with the construction bond(see item B), likely in early 2013. > The City would still have to pay a portion of the interest each year before this bond is paid off-approximately$272,000 per year-which would have to be funded either by the General Fund or RDA. ➢ At the conclusion of the design period,if the Council elected not to issue construction bonds and/or not to go forward with the project,the City 5 the RDA as being responsible for collecting and distributing funds,while the City is responsible for issuing debt. The interlocal agreement relating to Bond Anticipation Notes seems to indicate that the Mayor and Director of the RDA will act as a"joint board"to administer the project The Council may wish to discuss this point,and clarify which branch of the City will ultimately manage the project. ➢ A note on Steiner Bond Payments/General Fund Obligation-In FY 2016, General Fund Debt Service obligations will increase by$5.3 million due to the transfer of the Steiner Ice Sheet obligation from the RDA to the General Fund (this agreement was made in 2006 when other City bonds were refinanced). This payment is required for six years,from FY 2016 to FY 2021 and dramatically impacts the City's ability to fund other capital projects through that period. The SARR stream of revenue mentioned above could be used to offset this debt. The Administration's proposal for the UPAC would mean that this debt would have to be covered with existing general fund resources(note:This is reflected in the Administration's current CIP 10 Year Plan Proposal,and many CIP projects are deferred in order to make the plan pencil). The Council may wish to discuss alternate ways to fund this debt obligation so that these CIP projects are not deferred to the extent they are proposed to be deferred. C. Variables and Long Term Funding Gap-If the interest rate increases beyond 3.59%,or the County does not agree to participate in SARR or Block 70 CDA funding,the available and identified funding sources will not cover the needed debt service. The short-term funding gap would exist regardless of whether the County participates with SARR or CDA funding,or whether the CDA generates increment in the long term.Staff has attached year-by-year sources and uses tables for various scenarios for those interested in the year-by-year detail. a. Interest Rate Variable Impact-Bond counsel provided estimates of what debt service would be at current(low),medium,and higher interest rates,all assuming a 25 year bond term. Interest Rate Scenarios and Funding Availability Scenario Interest Annual Debt Gap after FY 2016* Gap over life Rate Service (per year,22 years) of bond** Current(low) 3.59% $7,151,000 - ($ 1,767,001) Medium 4.79% $8,038,000 ($ 609,144) ($24,799,806) High 5.99% $8,988,000 ($ 1,559,144) ($49,296,244) Average Gap per year after FY 2016.*"This column includes funding gap in Years 1-3 as noted below in item D. The Council may wish to note the following assumptions that have an impact on the annual debt service amount > The Administration has proposed a 25 year bond rather than the City's typical 20 year bond-this slightly lowers annual debt service amount,although it increases the total interest paid over time. > The Administration has proposed a payment schedule that would defer payments on principle until SARR funds are available in FY 2016-this results in slightly higher annual debt service payments. C 7 > As a backstop the general fund would need to cover this gap. The Administration has indicated that the$2.5 million CIP"placeholder"could be used. Note that this would not be adequate to cover the short term gap,nor would it be enough to cover the gap in a"worst case"scenario of no County participation. > Note that this gap would not be an issue if the project is funded through a general obligation bond,as there would be a dedicated stream of revenue. S. The Council may wish to have an in-depth policy discussion with the Administration to come to an understanding about how both short term and long-term funding gaps can or should be addressed. The Council may wish to memorialize the conclusions of that discussion in a series of legislative intents so that the public record is clear for future City officials. E. Strategy for Timing-The Administration is asking the Council to issue short-term bonds and fund design of the project now,in order to take advantage of historically low interest rates,and a relatively favorable construction climate. However,as has been noted above,the major portion of potential revenue for this project is not available until 2016. Scheduling interest-only payments until then,does increase the total cost of debt slightly,but the long-term potential savings from interest rates likely offsets that. The Council could elect to wait until 2016 to construct the project, although interest rates will likely be higher at that point,which could cause the debt to exceed available resources. F. Alternative Financing Options-Council Staff asked bond counsel to run a scenario that would finance the construction of the UPAC with a General Obligation Bond (this would need to be approved by voters in SLC). Yearly debt service in the GO Bond Scenario is lower than the in the Sales Tax Bond Scenario. This is due to the level debt service that can be funded with a direct property tax levy,as well as a slightly lower overall interest rate. Sales Tax Bond GO Bond Difference (as proposed by Administration) Interest Rate 3.59% 3.16% .43% Term 25 Years 25 Years a_ Annual Debt Service $ 7,151,000 $ 6,437,000 $ 714,000 Total Debt Paid $171,838,622 $ 161,656,748 $10,181,874 > The property tax increase on a$110 million GO Bond with the terms referenced above would be approximately$55 per year for a$275,000 home,or$400 per year for a$1 million commercial property. Using a General Obligation Bond to finance this type of project has various pros and cons from a policy perspective. The Council may wish to note that the Mayor has made a commitment not to raise property taxes to build this facility,so the Administration would not support pursuit of a GO Bond at this time. The Administration indicates however that it does feel it is appropriate to consider a GO Bond for other key CIP projects if necessary. Pros - Lower Interest Rate/Debt Payment/Overall Money Paid over the life of the bond - Using GO Bond financing allows SARR revenue to be absorbed into the 9 In addition to the various Matters at Issue throughout the above analysis,the Council may also wish to consider the following matters at issue: 1. Would building this facility strain City general fund resources to the degree that a tax increase would become necessary to fund other City priorities? 2. The Council may wish to discuss the timing of the issuance of debt for both design and construction of the UPAC. 3. The Council may wish to ask the Administration if this project has been reviewed by the CDCIP Citizen Advisory Board,or if other large projects have been reviewed and ranked as other capital projects are. 4. The City and County are currently in the process of negotiating a memorandum of understanding for operations of the proposed UPAC (see draft). This agreement has not yet been agreed upon by the County,and is fluid in nature. However,there are some elements that would seem to commit future City resources. The Council may wish to review the proposed draft for any items that the Council does not agree with or discuss an acceptable strategy with the Administration that would encourage the County to participate in operation of the theater, but would minimize the financial exposure of the City. Pending Questions Council Staff forwarded the following questions to the Administration. Staff has incorporated responses where feasible given the timeframe, and has attached the full list of answers to this report. The Council may wish to discuss scheduling a follow-up briefing on this issue for November 15th. Finance/Specific Project Budget Questions- 1- SARR Funds/RDA-The Administration has previously indicated that the proposed RDA SARR contribution represents 25-30% of the total RDA SARR stream. Is the RDA SARR Stream$8 million or$9.5 million?Will this stream grow over time as property values increase? 2- CDA-What are the assumptions made that result in the$1.2m CDA? Does this assume an X-story office tower? What would happen to this figure if the office tower was delayed by 5 or 10 years? Would you couch these assumptions as conservative or aggressive? 3- On the final page of the cover memo,it seems to insinuate that the UPAC will "share" any key fundraising efforts or naming opportunities with other arts groups (as was done for the Durham Performing Arts Center). Is this the definite proposal? 4- Operations MOU-The MOU States that bond proceeds will be the initial funding source for the"Venue Financial Impact Fund". Is this figure included in the$110 million total figure?What is the annual amount estimated for this fund? Bond Counsel has indicated that this is not eligible to cover out of bond proceeds -given that,how would year one of this fund be funded? 5- Operations MOU-If the UPAC has a sustained operating shortfall,is it correct to state that the City/County/RDA will be responsible to cover that shortfall in a proportion equal to their respective capital investment? Is there a"worst case scenario" about what this amount could be? 6- Operations MOU-Is there a separate line item in the UPAC operating budget to cover deferred maintenance/ongoing capital expenses? Is there a guarantee that 11 ADMINISTRATION RESPONSES TO COUNCIL STAFF QUESTIONS 10/26/2011 Finance-related questions- 1- Debt service in the memo is mentioned to be$7.1m per year, but all of the worksheets we received beforehand in the coordinating meetings list debt service for$110m bond at$8.6m per year(w/the same interest rate/length terms). Can you explain this$1.5m difference? RESPONSE: The$8.6 million debt service number that we had been working with over the summer calculates a debt service payment based on a conservative interest rate(5.96%)rather than a rate we would likely find in the current market. The 5.96%interest rate number was derived using very conservative interest rate numbers at the beginning of the finance discussions and before Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke made his "hold rates steady for one or two years"announcement. The$7.1 million number is based on an estimated interest cost that we would likely find in the current market (3.59%). You'll find that interest cost on the bottom of page 11 of the transmittal(also called page 1 of the$110 million calculations)vs. the TIC on the UPAC Funding Plan document you're probably looking at. Exposure to higher rates 13-18 months from now(the likely window for issuing the take-out debt)is possible, of course, but the general market consensus is for rates to remain relatively low for some time. I would be happy to answer any further questions you may have on this matter if you need more detail or wish to examine any assumptions. 2- Does the$110m figure include all land acquisition costs—my early notes say that it does not. Has this changed? RESPONSE:An estimated amount was included for land in that the$110 million. If the land is donated the City could do more of the things on the optional items list. 3- What is the proposal to fund the "gap years"—where the short term note has been re-financed, but the SARR Funds are not yet available? In the BA#3 paperwork, it looks like there is a $3.7m payment due in FY 2014 and a $3.6m payment due in FY 2015, before SARR funds are available. What is the administration's proposal of how to fund these payments? RESPONSE: The Administration has several strategies for bridging the 'time gap'and will present a recommended solution, determined in consultation with City financial advisors, at a future date prior to requesting council authorization for issuance of the final construction. The particular strategy that constitutes the wisest financial solution depends on future market conditions, interest rates and other factors which are not presently knowable.Strategies currently contemplated for bridging the time gap include(i)delaying bond issuance(balancing a desire to issue bonds at favorable interest rates while market conditions persist against a modest delay that would minimize the time gap), (ii)use one time capital raised through private donations and foundation contributions for up-front expenditures rather than funding ongoing debt service obligations, (iii)capitalize interest during the time-gap years, (iv) acquire a loan from the City or RDA to fund the time gap, which loan will be repaid from future SARR or CDA increment in excess of amounts needed to fund annual debt service obligations, (v)seek one-time funding through the City, RDA, County or the State or(vi)identification of other revenue sources that would generate present funds. In other respects, the estimates are conservative: In our more detailed TI estimate for the Block 70 CDA, we assumed that the office tower would come on the rolls in tax year 2017. The developer has indicated he's already getting interest in the project from prospective tenants, and if that interest turns into a sufficient number of lease commitments, he could start the building sooner, and complete it a year or more earlier. The more detailed TI estimate we prepared for the CDA approval process includes funds only from SLC and the School District. If we never get the county's participation, the increment flow starts at about$1.5 million/year once the office building is complete. Our 70%share would be about$1.05 million. If the County opts in, that will add approximately$200,000/year. Also, the simple estimate of$1.789 million/year was based only on the value of the office tower, but the CDA actually includes the entire block.So, the income stream from the CDA will benefit from property appreciation on all taxable parcels on the block, and from any other private investment that occurs.So, if the Carl's Junior,Zim's, or SL Tribune properties were to redevelop, those increased values would all be captured by the CDA for the benefit of the UPAC project. It's important to note that even if the office tower proceeds pretty quickly, we could have a 1-2 year cash flow issue where the CDA isn't producing sufficient funds to hit the$1.179 million/year mark until tax year 2017. The CDA should more than make up for this in its later years, and as its cash flow grows above the$1.179 million/year level, it could be used to carry a larger share of the project's debt service. 7- On the final page of the cover memo, it seems to insinuate that the UPAC will "share" any key fundraising efforts or naming opportunities with other arts groups(as was done for the Durham Performing Arts Center). Is this the definite proposal? RESPONSE: The Administration is committed to constructing and operating the UPAC in a manner that is complementary to existing arts venues and their ongoing operations. The Administration intends to seek corporate and private sector donations for the UPAC. The specific terms of the fundraising campaign will be determined and implemented contemporaneously with the final design process. We do not anticipate direct revenue sharing on the total amount raised, although the scope of fundraising efforts will be developed in consultation with the existing arts community and impact mitigation efforts will be considered. 8- MOU—The MOU States that bond proceeds will be the initial funding source for the "Venue Financial Impact Fund". Is this figure included in the$110 million total figure?What is the annual amount estimated for this fund? Is this legal to cover out of bond proceeds(considering the City does not own any of the other facilities)? RESPONSE:It will not be possible to fund this fund with bond proceeds(even if the bonds in question are issued at taxable rates). While working capital for the facility itself during a "start-up"or"shakedown" period is contemplated by the Bond Act(and provided for in the tax law), the use contemplated by Section 2.f. iv. of the draft MOU, if I understand it correctly, cannot be financed with borrowed money. Although a specific life-cycle cost analysis of major capital repairs and replacement has not yet been prepared, we believe it is advisable to prepare such a life-cycle cost analysis and establish plans for a "sinking fund"to ensure capital is available for the UPAC at the anticipated time of such capital repair and replacement needs if and to the extent that capital repairs are not covered by the County/CFA from Preservation Fees collected at the UPAC and other venues. Currently, there is no guarantee that future capital needs will be funded, beyond the availability of funds collected by the UPAC, and, in the case of a County/CFA operation, by the total Preservation Fee funds collected and available from all County venues. 11- If the County does not run the theater,how can we assure the Council that the City will not be forced to contribute an operating subsidy once the theater opens? If the County does run the theater,how can we assure the Council that the County will not ask the City to contribute to operating expenses? RESPONSE: The AMS study projects that a non-profit operator on behalf of the City would break even operationally(before debt service). We believe this to be a reasonable and conservative assessment. We further believe that the maximum exposure of the City to potential operating losses would be limited to the City's proportionate share of the annual cost of any temporary closure of the facility pending an alternate disposition or management arrangement, as discussed above. If the County/CFA is the operator, it is the position of the RDA staff that performance criteria will be established which include operating the theater in a manner that does not require operating subsidies. If the County does not perform, the City will have the right to close the facility temporarily and/or seek another operator. Budget Policy 1- Has the City considered a general obligation bond for the project?What would the difference in interest rate mean for the total amount paid over the life of the bond? Would the projected shortfalls decrease? What are the policy arguments for and against a general obligation bond? RESPONSE: The Mayor has made a commitment to not raise taxes to build the Utah Performing Arts Center.Suggested savings in the use of general obligation bond assumes the bond would be passed this November. The delay of passing a general obligation bond may move us beyond the current favorable interest rate and construction rate climates. It is also much more difficult to predict what interest rates will look like when issuing the bonds when also accounting for additional time required for a general obligation bond. 2- Is it correct to say that either the City or the RDA will be the ultimate bonding authority for this project,and will therefore be the ultimate"backstop"for funding, should the revenue from a CDA not materialize? RESPONSE: It is correct to say that the City or the RDA will be the "backstop";however, the risk for this CDA is much lower than the risk we assumed for the North Temple Viaduct CDA.Also, the projected revenues are conservative and reflect no appreciation in the CDA area. If annual budget appropriations AECOM estimates that the total value of the Office Tower will be about$130 million and will generate about$1 million annually in property tax revenue of which about 45%is captured by the Salt Lake School District, and 45%by the City and County. We are discussing with the sub-consultant AECOM to further breakdown general revenue streams and net new income into a fiscal revenue stream for each major taxing entity. The State of Utah will be approached in the legislative session to consider several options in which they could participate in helping fund the project due to some of the benefits they receive. 2- What are the specific benefits that the overall performing arts community might experience if this project is built? RESPONSE: The overall performing arts community benefits in several direct and indirect ways by having a new 2,500 seat Theater. It is anticipated that local arts organizations will utilize the Theater for selected performances that cannot be accommodated in their existing facility, or where the new Theater and a larger seating capacity will be advantageous to them in selling tickets and generating revenue. The current performance pro forma anticipates several performances by the Utah Opera, Utah Symphony and Ballet West. The presenters of Broadway shows will benefit by having greater booking opportunities, more seats to sell, and a bigger booking window in order to attract more touring broadway shows, and bring in broadway shows sooner than later. Other local for profit and non-profit arts organizations and presenters will benefit by now having capacity to book a theater for local or touring music, or other cultural or entertainment performances, by now having more date availability. Currently, many touring concerts and other performers by-pass Salt Lake City due to lack of date availability in existing theaters. Other smaller performing arts organizations can benefit by building, cultivating and increasing the audience for live theater and live performances. The experience in many other communities is that touring broadway shows are the entry point for many people to experience live theater and musical presentations. This positive experience then encourages them to explore other art forms and those that might be less well know and more experimental. The comment has been frequently made that touring broadway shows are the gateway theater performance for other theater and performing arts experiences because it is so popular and accessible. The addition of a new Theater and the attendant publicity, branding and excitement is generates as part of a broader array of cultural offerings is an important mark of support and affirmation of the arts. The competition for attention, time and money from many other forms of leisure and entertainment are seen as the biggest obstacles to greater participation and attendance in the arts. The more opportunities to brand and co-brand the downtown and arts community experience will help build audience and support especially in relationship to the many other forms of competition for people's time. Finally, the operating projections for the UPAC indicate it will generate surplus operating funds which can be used in a variety of different ways to backfill other performing arts presentations, used for continued operating subsidies by arts organizations in the County facilities, or a host of other ways that benefit current local performing arts organizations. Yearn Debt Service Sources and Uses-Interest Rate Scenarios , Scenario 1-Low interest Rate(Current Environment)Assuming-359%Interest-25 Year Sala Tax Bond FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 21y 2033 FY 2034 FY 2035 FY 2036 FY 2037 FY 2038 Total Uses-Debt Service /+Bond Anticipation Note($15 M) $ 262,000 $ 262,000 : ire-Out Bonds($110M) $ 157,500 $ 3,766,292 $ 3,606,024 $ 7,151,024 $ 7,11 Total Debt Service Needs $ 419,500.$ 4,028,292 $3,606,024 $7,151,024:$7,15 7'149'099 $ 7'151' 9 $ 7,151'719 $ 7,L50,869 $ 7.14$916 $ 7,150,296 7,149,099:$ 7,151,319 $ 7,151,719 $ 7,150,889 $ 7,143,916'$ 7,150,296 $172,520,172 Source SARR Funds City(80%) $ - $ - $ - $ 2,375,000 S 2,37 RDA(25%-$amount matches City) $ - $ - $ - $ 2,375,030 $ 2,312'375,000:$ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 2,375,000•$ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,003 $ 2,375,030 County(100%)• $ - $ - $ - $ 1,500,000. $ 1.St Block 70 CDA poxa respective msremm0•, 1,500,000•$ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000.$ 1,500,030 City $ 12,697 $ 50,786•$ 101,573 $ 20,145 $ 4( 406 School District $ 17,654 $ 70,615,$ 141,230 $ 282,460 $ 56 '290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 564,920 I$ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 County $ 6,489 $ 25,956 $ 51,912 $ 103,823 $ 20 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 Total All Sources $ 36,839 $ 147,357 $ 294,714 $6,839,428 $7g21 Total ary5ources $ 12 697 $ sans $ 101,573 $ 2,574145 $ 2,7•428 6,$ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $170,753,170 2,781,290 $ 2,781,290 $ 7,781,290 $ 2781,290 $ Z781,290 $ Z781,290 GAP 935 3 1 10 ; 3 $27 79 758 i $277538 $277138 $277968 $279 5278,560 767 Scenario 2-Medium Interest Rate-Assuming-4.79%Intareat-25 Year Sales Tax Bond : t FY 2013 FY 2014 ' FY 2015 ! FY 2016 ' FY2-' Uses-Debt Service 2033 . FY 2034 FY 2035 FY 2036 FY 2037 FY 2038 Total Bond Anticipation Note($15 M) $ 262,000 $ 262,0C° Take-Out Bonds($110M) $ 5,186,618 $ 4,965,911 $ 8,035,911 $ 8,03 )3,038,782 Total Debt Service Needs $ 262,000 $ 5,448,618 $4,965,911'$ 8,035,911'$8,03 o38 7 $ 8,036,288 $ 8,039,351 $ 8,040,069 $ 8,037,652 $ 8,036,313 ,038,7821$ 8,036,2118 $ 8,039,351 $ 8,040,069 $ 8,037,652 $ 8,036,313 $195,552,976 Source SARR Funds COMM $ - $ - $ - $ 2,375,000 $ 2.371,y RDA(25%-$amount matches City) $ - $ - $ - $ 2,375,000 $ 2,37' '°°D'$ 2,375,00 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 1,375,000 $ 2,375,030 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,030 $ 2,375,000 County(100%)• $ - $ - $ - $ 1,500,000 $ 1,50 Block 70 CDA pox of respective Inomn,eo0•. 4500.030'$ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,9:0,000 $ 1,503,000 City $ 12,697 $ 50,786 $ 101,573 $ 203,145 $ 40i School District $ 17,654 $ 70,615 $ 141,230 $ 282,460 $ 56 406,290,$ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920.$ 564,920 County $ 6,489 $ 25,956 $ 51,912•$ 103,823 $ 20 207,646,$ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 Sour S Total Allces $ 36,839 $ 147,357 $ 294,714 $ 68 39,428 839,428 $7g26 rolour $ L2,697 $ 50,7a9 $ 101,573 $ z$78,145 $ 27i428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856 CltySourres 2,782,290 $ g781,290 $ 2,781,290 $ 2.781,290 $ 2,7121,290 $ 2,781,290 $17D,753,17D GAP 0225,161) ($5,301,261).($4,671,197) ($1,196,483) ($608 f09926)' (5607,432) ($610,495) f$611,213) ($604796) ($07,457 799,806 iario 3-Nigh Interest Rate-Assuming-5.98%interest-25 Year Sala Tax Bond • , FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 ' FY 20: Uses-Debt Service 2033 • FY 2034 FY 2035 FY 2036 FY 2037 FY 2038 Total Bond Anticipation Note($15 M) $ 262,003 $ 262,030 Take-Out Bonds($110 M) $ - $ 6,535,566 $ 6,257,457 $ 8,987,457 $ 8,981 Total Debt Service Needs $ 262,000 $ 6,797,566 $6,257,457 $8,987,457 $8,986988'15° $ 8,988,150 $ 8,989,453 $ 8,987,590 $ 8,985,925 $ 8,987,493 988,150 I$ 8,988,150.$ 8,989,453 $ 8,987 590 $ 6,985 925 $ 8,987g93 $220 049,414 Source SARR Funds City(80%) • $ - $ - $ - '$ 2,375,000 $ 2,329 ' RDA(25%-$amount matches City) $ - $ - $ - ,$ 2,375,000 $ 2,37! '000'$ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 County(100%)' $ - $ - $ - $ 1.$ 00.00D $ 1. 375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2.375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 $ 2,375,000 Block 70 CDA lraxorrespective Inc,n,e,,)' 500,000 $ 1,500.000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1.500,000 $ 1,500,000 City $ 12,697 $ 50,786 $ 101,573 $ 203,145 $ 404 406 School District $ 17,654 $ 70,615.$ 141,230 $ 282,460 $ 564 •290'$ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,290 $ 406,293 $ 406,290 County $ 6,489 $ 25,956 $ 51,912 $ 103,823 $ �564,920'$ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 $ 564,920 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 $ 207,646 Total All Sources $ 36,839 $ 147,.357 $ 294,714 $6,839g28 $7,424 Total Allaty ourtres $ 12,697 $ 50,7ae $ m1,s73 $ ;578,14s $ 47128,856 $ 7,428,856•$ 7,428,1156 $ 7,428,856 $ 7,428,856'$ 7 2,781,290 I$ 2,781,290 $. 2,781,290 $ 7,784290 $ 2781.290 $ 2.781,290 8,856 $17D,7s3,17D GAP 0225,161) ($6,650,209) ($5,962,743)r(S2,148,029) ($1,557 Notes/Assumptions ➢9,294), (S2,559,294) (S1,560,597) ($1,558,734) ($1,557,069) ($1,558,537) 9 "Note:County commitment to SARR Funds and CDA has not yet been approved. 244) **Assumption:Council Staff assumed a 5 year ramp-up to full CDA potential Increment. ` s,,,, I...t �'. RALPHM BECKER ►7,�� 1 ( .�`.i�1�� 7 ► OFFICE OF THE MAYOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL III" RECEIVED Dateo Received: 1 Zo /l Davis veritt, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: 10 2�/ ��/I SLC COUNCIL OFFICE TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: October 19, 2011 Jill Remington Love, Chair FROM: David 8veritt Chief of Staff, x7732, david.everitt@slcgov.com SUBJECT: UPAC Approval for Final Design, City participation in SARR and CDA funding, authorization of bond anticipation Note financing for design and associated soft costs. STAFF CONTACT: Ben McAdams, Senior Advisor to the Mayor, x7939 DJ Baxter, RDA Director, x7735 DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing, Ordinances, Resolutions RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the City Council adopt the proposed ordinances or resolutions. BUDGET IMPACT: The action includes authorization for expenditure of up to $15 million for the final design of the UPAC and associated soft costs. This amount will be funded by sales tax revenue notes, authorized hereby, the amount of which will be fully paid from the proceeds of bonds issued at a later date for the full construction costs of the facility and related improvements, currently estimated at$110 million. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Utah Performing Arts Center is a proposed 2,500-seat, state-of-the-art theater located in the heart of Utah's capital city on Main Street's Block 70, between 100 and 200 South. The Center helps to fulfill community leaders' longtime vision for a vibrant capital city—rich in the arts—that belongs to all of Utah. The goal for this premier venue is to attract first-run touring Broadway shows,provide an additional venue option for beloved Utah performing groups such as Ballet West and Utah Opera, and attract nationally prominent family shows and music and comedy acts. With such a theater as a drawing card, Salt Lake City will attract premier arts presentations and experiences, expand cultural offerings and provide an economic catalyst to Salt Lake City,the state and the region. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306 P.O.BOX 145474,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 841 1 4-54 74 TELEPHONE:801-535-7 FAX:801-535-6331 www.slcgov.com RECYCLED PAPCR for pre-development services. In March 2010, the RDA Board approved a contract for pre- development services with GTS for a fixed fee of$741,000. Since that time the Board has approved additional funds for strategic communications work, an economic impact analysis, and a facilitated process with the community to develop a joint policy for the City & County to follow in allocating funds under the Interlocal Agreement to fund arts promotion downtown. Estimated Costs The Administration is recommending issuance of a sales tax revenue bond, local building authority bond, RDA revenue bond or a blend of these options in order to generate the anticipated need of$110 million for the UPAC construction and related costs. The Administration recommends deferring the ultimate decision on the form of bonding until final design process is sufficiently advanced so construction and related costs are known to a greater degree of accuracy. The form of financing will also depend on prevailing market conditions at the time bonds are issued. Based on current assumptions, debt service for a 25-year sales tax revenue bond of$110 million at an interest rate of 5.96%is $7.1 million per year. This amount is interest rate sensitive and will increase if interest rates at the time of issuance are greater than current rates. Funding Sources The Administration is proposing a combination of several revenue sources to fund debt service obligations on the proposed bond. The first component of revenue for annual bond payments is a recommitment of existing SARR property tax revenue dedicated to economic development projects in the Central Business District. This existing revenue is currently committed to debt obligations for improvements made in connection with the Energy Solutions Arena and other significant public facilities. The debt for these improvements will be fully retired in April of 2015. The Administration is proposing to the respective taxing entities a recommitment of these economic development funds to the construction of the UPAC and related improvements. This revenue would be a recommitment of existing property tax revenues upon retirement of existing debt obligations and not an increase in property tax collection. The collective value of the City, County and RDA commitment of SARR revenue under the Administration's proposal would equal $6,250,000 per year and would be available for 25 years beginning in April of 2016. The second component of revenue for annual bond payments is a community development area, or CDA, on block 70 to capture tax increment generated in conjunction with the UPAC development. The primary source of anticipated tax increment is the proposed office tower. Under the proposal, the County, City and School District would commit 70%of their respective tax increment to fund annual debt service for the UPAC. The collective value of the proposed CDA would equal $1,178,856 per year for 25 years beginning in tax year 2015. 3 Memorandum of Understanding relating to County operation of the UPAC As part of the dialogue with the County Administration about their proposed participation in the financing of the UPAC, the County expressed concern about the potential that the UPAC could operate to the detriment of other County arts venues in the downtown. The Administration agreed to develop a memorandum of understanding relative to certain key factors important to Ithe County in order to gain their support for participating in the financing. A draft copy of this memorandum of understanding will be provided as supplementary materials. The Administration believes the County would be a preferred operator of the venue and has collaboratively developed a memorandum of understanding intended to be embodied in an interlocal agreement with Salt Lake County for the operation of the UPAC. The intent of the points in the proposed MOU are intended to facilitate transition to an new equilibrium among downtown arts venues with the construction of the UPAC that will benefit existing entities and leverage the opportunities available with a growing base of arts patrons as a result of the UPAC. Utah Performing Arts Center Economic Impact Economic Development Objectives The economic impact of the Utah Performing Arts Center should be viewed in the context of Salt Lake City's long held urban planning and economic development objectives. The overarching economic development strategy for Salt Lake City for over five decades has been to reinforce and catalyze growth, development and reinvestment in the urban core of Salt Lake City. That investment in the downtown area has been focused on providing goods, services and amenities that would service the entire region. As the seat of commerce, government, education, entertainment, and culture in Utah and the Intermountain region, Salt Lake City has long strived to maintain market share and priority in those sectors of the economy as a point of distinction from surrounding communities and regions. In particular it has been recognized that arts, cultural and entertainment facilities can help draw people to the downtown area, activate and animate the city,provide economic benefits for restaurants and other supporting businesses, and provide jobs for an ever-growing creative, innovative and educated population. While economic growth and investment has occurred during that time in manufacturing and distribution in west Salt Lake City, and technology and medical research and services at the University of Utah,most efforts supported and led by city government during this time have been to reinforce economic activity and social engagement in the downtown area. Some of the investments that have been made in the downtown area(many by the RDA) that have supported the economic development objectives of a culturally vibrant and active area are: 5 Economic Impacts The most recent economic impact studies were conducted in 2010 by Garfield, Traub, Swisher (GTS), and their sub-consultants AECOM and AMS. They concluded that the UPAC will be partially a"resident serving"business, enhancing the entertainment,culture, and quality of life for Salt Lake residents and recirculating money within the local economy. In that recirculation of spending within the local economy, Salt Lake City and businesses in and around the Theater will be the beneficiary of that spending that may otherwise be taking place elsewhere in the County. However, UPAC will also be partially a"basic" business in that it will also draw revenues from outside Salt Lake County and indeed outside the State of Utah. The analysis also indicated that a performing arts theater also functions as a business in the tourism industry(a basic industry)to the extent it draws patrons from other counties and surrounding states. Expenditures by individuals or families spending a night in a hotel and other associated restaurant, shopping and entertainment spending has a"direct impact"on the Salt Lake County economy that would not have taken place without the additional performances which the new theater will generate. In addition to the economic and fiscal impacts of the Utah Performing Arts Center, the project plans call for a large office building to be built adjacent to the Theater. The office building also generates economic impacts and benefits in the construction process, and provides another opportunity to recruit new businesses to downtown or provide an expansion option for an existing company, which keeps those jobs and investment within Salt Lake City. One time Economic Impacts of Construction (includes multipliers) Total Output Personal Earnings Employment Theater Development $201,951,183 $55,129,102 1,671 Office Development $289,156,500 $78,934,500 2,392 On-going Economic Impacts Five elements were identified that will create net new direct economic impacts on Salt Lake County on an ongoing basis by UPAC. 1. Operation of the new Theater 2. Local spending to produce additional touring shows 3. Induced visitation and visitor spending from outside the County and State to attend new Theater performances 4. Induced visitation and visitor spending due to more touring acts and productions 5. Operations of a new office building 7 PUBLIC PROCESS: (If applicable,the boards, commissions, community groups, and others contacted about the proposed recommendation and a summary of their concerns/opinions.) UPAC History of Public Process and Outreach to Arts Community The recognized need for a new, larger performing arts center in Salt Lake City dates back to the 1962 Second Century Plan, created by the Salt Lake Chamber which listed a new performing arts center among ten projects Salt Lake City needed to complete in the 1960's, in order to move into the second century. Of those ten projects all were completed except the performing arts center. Some of the other projects included the Salt Palace, Farmers Market, Main Street Plaza, Restored City and County Building and a new Federal Building Downtown. In 1990 Salt Lake County completed a study which recommended a new, larger theater to accommodate touring Broadway be built within ten years. In 2005 a feasibility study commissioned by the Salt Lake City RDA, Downtown Alliance, and Salt Lake County identified the need and potential for a touring Broadway theater. In 2007 a large performance venue to complement existing arts facilities is listed as one of the eight signature projects in the Downtown Rising plan, stating that these key projects would"add immensely to the life and vitality of downtown on their own, and together they will make Salt Lake City one of the most livable and prosperous cities in the nation." Also in 2007, then mayoral candidate Ralph Becker, included the plan for pursuing a large performing arts venue in blueprints for a Great American City, a campaign policy document developed with wide spread community input which has become a guiding force behind many of the key initiatives that have been implemented during the first term of the Becker Administration. In February 2008, following his election, Mayor Becker took up the task of advancing the Utah Performing Arts Center project through the creation of the Downtown Theater Action Group. The group was comprised of a cross section of community, business and cultural representatives. The work of this group included nine public meetings held over a four-month period. The full report of recommendations by the Downtown Theater Action Group can be found in Attachment 3 of the April 21, 2010 City Council transmittal here: https://dotnet.slcgov.com/Mayor/MavorCouncilTransmittals/Documents/k201 .PDF Following six months of public process and work and based on the recommendation of the Downtown Theater Action Group,the City determined and publicly announced that the NAC building site on Block 70 would be the ideal location for the new performing arts center. In 2009, the Salt Lake City Mayor's Office convened three half-day, facilitated meetings with a significant number of representatives from local arts groups,these meetings built on the earlier public process and work of the Downtown Theater Action Group. The purpose of these meetings with to collaborate with the arts and culture community about both the Utah Performing Arts Center and the broader vision for arts and culture in Salt Lake City. During these meetings, the arts groups expressed a greater interest in hearing about how the City could help them strengthen their marketing efforts, than the UPAC and as an outgrowth of those conversations, the City responded by eventually creating an interlocal agreement with Salt Lake County to fund marketing of the cultural core over the next 20 years. 9 1 Press roundtable with County and Salt Lake Tribune 1 Presence at Legislative Night at Mary Poppins 1 UPAC Booth at Farmer's Market Art& Culture Day 5 Meetings with the County on MOU terms of potential UPAC operating agreement with County 3 Meetings/interviews with the press with 3 experts with similar experiences with theaters • KCPW radio show • Deseret News Editorial Board • Salt Lake Tribune Editorial Board 1 Meeting with 3 outside theater experts with arts stakeholders 1 Meeting with 3 outside theater experts with elected City and County officials 1 Televised Community Forum with 3 outside theater experts 13 Presentations/meetings with Mayor Becker and/or Senator Ben McAdams • Chamber of Commerce Board • Downtown Alliance • Editorial Boards • Utah Symphony and Opera Board • Governor Herbert • Mayor Corroon • County Council (2) • School Board (2) • Update to RDA Board • LDS Church(2) 4 Cultural Core Meetings and Workshops hosted by AMS (with 1 more to take place in October) Once the GTS report was released, representatives from the Mayor's Office proactively met with numerous community organizations to review the report and gather additional feedback as the project unfolded. Another meeting with arts leaders was held on September 23 to give arts leaders the opportunity to meet with representatives from Denver, Colorado, Durham, North Carolina and Dayton, Ohio who could speak to projects with parallels to the UPAC. Some of the organizations the Administration has outreached to during this phase of the project included: • Salt Lake County Center for the Arts 11 • 3/9/10- Consideration and Adoption of a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City Approving a Contract for Pre-Development Services with Garfield Traub Swisher for the Utah Performance Center. • 10/13/09-Consideration and Adoption of Resolution No.665.01,"Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City.Authorizing the Agency to Enter Into a Six-Month Exclusive Negotiation With Garfield Swisher Traub for Development Services Associated With the Acquisition and Development of Property Located on Block 70 for the Development of the Utah Performance Center and Adjacent Commercial Uses. • 9/22/09-Consideration and Adoption of Resolution No.664.01:Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City Approving the First Amendment to Exclusive Negotiations Agreement With Property Reserve,Inc. and Suburban Land Reserve,Inc.for the Potential Acquisition of Property for Construction of a Downtown Theater Located on Block 70. Block 70 • The RDA has started the process to open a Community Development project area on block 70-this was discussed at meetings"(10/11/11)and(9/20/11)" • Property purchase and property matters- • 6/7/11-Consideration and Adoption of a"Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City Approving the Fifth Amendment to Exclusive Negotiations Agreement with Property Reserve,Inc.and Suburban Land Reserve,Inc. for the Potential Acquisition of Property for Construction of a Downtown Theater Located on Block 70." • 1/11/11-Consideration and Adoption of a"Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City Approving the Alley Reconfiguration Agreement between Block 70 Property Owners and the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City." • 4/12/11-Consideration and Adoption of a"Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City Approving the Fourth Amendment to Exclusive Negotiations Agreement with Property Reserve,Inc.and Suburban Land Reserve,Inc.for the Potential Acquisition of Property for Construction of a Downtown Theater Located on Block 70." • 10/12/10 -Consideration and Adoption of a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency Of Salt Lake City Approving the Third Amendment to Exclusive Negotiations Agreement With Property Reserve,Inc.and Suburban Land Reserve,Inc. for the Potential Acquisition of Property for Construction of a Downtown Theater Located on Block 70. • 3/9/10-Consideration and Adoption of a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City Approving the Second Amendment to Exclusive Negotiations Agreement With Property Reserve,Inc.and Suburban Land Reserve,Inc.for the Potential Acquisition of Property for Construction of a Downtown Theater Located on Block 70. • 11/18/08 -Consideration and Adoption of Resolution No.651.02:"Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City Approving Exclusive 13 h. r [[�r��� �[; �,.� �[ ( SCANNED BY: RALPH BECKER ,�,C� .l � " 3"r� �3 7 DATE: OFFICE OF THE MAYOR ���� CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL D 1 ( I [I T RECEIVED OCT 2 0 2011 Date Received g _j Davi veritt, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: 1 1 SLC COUNCIL OFFICE TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: October 19,2011 Jill Remington Love, Chair FROM: David Everitt, Chief of Staff SUBJECT: Budget Opening#3 for Fiscal Year 2011-12 STAFF CONTACT: Gina Chamness (801) 535-7766 DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council set a public hearing date to discuss the budget amendment#3 for Fiscal Year 2011-12. BUDGET IMPACT: This proposed amendment would increase the Capital Improvement Project(CIP) fund budget by$15,000,000, funded by the sale of a short term financing note. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Attached is a revenue forecast for the General Fund based on revenues through the end of September. This forecast shows the City essentially on-track to meet its revenue targets this year and has not changed from the forecast submitted previously as part of Budget Amendment#2. The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling$15,000,000 associated with the Utah Performing Arts Center(UPAC). A separate transmittal addresses the overall plan for the project, including proposed funding sources for an estimated total cost of$110,000,000. PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306 P.O.BOX 145474,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 841 1 4-5 4 74 TELEPHONE:801-535-7704 FAX:801-535-6331 www.slcgov.com SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2011 (Amending the Final Bridget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2011-2012) An Ordinance Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 50 of 2011 Which Adopted the Final Budget of Salt Lake City,Utah,for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2011 and Ending June 30,2012. PREAMBLE On August 9,2011,the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City,Utah,including the employment staffing document,for the fiscal year beginning July 1,2011 and ending June 30,2012,in accordance with the requirements of Section 118, Chapter 6,Title 10 of the Utah Code Annotated,and said budget,including the employment staffing document,was approved by the Mayor of Salt Lake City,Utah The City's Budget Director,acting as the City's Budget Officer,prepared and filed with the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget,including the amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes specifically stated herein, copies of which are attached hereto,for consideration by the City Council and inspection by the public. All conditions precedent to amend said budget,including the employment staffing document as provided above,have been accomplished. • c Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City.Utah: SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget of Salt Lake City,including the employment staffing document,as approved, ratified and finalized by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 50 of 2011. SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments,including amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes specifically stated herein, attached hereto and rnarift a part of this Ordinance shall be,and the same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah,including the amendments to the employment staffing document described above, for the fiscal year beginning July 1,2011 and ending June 30,2012,in accordance with the requirements of Section 128, Chapter 6,Title 10, of the Utah Code Annotated. SECTION 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including amendments to the employment staffing document,in the office of said Budget Officer and in the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on its first publication. 2 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,this day of ,2011. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved Vetoed MAYOR ATTEST: EST: APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney': Oft() Date lam'' CITY RECORDER BY (SEAL) Bill No. of 2011. Published: FIB ATTY415993-J2-Budget Amendment FY11-12.DOC 3 Salt Lake Ci FY2O11-12 Bud•et Amendment#3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount Section A: New Items A-1 UPAC Short Term Financing: Project Design CIP $15,000,000 The Utah Performing Arts Center(UPAC)will include an approximately 2500-seat theater,as well as rehearsal spaces and other facilities that will support the operation of the theater and various performing arts functions. A separate transmittal addresses the overall plan for the project,including proposed funding sources for an estimated cost of $110,000,000.The estimated cost of$110,000,000 is based on work conducted for the Redevelopment Authority(RDA) by Garfield Traub Swisher Development and includes a base cost of approximately$100,000,000 as well as potential additional options or phases,totaling approximately$20,000,000. This overall budget of$110,000,000 assumes that half of the additional phases/options will ultimately be included in the final project. At this time,the Administration is proposing to issue a short term financing note of up to$15,000,000. Depending on market conditions,the financing may be issued as a bond anticipation note or a short term bond issue,depending on which instrument is less expensive and provides the City maximum flexibility. The key feature of whichever bond or note is issued is that the principal will be paid at or prior to maturity from the proceeds of permanent financing. Before the final bonds are issued,the City will need to make interest payments on the short term note. We currently estimate the amount of those payments to be approximately$262,000 annually. Assuming the short term note is issued in the early part of the 2012,the first installment will not be made until FY 2012-13. Until the final bonds are issued,we anticipate using a portion of the Capital Asset Management(CAM) major projects placeholder in the CIP fund to make interest payments. The current timeline estimates that the final bonds will be issued for the project in late June of 2013, so the City would likely make only one year's interest payment on the note,although the stated maturity on the note will be three years from the date of issuance. This note will provide funding for the final design of the UPAC and associated costs. Major categories include: Architecture, Engineering and Preconstruction 9,566,902 Other Professional Fees 1,295,357 Owners Costs(including project management, legal costs, reimbursement and property negotiations) 4,137,741 $ 15,000,000 The Administration is proposing the use of this short term financing note for several reasons. Over the next year,design work and other preparations will take place. During this process,the overall project cost will be refined before final bonds are issued and construction of the facility begins. In addition,the City will continue to pursue private and other potential funding sources that are not yet secured. This strategy assumes that bonds for the complete project will be issued at a later date and used to refund the short term financing note. If a decision were made not to proceed with this project in the future,the City would continue to be obligated to repay this short term note. The note would need to be re-financed at maturity, and could be refinanced over a period of time. The tax implications for this type of re-financed note, however,are not clear. It is possible that the proceeds could become taxable if the project does not move forward as is currently anticipated. Attached are two debt service runs for the UPAC project provided by the City's financial advisor. One run estimates debt service on the short term financing note,and the other estimates annual debt service on the entire estimated project amount of$110,000,000. As stated above,at current rates,the annual interest only debt service payment on the short term note will likely be approximately$262,500. Assuming bonds were issued at current market rates,estimated interest only bond carrying costs for FY 14 and FY 15 would be approximately$3.7 million annually. 1 Fiscal Year 2011-12 Budget Amendment#3 Expenditure Revenue On-going or Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount Amount One time FTEs Section A: New Items 1 UPAC Short Term Financing: Project Design CIP 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 one-time 0 Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Section 0 Grants for New Staff Resources Section D: Housekeeping . Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources Section F: Donations Section G: Council Consent Agenda--Grant Awards Section I: Council Added Items Total of Budget Amendment Items 15,000,000.00 Total by Fund,Budget Amendment#3: CIP Fund 15,000,000.00 Total of Budget Amendment Items 15,000,000.00 Current Year Budget Summary,provided for Information only FY2011-12 Budget,Including Budget Amendments FY 2011-12 Adopted Budget BA It1 Total BA tt2 Total BA t13 Total BA#4 Total Total To-Date General Fund $195,154,853 15,000,000.00 $210,154,853 CIP Fund $19,618,798 S18,000,000 537,618,798 Certification I certify that this document is a full and correct copy of Ordinance of 2011,amending Salt Lake City Ordinance of 2011,which adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City Utah for the fiscal year beginning June 1 2011 and ending June 30,2012. Budget Director Deputy Director,City Council 1 $15,000,000 Preliminary; subject to change Salt Lake City, Utah 10.18.11 Subordinated Excise Tax Revenue Notes (UPAC Project) Series 2012 Table of Contents Report Debt Service Schedule 1 Sources& Uses 2 SLC UPAC BAN,Series 2011 I SINGLE PURPOSE I 10/182011 1 5:02 PM r 111Ar 1`111) $15,000,000 Salt Lake City, Utah Subordinated Excise Tax Revenue Notes (UPAC Project) Series 2012 Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total 02/15/2012 09/15/2012 131,250.00 131,250.00 03/15/2013 15,000,000.00 1.500% 112,500.00 15,112,500.00 06/01/2013 - 15,243,750.00 Total $15,000,000.00 - $243,750.00 $15,243,750.00 Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars $16,250.00 Average Life 1.083 Years Average Coupon 1.5000000% Net Interest Cost(NIC) 1.5000000% True Interest Cost(TIC) 1.4994948% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 1.4994948% All Inclusive Cost(Aig 1.4994948% IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost 1.5000000% Weighted Average Maturity 1.083 Years SLC UPAC BAN,Series 2011 I SINGLE PURPOSE I 10/18/2011 5:02 PM 11==ir 11[111111 Page 1 $15,000,000 Salt Lake City, Utah Subordinated Excise Tax Revenue Notes (UPAC Project) Series 2012 Sources & Uses Dated 02/15/2012 I Delivered 02/15/2012 Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds $15,000,000.00 Total Sources ;15,000,000.00 Uses Of Funds Deposit to Project Construction Fund 15,000,000.00 Total Uses $15,000,000.00 SLC UPAC BAN,Series 2011 I SINGLE PURPOSE 1 10/18/2011 I 5:02 PM I1[111111 Page 2 $110,000,000 Preliminary; subject to change Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, UT 10.18.11 [Tax Increment] Revenue Bonds, Series 2013 (UPAC - 25-yr Tax-Exempt) Table of Contents Report Debt Service Schedule 1 Sources&Uses 2 Total Net Debt Service 3 SLC UPAC$110M,RDA 25-yr I SINGLE PURPOSE 1 10/18/2011 I 5.04 PM IFf[f f(II $110,000,000 Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, UT [Tax Increment]Revenue Bonds,Series 2013 (UPAC-25-yr Tax-Exempt) Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total PA Racal Total 03/15/2013 - - - - - 10/012013 - - 1,963,279.73 1,963,279.73 - 04/012014 - - 1,803,012.00 1,803,012.00 3,766,291.73 10/012014 - - 1,803,012.00 1,803,012.00 - 04/01/2015 _ _ 1,803 012_00 1,803 012.003 506 024.00. 10/012015 - - 1,803,012.00 1,803,012.00 - 04/012016 3,545,000.00 0.950% 1,803,012.00 5,348,012.00 7,151,024.00 10/012016 - - 1,786,173.25 1,786,173.25 - 04/012017 3,580,000.00 1.270% 1,786,173.25 5,366,173.25 7,152,346.50 10/012017 - - _1,763,440.25 1 763440.25___._.._...__.....____ 04/012018 3,625,000.00 1.600% 1,763,440.25 5,388,440.25 7,151,880.50 10/012018 - - 1,734,440.25 1,734,440.25 - 04/012019 3,680,000.00 1.850% 1,734,440.25 5,414,440.25 7,148,880.50 10/012619 - - 1,700,400.25 1,700,400.25 - 04/012020 3750,000.00 2.120% 1,700,400.25 5,450,400.25 7,150,800_50 10/01/2020 - - 1,660,650.25 1,660,650.25 - 04/012021 3,830,000.00 2.420% 1,660,650.25 5,490,650.25 7,151,300.50 10/012021 - - 1,614,30725 1,614,307.25 - 04/012022 3,925,000.00 2.660% 1,614,30725 5,539,307.25 7,153,614.50 10/012022 1,56210475_.._..-._1,562104.75 04/012023 4,025,030.00 2.780% 1,562,104.75 5,587,104.75 7,149,209.50 10/012023 - - 1,506,157.25 1,506,157.25 - 04/012024 4,140,000.00 3.050% 1,506,157.25 5,646,157.25 7,152,314.50 10/012024 - - 1,443,02225 1,443,022.25 - 04/01/2025 4,265,000.00 3.180% 1,443 022.25_ 5,708,022.25 7,151,044_50 10/012025 - - 1,375,208.75 1,375,208.75 - 04/012026 4,400,000.00 3.310% 1,375,208.75 5,775,208.75 7,150,417.50 10/01/2026 - - 1,302,388.75 1,302,388.75 - 04/012027 4,545,000.00 3.420% 1,302,388.75 5,847,388.75 7,149,777.50 10/012027 - - 1,224,669.25 1,224669_25 - 04/012028 4,700,000.00 3.520% 1,224,669.25 5,924,669.25 7,149,338.50 10/01/2028 - - 1,141,949.25 1,141,949.25 - 04/012029 4,865,000.00 3.620% 1,141,949.25 6,006,949.25 7,148,898.50 10/012029 - - 1,053,892.75 1,053,892.75 - 04/01/2030 _5,045,000.00 3.720% 1,053,892_75 6 096,892.75 7 152 785.50 10/01/2030 - - 960,055.75 960,055.75 - 04/012031 5,230,000.00 3.820% 960,055.75 6,190,055.75 7,150,111.50 10/012031 - - 860,162.75 860,162.75 - 04/012032 5,430,000.00 3.890% 860,162.75 6,290,162.75 7,150,325.50 - 10/01/2032 - ._.... - 754,549.25 754,549 25 04/012033 5,640,000.00 3.950% 754,549.25 6,394,549.25 7,149,098.50 10/01/2033 - - 643,159.25 643,159.25 - 04/012034 5,865,000.00 4.000% 643,159.25 6,508,159.25 7,151,318.50 10/01/2034 - - 525,859.25 525,859.25 - 04/012035 6,100,000.00 4.030% 525,859.25 6,625,859.25 7,151,718.50 -10/012035 - - 402,944.25 402,944.25 - 04/01/2036 6,345,000.00 4.050% 402,944.25 6,747,944.25 7,150,888.50 10/012036 - - 274,458.00 274,458.00 - 04/012037 6,600,000.00 4.070% 274,458.00 6,874,458.00 7,148,916.00 10/012037 140148.00 __- 140148.00 - 04/012038 6,870,000.00 4.080% 140,148.00 7,010,148.00 7,150,296.00 Total $110,000,000.00 - $61,838,621.73 $171,838,621.73 - Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars ___ _ $1,897,728.89 Average Life-- ---------._..__......---- ------. .. -------- --...... ---- - ---15.434 Years Average Coupon ------...._.. .-----3.6424321% Net Interest Cost{NIC) _ --__-..----_-- _-- _ _ __ ,_ ___3.6424321% True Interest Cost MCA _-- -.... ---_-----3_5872619% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes . . ..... _ , 3.5872619% All Inclusive Cost(AIC) _...._ ....... ........ _3.5872619% IRS Form 8098 Net Interest Cost ... . ....... ---- --. -- ...._ _....... _ __3.6424321% Weighted Average Maturity 15.434 Years i SLC UPAC$1101.1,RDA 25-yr I SINGLE PURPOSE 110/1Y1011 15-04 PM Q 1filiAr 1(�( I i Ift Page 1 $110,000,000 Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, UT [Tax Increment] Revenue Bonds, Series 2013 (UPAC - 25-yr Tax-Exempt) Sources & Uses Dated 03/15/2013 I Delivered 03/15/2013 Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds $110,000,000.00 Total Sources $110,000,000.00 Uses Of Funds Retire Subordinated Excise Tax Revenue Notes $18,135,000.00 Amount Deposited to Construction/COI Fund $91,865,000.00 Rounding Amount $0.00 Total Uses $110,000,000.00 SLC UPAC 5110M,RDA 25-yr I SINGLE PURPOSE I 10/18/2011 I 5:04 PM IUTilill Page 2 $128,000,000 Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, UT [Tax Increment]Revenue Bonds,Series 2013 (UPAC-25-yr Tax-Exempt) Total Aggregate Debt Service: Notes & Bonds Date Principal Interest Net New D/S Fiscal Total 02/15/2012 - - - - 09/15/2012 - 157,500.00 157,500.00 - 03/152013 - - - - 04/01/2013 - - - 157,500.00 10/01/2013 __...._..._.__.... - .......__1,963,279.73 1,963,279.73 - 04/012014 - 1,803,012.00 1,803,012.00 3,766,291.73 10/01/2014 - 1,803,012.00 1,803,012.00 - 04/012015 - 1,803,012.00 1,803,012.00 3,606,024.00 10/01/2015 - 1,803,012.00 1,803,012.00 - 04/012016 3,545,000.00 1,803,012.00 5,348,012.00 7,151,024.00 10/01/2016 - 1,786,173.25 1,786,173.25 - 04/012017 3,580,000.00 1,786,173.25 5,366,173.25 7,152,346.50 10/012017 - 1,76,3,440.25 1,763,440.25 - 04/012018 3,625,000.00 1,763,440.25 5,388,440.25 7,151,880.50 10/01/2018 —...._ 1.,734 440.25 ........_....._ 1,734,440.25_... ._..._... - — - 04/012019 3,680,000.00 1,734,440.25 5,414,440.25 7,148,880.50 10/01/2019 - 1,700,400.25 1,700,400.25 - 04/012020 3,750,000.00 1,700,400.25 5,450,400.25 7,150,800.50 10/01/2020 - 1,660,650.25 1,660,650.25 - 04/012021 3,830,000.00 ..... 1,660,650.25 5,490,650.25 7,151,300.50 10/01/2021 - 1,614,307.25 1,614,307.25 - 04/012022 3,925,000.00 1,614,307.25 5,539,307.25 7,153,614.50 10/01/2022 - 1,562,104.75 1,562,104.75 - 04/012023 4,025,000.00 1,562,104.75 5,587,104.75 7,149,209.50 10/01/2023 - 1,506157.25 1506,157.25 - 04/012024 4,140,000.00 1,506,157.25 5,646,157.25 7,152,314.50 10/01/2024 - 1,443,022.25 1,443,022.25 - 04/012025 4,265,000.00 1,443,022.25 5,708,022.25 7,151,044.50 10/01/2025 - 1,375,208.75 1,375,208.75 04/01/2026 4,400 000.00 _.— 1,375 208.75 5 775,208 75 7,50 417.50 10/01/2026 - 1,302,388.75 1,302,388.75 - 04/012027 4,545,000.00 1,302,388.75 5,847,388.75 7,149,777.50 10/01/2027 - 1,224,669.25 1,224,669.25 - 04/012028 4,700,000.00 1,224,669.25 5,924,669.25 7,149,338.50 10/01/2028 - 1,141 949_25 1 141 949.25 - 04/012029 4,865,000.00 1,141,949.25 6,006,949.25 7,148,898.50 10/01/2029 - 1,053,892.75 1,053,892.75 - 04/012030 5,045,000.00 1,053,892.75 6,098,892.75 7,152,785.50 10/01/2030 - 960,055.75 960,055.75 - 04/012031 5,230000_00 960,055.756 190,055.75_... 7,150,111_50 10/012031 - 860,162.75 860,162.75 - 04/012032 5,430,000.00 860,162.75 6,290,162.75 7,150,325.50 10/012032 - 754,549.25 754,549.25 - 04/01/2033 5,640,000.00 754,549.25 6,394,549.25 7,149,098.50 10/01/2033 - 643,159.25 643,159.25 - 04/01/2034 5,865,000.00 643,159.25 6,508,159.25 7,151,318.50 10/01/2034 - 525,859.25 525,859.25 - 04/012035 6,100,000.00 525,859.25 6,625,859.25 7,151,718.50 10/01/2035 - 402,944.25 402,944.25 - 04/012036 .._..._._. 6,345,000.00 —__402,944.25 ___... 6 747,944 25 7 150 888.50 10/01/2036 - 274,458.00 �274,458.00 - 04/012037 6,600,000.00 274,458.00 6,874,458.00 7,148,916.00 10/01/2037 - 140,148.00 140,148.00 - 04/012038 6,870,000.00 140,148.00 7,010,148.00 7,150,296.00 Total $110,000,000.00 $61,996,121.73 $171,996,121.73 - Per Amounts Of Selected Issues Series 2012 Notes 18,000,000.00 Series 2013 Bands 110,000,000.00 TOTAL 128,030,060.00 App,eye 110,1N1011 15M PIA BvY[11(� " V Page 3 FY 2011-12 Variance Annual Revised Favorable Revenue Budget Forecast (Unfavorable) Total General Fund 195,114,853 194,559,704 (555,149) Selected Discussion Items Total Property Taxes 63,175,537 63,175,537 0 Discussion: Total Sales and Use Tax 45,622,655 45,622,655 0 Discussion: Total Franchise Tax 28,434,888 28,366,228 (68,660) Discussion: Franchise Fee for Public Utilities is lower than budgeted due to a cooler and wetter summer. License and Permits: 18,452,058 18,379,780 (72,278) Discussion: Intergovernmental Revenue 5,426,994 5,426,994 0 ')iscussion: interest income 780,000 780,000 0 Discussion: Total Fines& Forfeiture 10,988,815 10,567,259 (421,556) Discussion: Parking Ticket revenue is down due to parking ticket issuance being down. Parking Meters 1,651,000 1,651,000 0 Discussion: Charges and Services 4,118,852 4,126,197 7,345 Discussion: Miscellaneous Revenue 3,020,641 3,020,641 0 Discussion: Interfund Reimbursement 9,907,993 9,907,993 0 Discussion: Transfers 3,535,420 3,535,420 0 Discussion: A draft project area plan("the Plan)will be submitted for the Board's consideration in November.In the event that the RDA does not approve the Plan,the Interlocal Agreement will terminate and the City and District will not have any obligations related to the CDA. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AREA CREATION STEPS: A brief description of the steps completed to date and future steps for the creation of theCDA is included below: Steps Completed Steps completed as of October 10,2011 for the creation of the CDA • September 20—The RDA Board authorized the Agency staff to prepare a draft community development project area plan. • September 28 -The RDA staff completed a draft community development project area plan. • October 4—The Salt Lake City School Board approved the Three-party(District, City, and Agency) Interlocal Agreement. • October 7—RDA sent a notice of the Plan Hearing by mail to each property owner in the proposed project area boundaries,the State Tax Commission,the Salt Lake County Assessor and Auditor,the State Board of Education, and the legislative body of each taxing entity. • October 10-A notice for the scheduled plan hearing on November 15 was published in The Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News. • October 10 -Draft community development project area plan was made available for the public at the Agency's office during normal business hours. Next Steps Steps to complete for the creation of the CDA • October 11 -The RDA Board approves the three-party(District, City, and Agency) Interlocal Agreement • October 28—Salt Lake City Council approves the three-party(District, City, and Agency) Interlocal Agreement. • October 29 -The RDA publishes a notice of the finalized three-party Interlocal Agreement in the newspaper. The 30-day protest period for the agreements begins. • November 15—The RDA Board holds the Plan Hearing to collect public comments on the draft Community Development Project Area Plan. • November 22 —The RDA Board approves a resolution adopting the draft Community Development Project Area Plan as the CDA's Project Area Plan • November 22—The City Council adopts an ordinance that designates the approved project area plan as the official Community Development Plan of the project area. 2 Exhibit A. Project Area Map ritift IN t y t CC t :r.� iN f IF 1:1 . 5 j Parimommiormitvposed UPAC CDA Project Area 4 JOINT RESOLUTION NO. OF 2011 (Utah Performing Arts Center) A joint resolution of the City Council and the Mayor approving an Interlocal Agreement with the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City and the Board of Education of Salt Lake City School District to authorize use of a portion of tax increment to support the Utah Performing Arts Center and infrastructure and development activities related to the establishment of a cultural core. WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City(the"RDA") proposes to create a Community Development Project Area(the"CDA")to capture tax increment from Block 70 to support the development of a regional performing arts theater and ancillary facilities(the "Theater") on Block 70 and activities related to the establishment of a cultural core; and WHEREAS,the CDA boundaries would include the area described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the"Proposed Project Area"),that is generally all of Block 70 in downtown Salt Lake City from Main Street to State Street and from 200 South to 100 South; and WHEREAS, the Central Business District Project Area Plan adopted by the RDA does not allow for the collection of tax increment from the properties in Block 70; and WHEREAS, construction of the Theater will facilitate private development on Block 70 through the construction of an office tower and other mixed-use projects; and WHEREAS, in 2005, a feasibility study commissioned by the RDA, the Downtown Alliance, and Salt Lake County identified the need and potential for a touring Broadway theater; and WHEREAS, in 2011,the development team of GTS/Hamilton Partners issued a feasibility report demonstrating the economic development benefits and financial viability of a touring Broadway Theater on Block 70; and WHEREAS,the creation of the CDA will capture increased property taxes from the proposed private development and assist with the repayment of bonds issued to construct the Theater; and WHEREAS, the Theater and private development will activate and revitalize Main Street between First South and Second South and leverage the economic impact of City Creek Center, the Gateway,222 South Main, and other recent developments; and WHEREAS, the Theater will create educational opportunities and cultural enrichment statewide, and introduce and attract new and broader audiences to the downtown cultural core; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Downtown Master Plan calls for the expansion of downtown arts, cultural, and entertainment activities and the creation of a theater district; and WHEREAS, the anticipated cost of constructing the Theater,based on the preliminary program and cost estimates,is approximately$100 million to $120 million depending on options; and 2. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor to negotiate and execute an interlocal agreement among the RDA,the City, and the District substantially in accordance with the form of Interlocal Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A,with such modifications and additions as such officers shall approve as necessary or appropriate. DATED this 25th day of October, 2011. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,this 25th day of October,2011. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER SALT LAKE CITY MAYOR By: ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER Draft of September 28,2011 Interlocal Agreement THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT is entered into as of this day of 2011, by and among the REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY (the "AGENCY"), BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SALT LAKE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT (the "DISTRICT"), and SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION (the "CITY") (collectively, the "PARTIES"). A. WHEREAS the Agency was created pursuant to the provisions of the Utah Redevelopment Law and the Agency continues to operate under the Limited Purpose Local Government Entities — Community Development and Renewal Agencies Act, Title 17C of the Utah Code (the "Act"), and is authorized thereunder to conduct urban renewal, economic development, and community development activities within Salt Lake City, Utah as contemplated by the Act; and B. WHEREAS pursuant to Resolution No. 700.04 adopted by the Agency on September 20, 2011, the Agency has commenced the process under the Act to create the Block 70 Community Development Project Area (the "Project Area"), and has prepared a draft of a community development project area plan for the Project Area, a copy of which is attached hereto as EXHIBIT A and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Draft Project Area Plan,"which includes the legal description and a map of the Project Area),pursuant to which the Agency desires to support the Utah Performing Arts Center, together with improvements to infrastructure on and surrounding Block 70 and other development activities that will support the cultural core located on Block 70 (collectively, the "Projects"), which will promote economic development in the Project Area and in the surrounding community; and C. WHEREAS each of the City and the District have determined that it is in the best interests of the City and the District, respectively, to provide certain financial assistance through the use of Tax Increment (as defined below) in connection with the development of the Projects as set forth in the Draft Project Area Plan; and D. WHEREAS the Agency anticipates using tax increment (as defined in Utah Code Annotated ("UCA") § 17C-1-102(44) (hereinafter "Tax Increment")), created by the Projects and by other development activities on Block 70, to assist in the development and completion of the Projects as provided in the Draft Project Area Plan; and E. WHEREAS UCA § 17C-4-201(1) authorizes the City and the District to consent to the payment to the Agency of a portion of its share of Tax Increment generated from the Project Area for the purposes set forth therein; and F. WHEREAS UCA § 11-13-215 further authorizes the City and the District to share their tax and other revenues with the Agency; and 1 Interlocal Agreement issued by the City, as determined by the underwriters of such bonds, or a reasonably equivalent rate in the event that no such bonds are issued, as determined by the City's then bond underwriters. b. The Parties agree that the Agency shall apply the Agency's Share of the City's Tax Increment and the Agency's Share of the District's Tax Increment to the payment of a portion of the Costs of the Projects. c. The Agency agrees that it will not be entitled to the Agency's Share of the City's Tax Increment and the Agency's Share of the District's Tax Increment unless and until the Agency shall commence the construction of that portion of the Projects consisting of the Utah Performing Arts Center. 3. Additional Condition; Final Project Area Plan. Each of the Parties agrees that in the event that the Agency does not approve any Draft Project Area Plan pursuant to UCA 17C-4-102(1)(f), this Agreement shall terminate and no Party shall have any further obligations hereunder. In the event that the Agency does approve the Draft Project Area Plan pursuant to UCA 17C-4-102(1) (f) in the form of Exhibit A attached hereto, then the "Project Area Plan" attached hereto shall be such approved plan. In the event that the Agency makes any changes to the Draft Project Area Plan in the form of Exhibit A attached hereto in connection with its approval pursuant to UCA 17C-4-102(l(f),the Agency shall provide each of the City and the District with a copy of such revised Project Area Plan. If each of the City and the District approve such revised Project Area Plan,then the Parties shall amend this Agreement to attach the revised Project Area Plan, and the "Project Area Plan" hereunder shall be the revised Project Area Plan attached to the amendment. In the event that the Parties do not execute an amendment within 90 days of the date the Agency provides the City and the District the copy of such revised Project Area Plan, this Agreement shall terminate and no Party shall have any further obligation hereunder. 4. No Third Party Beneficiary. Nothing in this Agreement shall create or be read or interpreted to create any rights in or obligations in favor of any person or entity not a party to this Agreement. Except for the parties to this Agreement, no person or entity is an intended third party beneficiary under this Agreement. 5. Due Diligence. Each of the Parties acknowledges for itself that it has performed its own review, investigation, and due diligence regarding the relevant law and facts upon which this Agreement is based, including representations of the Agency concerning the Project and the Project's benefits to the community and to the Parties, and each Party relies upon its own understanding of the relevant law, facts, information, and representations, after having completed its own due diligence and investigation. 6. Project Area Boundaries. The Parties acknowledge that the Salt Lake County Assessor and the Salt Lake County Auditor will include in the calculation of Tax Increment from the Project Area the Tax Increment generated by all parcels of land located wholly within the boundaries of the Project Area at the time Tax Increment is determined. 3 Interlocal Agent Error!Unknown document property name. writing and signed by each of the Parties. Any oral representation or modification concerning this Agreement shall be of no force or effect. 9. Further Assurance. Each of the Parties hereto agrees to cooperate in good faith with the other, to execute and deliver such further documents, to adopt any resolutions, to take any other official action, and to perform such other acts as may be reasonably necessary or appropriate to consummate and carry into effect the transactions contemplated under this Agreement. 10. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed and interpreted in accordance with,the laws of the State of Utah. 11. Interpretation. The terms "include," "includes," "including" when used herein shall be deemed in each case to be followed by the words "without limitation." 12. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction or as a result of future legislative action, and if the rights or obligations of any Party hereto under this Agreement will not be materially and adversely affected thereby, a. such holding or action shall be strictly construed; b. such provision shall be fully severable; c. this Agreement shall be construed and enforced as if such provision had never comprised as part hereof; d. the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall not be affected by the invalid or unenforceable provision or by its severance from this Agreement; and e. in lieu of such illegal, invalid, or unenforceable provision, the Parties hereto shall use commercially reasonable efforts to negotiate in good faith a substitute, legal, valid, and enforceable provision that most nearly effects the Parties' intent in entering into this Agreement. 13. Authorization. Each of the Parties hereto represents and warrants to the other that the warranting Party has taken all steps, including the publication of public notice where necessary, in order to authorize the execution, delivery, and performance of this Agreement by each such Party. 14. Time is of the Essence. Time shall be of the essence of this Agreement. 15. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above, "A"through "H," are hereby incorporated by reference as part of this Agreement. ENTERED into as of the day and year first above written. 5 Interlocal Agreement Error!Unknown document property name. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT-- SIGNATURE PAGE FOR AGENCY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY By: Ralph C. Becker Its Chief Administrative Officer By: D.J. Baxter Its Executive Director Approved as to proper form and compliance with applicable law: Jones,Waldo, Holbrook and McDonough,PC By: [Signatures continue on next page.] 7 Interlocal Agreement INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT--SIGNATURE PAGE FOR CITY SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION By: Its: ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: Deputy City Recorder Approved as to proper form and compliance with applicable law: By: Senior City Attorney 9 Interlocal Agreement Error!Unknown document property name. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH (THE "CITY"), AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH (THE "AGENCY") TO ALLOCATE A PORTION OF CERTAIN TAX INCREMENT REVENUES TO BE USED BY THE AGENCY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PERFORMING ARTS CENTER AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS (THE "UPAC PROJECT"); PROVIDING FOR THE RUNNING OF A CONTEST PERIOD; AND RELATED MATTERS. WHEREAS, pursuant to the Limited Purpose Local Government Entities — Community Development and Renewal Agencies Act, Title 17C, Chapters 1-4, Utah Code Annotated, 1953, as amended(the "Redevelopment Act"),the Agency is authorized to use tax increment revenues (the"Tax Increment Revenues")generated from its Central Business District Project Area (the "Project Area") to finance redevelopment within such project area; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 04-01 (the "TEC Resolution") of the Taxing Entity Committee for the Project Area, the Agency is authorized to retain 40% of the Tax Increment Revenues generated from the Project Area each year beginning in the 2015 tax year and continuing through the 2040 tax year (the "Collection Period"), as more specifically set forth in the TEC Resolution; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the TEC Resolution, the remaining 60% of the Tax Increment Revenues generated from the Project Area in each year of the Collection Period are to be distributed by the Agency pro rata to the taxing entities within the Project Area, based on their proportional share of the certified tax rate (not including judgment levies); and WHEREAS, the City is a taxing entity entitled to a proportional share of Tax Increment Revenues from the Project Area pursuant to the TEC Resolution (the City's proportionate share of the 60% of the Tax Increment Revenues from the Project Area is referred to herein as the"City TEC Allocation");and WHEREAS, the Agency and the City desire that certain improvements be made in the Project Area for the purpose of financing the construction of the UPAC Project; and WHEREAS, the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Title 11, Chapter 13, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended (the "Interlocal Act") permits public agencies as defined in the Interlocal Act to enter into agreements with one another for joint or cooperative action; and PRESENTATION TO THE MAYOR The foregoing resolution was presented to the Mayor for his approval or disapproval on , 2011. By: Chair MAYOR'S APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL The foregoing resolution is hereby approved on this 2011. By: Mayor EXHIBIT A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH OPEN MEETING LAW I, Christine Meeker, the undersigned City Recorder of Salt Lake City, 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 52-4-202, 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 August 9, 2011, public meeting held by the City Council of the City(the "City Council")as follows: (i) By causing a Notice, in the form attached hereto as Schedule 1, to be posted at the City's principal offices on November , 2011, 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; (ii) By causing a Notice, in the form attached hereto as Schedule 1, to be delivered to The Salt Lake Tribune and/or the Deseret News on November_, 2011, at least twenty-four(24)hours prior to the convening of the meeting; and (iii) By causing a Notice, in the form attached hereto as Schedule 1, to be posted on the Utah Public Notice Website (http://pmn.utah.gov) at least twenty-four(24)hours prior to the convening of the meeting. In addition, the 2011 Notice of Annual Meeting Schedule for the City Council, in the form attached hereto as Schedule 2, was given specifying the date, time and place of the regular meetings of said City Council to be held during the year, by causing said Notice to be (i)posted on December 23, 2010, at the principal office of the City Council, (ii)provided to at least one newspaper of general circulation within the City on January 1, 2011 and (iii) published on the Utah Public Notice Website (http://pmn.utah.gov) during the current calendar year. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my official signature this 22nd day of November,2011. By: City Recorder A-1 EXHIBIT C NOTICE OF INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the provisions of the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Title 11, Chapter 13, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, (the "Code") that SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH (the "City"), and the REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH (the "Agency"), have entered into an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement dated November 22, 2011 (the "Agreement"). The Agreement provides for the division between the Agency and the City of a portion of the annual tax increment revenues generated from the Agency's Central Business District Project Area (the "City Allocation"). Pursuant to the Agreement, the City has agreed to allow the Agency to use a portion of the City Allocation to pay fmancing,design, construction, acquisition, and related costs of a-performing arts center to be located in downtown Salt Lake City (the "UPAC Project"). The division of the City Allocation described above is intended to begin with the 2015 tax year and continue through the 2040 tax year. The Agreement shall commence on the date of fmal execution by the parties and shall continue through December 31, 2041, unless changed by mutual agreement in writing by each Party. The Agreement also provides for the initial financing of the UPAC Project and an agreement of the Agency to use the allocated tax increment revenues for the UPAC Project and to reimburse the City for fmancing costs incurred by the City or to refinance debt initially issued by the City for the UPAC Project. A copy of the Agreement and the resolution of the Board of Directors of the Agency(the "Agency Resolution") authorizing and approving the Agreement are on file at the office of the Executive Director at 451 South State Street, Room 418, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111. A copy of the Agreement and the Resolution of the City Council of the City (the "City Resolution") authorizing and approving the Agreement are on file at the office of the City Recorder, 451 South State Street, Room 415, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111. The Agreement, the Agency Resolution, and the City Resolution may be examined during normal business hours for a period of at least thirty(30) days following the publication date of this Notice. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to law and for a period of thirty (30) days from and after the date of the publication of this Notice, any person in interest shall have the right to contest the legality of the Agreement, the Agency Resolution, and the City Resolution, and that after such time,no one shall have any cause of action to contest the regularity, formality, or legality thereof for any cause whatsoever. DATED November 22,2011 By: /s/Christine Meeker City Recorder (SEAL) By: /s/D.J. Baxter Executive Director INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is made and entered into this _ day of , 2011 by and between SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH (the "City"), a municipal corporation and body politic and corporate duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of Utah, and the REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH (the "Agency"), a separate body corporate and politic and a political subdivision of the State of Utah. The City and the Agency are sometimes referred to as the "Parties." WITNES SETH: WHEREAS, pursuant to the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Title 11, Chapter 13, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended (the "Interlocal Act"), the Parties have heretofore entered into the Interlocal Act dated as of , 2011 (the "UPAC Interlocal Agreement"), in which the Parties made certain covenants with respect to the fmancing of a performing arts center and related improvements (the "UPAC Project") within the Agency's Central Business District Project Area(the"Project Area"); and WHEREAS, the UPAC Interlocal Agreement memorialized the Parties' intent to finance the UPAC Project through the issuance of debt obligations secured in whole or in part from, or to be repaid in whole or in part from, tax increment revenues from the Project Area (the "Tax Increment Revenues"), which debt obligations include, without limitation, debt issued by the City,the Agency, or others; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the UPAC Interlocal Agreement and a resolution of the City Council of the City (the "Council") dated , 2011, the Council has authorized the issuance of$ Salt Lake City, Utah [Sales Tax Revenue] Bond Anticipation Notes, Series 2011 (the "Notes"), the proceeds of which are to be used by the City and the Agency to finance [design costs with respect to the UPAC Project]; and WHEREAS, the Agency has covenanted in the UPAC Interlocal Agreement to use Tax Increment Revenues to reimburse the City for any payments made on debt obligations issued by the City to fmance the UPAC Project, and if requested by the City, to issue its own debt obligations, to the extent possible, to refmance debt obligations issued by the City to fmance all or a portion of the UPAC Project; and WHEREAS, the pursuant to the Interlocal Act, the Parties desire to memorialize their agreement and understanding with respect to the use of proceeds of the Notes and to make certain covenants with regard thereto in accordance with the requirements of Utah law. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and for other good and valuable consideration,the Parties mutually agree and covenant as follows: 1. Definitions. Terms defined in the foregoing recitals shall have the same meaning when used herein. (a) This Agreement has been authorized by resolution of the legislative body of each Party pursuant to §11-13-202.5 of the Interlocal Act; (b) This Agreement shall be reviewed as to proper form and compliance with applicable law by a duly authorized attorney on behalf of each Party,pursuant to §11-13- 202.5 of the Interlocal Act; (c) A duly executed original counterpart of this Agreement shall be filed with the keeper of records of each Party,pursuant to §11-13-209 of the Interlocal Act; (d) Except as otherwise specifically provided herein, each party shall be responsible for its own costs of any action done pursuant to this Agreement, and for any financing of such costs; (e) No separate legal entity is created by the terms of this Agreement. To the extent that this Agreement requires administration other than as set forth herein, it shall be administered by the Mayor of the City and the Executive Director of the Agency, acting as a joint board. No real or personal property shall be acquired jointly by the Parties as a result of this Agreement. Unless otherwise provided for in this Agreement, to the extent that a party acquires, holds, and disposes of any real or personal property for use in the joint or cooperative undertaking contemplated by this Agreement, such party shall do so in the same manner that it deals with other property of such party. (f) As provided in §11-13-219 of the Interlocal Act, the Parties agree that the Agency shall cause a notice of this Agreement in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A to be (i) published in the Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret News, which are hereby designated by the Parties as the official newspapers for all publications made under the Interlocal Act, and (ii) posted on the Utah Legal Notices website (www.utahlegals.com) created under Utah Code Ann. §45-1-101. The Parties shall make a copy of this Agreement available at their respective principal places of business during regular business hours for thirty (30) days after the publication of the notice of Agreement, during which time any person in interest may contest the legality of this Agreement. After the thirty (30) days have passed, no one may contest the regularity, formality, or legality of this Agreement or any action performed or instrument issued under the authority of this Agreement for any cause whatsoever. portion of the tax levy in a higher percentage or for a longer period of time than otherwise permitted by the Redevelopment Act; and WHEREAS,pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Directors of the Agency adopted on November_, 2011 (the "Agency Resolution") and a resolution of the City Council of the City adopted on November 2011 (the "City Resolution"), the Parties have each approved the execution and delivery of this Agreement and the transaction contemplated hereby; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and for other good and valuable consideration, the Parties mutually agree and covenant as follows: 9. Definitions. Terms defined in the foregoing recitals shall have the same meaning when used herein. 10. UPAC Project Description; Debt Obligations. The UPAC Project will be located within the Project Area and will include the construction and equipping of a performing arts center and related improvements. The Parties intend that the UPAC Project will be financed through the issuance of debt obligations secured in whole or in part from, or to be repaid in whole or in part from, Tax Increment Revenues from the Project Area, which debt obligations include, without limitation, debt issued by the City, the Agency, or others (the "Debt Obligations"). 11. Consent to Agency's Use of Tax Increment Revenues. In accordance with §17C- 1-409 of the Redevelopment Act, the City has consented in the City Resolution to the Agency's use of the City TEC Allocation as described in Section 12 herein. 12. Allocation of Tax Increment Revenues. In order to facilitate the fmancing of the UPAC Project, the Parties agree that beginning in tax year 2015 and for the duration of the Collection Period,the annual City TEC Allocation shall be divided by the Agency as follows: (a) The City shall receive from the Agency a portion of the City TEC Allocation in an amount equal to the dollar amount of the Tax Increment Revenues that the City receives for tax year 2014 (the"2014 Equivalent Revenues"); and (b) After the Agency distributes the 2014 Equivalent Revenues to the City, the Agency shall (i) retain 80% of the remaining City TEC Allocation, for application to the payment of principal and interest on the Debt Obligations or otherwise to pay for or finance the UPAC Project; and (ii) distribute 20% of remaining City TEC Allocation to the City. As provided in the TEC Resolution, the Agency shall continue to retain its annual Agency TEC Allocation from the Project Area, and the Agency agrees that it will annually allocate from its Agency TEC Allocation an amount equal to the amount for such year retained by the Agency under (b)(i) above to the payment of principal and interest on the Debt Obligations or otherwise to pay for or finance the UPAC Project. 13. Covenants. accordance with the issuance of any additional obligations or refunding obligations, as applicable. 18. Duration and Termination. The City and the Agency intend that the allocations herein of Tax Increment Revenues shall provide a long term funding source for the UPAC Project that will continue throughout the term of any Debt Obligations issued to finance the UPAC Project. As permitted by Utah Code Ann. §11-13-216, this Agreement shall commence on the date of fmal execution by the Parties and shall continue through December 31, 2041, unless changed by mutual agreement in writing by each Party. However, this Agreement may not be terminated while any of the Debt Obligations remain outstanding. 19. Integrated Contracts; Amendments. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the Parties regarding the use of the City TEC Allocation for the UPAC Project, and no statements, promises, or inducements made by any party or agents that are not contained in this Agreement shall be binding or valid. This Agreement may not be altered, or amended, except upon agreement of all Parties and in writing executed by the Parties hereto. Additions, deletions, or changes in the provisions of this Agreement that do not comply with this requirement shall not be binding on any party. 20. Severability. If any clause, sentence or paragraph of this Agreement is declared to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such declaration shall not affect the remaining portions. 21. Notices. All notices required under this Agreement shall be sent as follows: Redevelopment Agency of Attn: Executive Director Salt Lake City: 451 South State Street,Room 418 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Salt Lake City Attorney: City Attorney P.O. Box 145478 Salt Lake City,Utah 84114-5478 Salt Lake City: Attn: Mayor P.O. Box 145474 Salt Lake City,Utah 84114-5474 Each party may designate further or different addresses or individuals to which subsequent notices shall be sent. 22. Interlocal Act Requirements. In satisfaction of the requirements of the Interlocal Act, and in connection with this Agreement,the Parties agree as follows: (a) This Agreement has been authorized by resolution of the legislative body of each Party pursuant to §11-13-202.5 of the Interlocal Act; IN WITNESS WHEREOF: (A) the City by resolution duly adopted by the City Council has authorized this Agreement to be signed by its Mayor, attested to by its City Recorder and(B) the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City by resolution duly adopted by its Board has authorized this Agreement to be signed by its Chief Administrative Officer and its Executive Director all as of the day and year first above written. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION By: Mayor ATTEST: By: City Recorder APPROVED AS TO PROPER FORM AND COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAW: By: REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY By: Chief Administrative Officer By: Executive Director APPROVED AS TO PROPER FORM AND COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAW: By: the Agency to retain a portion of the County TEC Allocation, as more specifically described herein; and WHEREAS, §17C-1-401(4) of the Redevelopment Act provides that, with the written consent of a taxing entity, the Agency may be paid tax increment from such taxing entity's portion of the tax levy in a higher percentage or for a longer period of time than otherwise permitted by the Redevelopment Act; and WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Directors of the Agency adopted on November_, 2011 (the"Agency Resolution")and a resolution of the County Council of the County adopted on November _, 2011 (the "County Resolution"), the Parties have each approved the execution and delivery of this Agreement and the transaction contemplated hereby; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and for other good and valuable consideration, the Parties mutually agree and covenant as follows: 23. Definitions. Terms defined in the foregoing recitals shall have the same meaning when used herein. 24. UPAC Project Description; Debt Obligations. The UPAC Project will be located within the Project Area and will include the construction and equipping of a performing arts center and related improvements. The Parties intend that the UPAC Project will be financed through the issuance of debt obligations secured in whole or in part from, or to be repaid in whole or in part from, Tax Increment Revenues from the Project Area, which debt obligations include, without limitation, debt issued by the Agency, Salt Lake City,Utah(the"City") or others (the "Debt Obligations"). 25. Allocation of Tax Increment Revenues. In order to facilitate the financing of the UPAC Project, the Parties agree that beginning in tax year 2015 and for the duration of the Collection Period, the annual County TEC Allocation shall be divided by the Agency as follows: (a) The County shall receive from the Agency a portion of the County TEC Allocation in an amount equal to the dollar amount of the Tax Increment Revenues that the County receives for tax year 2014 (the "2014 Equivalent Revenues"); and (b) After the Agency distributes the 2014 Equivalent Revenues to the County, the Agency shall retain from the County TEC Allocation up to $2,375,000, and shall apply said revenues to the payment of principal and interest on the Debt Obligations or otherwise to pay for or fmance the UPAC Project; and (c) After the amounts described in (i) and (ii) above have been distributed, any remaining County TEC Allocation shall be distributed to the County as provided in the TEC Resolution. issued to finance the UPAC Project. As permitted by Utah Code Ann. §11-13-216, this Agreement shall commence on the date of fmal execution by the Parties and shall continue through December 31, 2041, unless changed by mutual agreement in writing by each Party. However, this Agreement may not be terminated while any of the Debt Obligations remain outstanding. 31. Integrated Contracts; Amendments. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the Parties regarding the use of the County TEC Allocation for the UPAC Project, and no statements, promises, or inducements made by any party or agents that are not contained in this Agreement shall be binding or valid. This Agreement may not be altered, or amended, except upon agreement of all Parties and in writing executed by the Parties hereto. Additions, deletions, or changes in the provisions of this Agreement that do not comply with this requirement shall not be binding on any party. 32. Severability. If any clause, sentence or paragraph of this Agreement is declared to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such declaration shall not affect the remaining portions. 33. Notices. All notices required under this Agreement shall be sent as follows: Redevelopment Agency of Attn: Executive Director Salt Lake City: 451 South State Street, Room 418 Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 Salt Lake County Attorney: District Attorney 2001 South State Street S3500 Salt Lake City,Utah 84190 Salt Lake County: Attn: Mayor 2001 South State Street Salt Lake City UT 84190 Each party may designate further or different addresses or individuals to which subsequent notices shall be sent. 34. Interlocal Act Requirements. In satisfaction of the requirements of the Interlocal Act, and in connection with this Agreement,the Parties agree as follows: (a) This Agreement has been authorized by resolution of the legislative body of each Party pursuant to §11-13-202.5 of the Interlocal Act; (b) This Agreement shall be reviewed as to proper form and compliance with applicable law by a duly authorized attorney on behalf of each Party,pursuant to §11-13-202.5 of the Interlocal Act; IN WITNESS WHEREOF: (A) the County by resolution duly adopted by the County Council has authorized this Agreement to be signed by its Mayor, attested to by its County Recorder and (B) the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City by resolution duly adopted by its Board has authorized this Agreement to be signed by its Chief Administrative Officer and its Executive Director all as of the day and year first above written. SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH By: Mayor or Designee ATTEST: By: Notary Public Residing in Salt Lake County APPROVED AS TO PROPER FORM AND COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAW: By: REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY By: Chief Administrative Officer By: Executive Director APPROVED AS TO PROPER FORM AND COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAW: By: Section 1. Findings and Determinations. The Council hereby finds, determines and declares that the financing of the Project with proceeds of the Notes is in the public interest and is in the best interest of the City and the businesses,residents and consumers within the City. Section 2. Public Hearing. In satisfaction of the requirements of Section 11-14-318 of the Act, a public hearing shall be held by the City Council on Tuesday,November 22, 2012, during the regular City Council meeting which begins at 7:00 p.m.,at the regular meeting place of the City Council, in the Council Chambers,Room 315 in the City and County Building,451 South State Street, in Salt Lake City, Utah,to receive input from the public with respect to the issuance by the City of the Notes and the potential economic impact that the Project will have on the private sector. Section 3. Publication of Notice of Public Hearing. In accordance with the requirements of Section 11-14-318,the City Recorder or any Deputy City Recorder(the "City Recorder") shall cause a Notice of Public Hearing in substantially the form attached hereto as Annex 1, to be (a) published in The Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret News, each a newspaper having general circulation in the City and in which notices relative to the City are customarily published, once a week for two consecutive weeks,with the first publication being at least fourteen days prior to the date set for the public hearing, and(b)posted on the Utah Public Notice Website, at least fourteen days before the date set for the public hearing. Section 4. Form of Petition. The form of the petition to be used by registered voters in requesting that an election be called to authorize the Notes shall be in substantially the form attached hereto as Annex 2. Section 5. City Recorder to Perform Certain Acts. The City Recorder is hereby directed to maintain a certified copy of this Resolution on file in office of the City Recorder during regular business hours for inspection by registered voters of the City, and other interested persons. The City Recorder is hereby directed to,upon request, supply copies of the form of petition specified in Section 4 hereof. Section 6. Reimbursement of Expenditures. The City reasonably expects to reimburse one,both or either of the Funds for the Expenditures from the proceeds of the Notes. Section 7. Severability. It is hereby declared that all parts of this Resolution are severable, and if any section,paragraph, clause or provision of this Resolution shall, for any reason,be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of any such section,paragraph, clause or provision shall not affect the remaining sections,paragraphs, clauses or provisions of this Resolution. Section 8. Repealer. All resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are,to the extent of such conflict,hereby repealed. -2 - UPAC Public Hearing Resolution Section 9. Effective Immediately. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF THE NOTES The City intends to issue the Notes in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed$18,000,000. EXCISE TAXES PROPOSED TO BE PLEDGED The City proposes to pledge to the payment of the Notes all of the legally available revenues, after all required payments relating to the City's outstanding senior Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, from (a)the Local Sales and Use Taxes received by the City pursuant to Title 59, Chapter 12, Part 2, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended; (b)the Municipal Energy Sales and Use Taxes received by the City pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 3,Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, and Salt Lake City Code Chapter 3.06; (c)the franchise fees for energy and utilities received by the City pursuant to Title 10,Chapter 1,Part 3,Utah Code Annotated 1953, as Annex 1-1 UPAC Public Hearing Resolution amended, and Salt Lake City Code Chapter 3.06; (d)the Municipal Telecommunications License Taxes received by the City pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 4,Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, and Salt Lake City Code Chapter 3.10; (e)the franchise fees associated with public utilities received by the City pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1,Part 3, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, and Salt Lake City Code Section 17.16.070; and(f)the franchise fees associated with cable television received by the City pursuant to Salt Lake City Code Chapter 5.20. The City does not propose to pledge any ad valorem property taxes for the repayment of the Notes. PURPOSE FOR HEARING The purpose of the hearing is to receive input from the public with respect to the issuance of the Notes for the purpose of fmancing all or part of the cost of the Project and the potential economic impact that the Project will have on the private sector. NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE PETITION TO HOLD AN ELECTION NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to Section 11-14-307(7),Utah Code, if within 30 calendar days of the fmal publication of this notice on November 13,2011, a written petition requesting an election and signed by at least twenty percent(20%) of the registered voters of the City is filed with the City,then the City shall submit the question of whether or not to issue the Notes to the voters of the City for their approval or rejection. If no written petition is filed or if fewer than 20%of the registered voters of the City sign a written petition, in either case,within 30 calendar days of the final publication of this notice on November 13,2011,the City may proceed to issue the Notes without an election. DATED this 1st day of November,2011. SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH By [Deputy] City Recorder registered voter of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County,Utah,that all the names which appear on this sheet were signed by persons who professed to be the persons whose names appear thereon, and each of them signed his or her name thereto in my presence, I believe that each has printed and signed his or her name, and written his or her post office address and residence correctly, and that each signer is a registered voter of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah. Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 20_. Notary Public (or other official title) Annex 2-3 UPAC Public Hearing Resolution Draft Work Product Draft Work Product Draft Work .Product MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Between SALT LAKE CITY And SALT LAKE COUNTY This Memorandum of Understanding is made and entered into as of this day of , 201_, by and between Salt Lake City("City")a body corporate and politic of the State of Utah and Salt Lake County, on behalf of Salt Lake County and its Center for the Arts, a body corporate and politic of the State of Utah ("CFA"or "County") and. City and CFA or County and are collectively referred to as the "Parties". This Memorandum of Understanding shall remain in effect until the MOU is superseded by a subsequent written agreement entered into by the Parties. This Memorandum of Understanding may be renegotiated, amended or modified at any time by mutual agreement of the Parties. RECITALS WHEREAS the Parties desire to establish terms and conditions for operation and management of the new Utah Performing Arts Center("UPAC"), a cultural facility located at Main Street, Salt Lake City, Utah WHEREAS the Parties have mutually agreed to jointly participate in the capital costs of construction of the UPAC under terms and conditions reflected in the UPAC funding plan adopted contemporaneously heretofore, and desire to adopt provisions related to the mutually beneficial operating procedures for the UPAC. WHEREAS the County's Center for the Arts ("CFA")operates and manages the current publicly owned arts facilities and programs of Salt Lake"Cultural Core"and the Parties concur that there are efficiencies and programming benefits of managing these arts facilities and UPAC as a combined operating unit for the benefit of serving the local and regional audiences. WHEREAS the Parties intend that the responsibility for financial loss(es) and the rights to financial benefit(s)from UPAC will be allocated annually on a mutually agreed, equitable basis between the City and County. Such mutual agreement by the Parties will be clarified and set forth in a future operating agreement. Page 1 of 7 October 24,2011 Draft Work Product Draft Work Product Draft Work Product patrons that warrant such opportunities according to mutual agreements with the presenting organizations using these facilities NOW, THEREFORE, City and County have the following understanding as to how they will work together to successfully operate the County's regional cultural performing arts facilities of The Capitol Theatre, Abravanel Hall,Rose Wagner Performing Arts Center and UPAC as one operational management entity. Salt Lake County Center for the Arts will meet the following goals and objectives: 1. Program and operate UPAC to integrate the new cultural facility into the City's and County's Cultural Core in coordination with other community,regional and state arts and education facilities and organizations to: a. Increase audiences for the performing and visual arts in the region, b. Grow and maximize economic and business development in the Salt Lake region, c. Take an active role supporting the Salt Lake cultural event and entertainment market to evolve and create new opportunities for presenters with increased venue dates and the appropriately-sized and technically-equipped venue for each event, d. Work together with existing and potential new presenters and expand outreach to national presenters for replacement programming content to develop their presentations in the more available Capitol Theatre and Abravanel Hall venues, e. Create new strategies for event bookings, incentives,rental and ticketing rates, staffing, and overall branding/marketing for all venues and services, f. Create more successful programming collaboration with other Cultural Core members, g. Provide and increase arts educational opportunities for secondary and post- secondary school students and for adults, h. Promote efficiencies in the marketing,ticketing,programming, and operation of facilities and organizations, i. Create earned revenue(s)for the benefit of the community by being proactive to the positive influence of a more active marketplace while growing the Cultural Core and its role in economic development, j. Maximize venue utilization,public participation and operating revenues at all venues, by means of combined booking calendar management in order to grow the market with a unified vision for an effective mix of programming. 2. In order to meet the above goals and objectives,the Parties will conclude an operating agreement for UPAC which will establish the following: a. A UPAC Advisory Board Charter and Bylaws (Board membership to be proportional to ownership interest of the Parties in UPAC)with clarification of how this Board is integrated to and separate from the existing County CFA Advisory Board b. Criteria for booking events and management of the calendar c. Rental rates (including equipment) Page 3 of 7 October 24,2011 Draft Work Product Draft Work Product Draft Work Product parties providing capital for the construction of UPAC, in proportion to their respective capital contributions. g. Establish and administer performance criteria for the use of UPAC which shall: i. enhance audience development for users not only of UPAC but also of other CFA facilities and cultural organizations throughout the region, and ii. advance the economic and business development of downtown Salt Lake City, the County,the region, and the State. h. In the event of any extended period of inactivity at the UPAC,the Parties agree to fund the maintenance of the UPAC facilities on a basis that is proportionate to each Party's contribution to the construction costs of the UPAC. 3. In order to meet the above goals and objectives,the Parties will conclude an operating agreement for all four regional cultural performing arts facilities which will establish the following: a. Opportunities for Marketing,Promotion, and Facility Utilization:Allocate funds generated from earned revenues and other sources, in an amount when and as mutually agreed upon to enable increased flexibility in negotiating contract terms and conditions for presentations at the County's four facilities; b. Preservation Fund ticketing fees (as defined as restricted funds by County Ordinance which does not accrue to the CFA operations budget and are dedicated to enhancing and accelerating all CFA capital improvement projects). Further, as UPAC ticketing fee funds are identified as Preservation Funds, then the other CFA venue facilities will share in these funds for identified and approved capital expenses at the venues and the reciprocal benefit of these funds will accrue to UPAC as a CFA venue. Authority of Signers: Salt Lake City is a body corporate and politic of the State of Utah. The signature of the City Mayor,pursuant to a resolution of the City Council, is required in order to bind the City. County is a body corporate and politic of the State of Utah. The signature of the Salt Lake County Mayor,pursuant to a resolution of the County Council, is required in order to bind the County. In the event an authorized representative of CFA first executes this agreement,this agreement is subject to ratification by the County Council,and to execution by the County Mayor. If the Salt Lake County Council or Salt • Lake City Council decides, in its individual discretions, not to fund performance of County nor City under this agreement, County shall promptly notify Salt Lake City and Salt Lake City shall promptly notify Salt Lake County of said non-funding and County's or City's termination of this Agreement. If the Parties terminate this Agreement due to non-funding, both Parties shall not incur any penalty. [SIGNATURE PAGES TO FOLLOW] Page 5 of 7 October 24,2011 Draft Work Product Draft Work Product Draft Work Product Board of Directors, and said acknowledged to me that said corporation executed the same. NOTARY PUBLIC [SEAL] Residing in Salt Lake County State of Utah Page 7 of 7 October 24,2011 `c1 ; SCANNED TO: SCANNED BY:RALPH BECKER \' 1T(0 1 Mali DATE: /7� MAYOR ayc OFFICE OF THE MAYOR F CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL D I �ij T 1 RECEIVED OCT 2 0 2011 Date Receive(B Davi veritt,Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: ill/210I D1 1 SLC COUNCIL OFFICE I TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE:October 19,2011 Jill Remington Love,Chair FROM: David Everitt,Chief of Staff SUBJECT: Budget Opening#3 for Fiscal Year 2011-12 STAFF CONTACT: Gina Chamness(801)535-7766 DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council set a public hearing date to discuss the budget amendment#3 for Fiscal Year 2011-12. BUDGET IMPACT: This proposed amendment would increase the Capital Improvement Project(CIP)fund budget by$15,000,000,funded by the sale of a short term financing note. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Attached is a revenue forecast for the General Fund based on revenues through the end of September. This forecast shows the City essentially on-track to meet its revenue targets this year and has not changed from the forecast submitted previously as part of Budget Amendment#2. The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling$15,000,000 associated with the Utah Performing Arts Center(UPAC). A separate transmittal addresses the overall plan for the project,including proposed funding sources for an estimated total cost of$110,000,000. PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306 P.O.BOX 145474,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5474 TELEPHONE 801-535-7704 FAX:801-535-6331 wwwslcgov.com SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2011 (Amending the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2011-2012) An Ordinance Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 50 of 2011 Which Adopted the Final Budget of Salt Lake City,Utah,for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2011 and Ending June 30,2012. PREAMBLE On August 9,2011,the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City,Utah,including the employment staffing document,for the fiscal year beginning July 1,2011 and ending June 30,2012,in accordance with the requirements of Section 118, Chapter 6,Title 10 of the Utah Code Annotated,and said budget, including the employment staffing document,was approved by the Mayor of Salt Lake City,Utah. The City's Budget Director,acting as the City's Budget Officer,prepared and filed with the City Recorder propdsed amendments to said duly adopted budget,including the amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes specifically stated herein, copies of which are attached hereto,for consideration by the City Council and inspection by the public. All conditions precedent to amend said budget,including the employment staffing document as provided above,have been accomplished. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City.Utah: SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document,as approved, ratified and finalized by Salt Lake City Ordinance No.50 of 2011. SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments,including amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes specifically stated herein, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be,and the same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah,inclnding the amendments to the employment staffing document described above, for the fiscal year beginning July 1,2011 and ending June 30,2012,in accordance with the requirements of Section 128, Chapter 6,Title 10, of the Utah Code Annotated. SECTION 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including amendments to the employment staffing document,in the office of said Budget Officer and in the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on its first publication. 2 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,this day of ,2011. CHAIRPERSON AITEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved Vetoed MAYOR ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney's Office Date 119— • CITY RECORDER BY (SEAL) Bill No. of2011. Published: HB ATTY4115940.v2-Budget Amendment FYI1-12.DOC 3 Salt Lake Ci FY2O11-12 Bud•etAmendment#3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount Section A: New Items A-1 UPAC Short Term Financing: Project Design CIP $15,000,000 The Utah Performing Arts Center(UPAC)will include an approximately 2500-seat theater,as well as rehearsal spaces and other facilities that will support the operation of the theater and various performing arts functions. A separate transmittal addresses the overall plan for the project,including proposed funding sources for an estimated cost of $110,000,000.The estimated cost of$110,000,000 is based on work conducted for the Redevelopment Authority(RDA) by Garfield Traub Swisher Development and includes a base cost of approximately$100,000,000 as well as potential additional options or phases,totaling approximately$20,000,000. This overall budget of$110,000,000 assumes that half of the additional phases/options will ultimately be included in the final project. At this time,the Administration is proposing to issue a short term financing note of up to$15,000,000. Depending on market conditions,the financing may be issued as a bond anticipation note or a short term bond issue,depending on which instrument is less expensive and provides the City maximum flexibility. The key feature of whichever bond or note is issued is that the principal will be paid at or prior to maturity from the proceeds of permanent financing. Before the final bonds are issued,the City will need to make interest payments on the short term note. We currently estimate the amount of those payments to be approximately$262,000 annually. Assuming the short term note is issued in the early part of the 2012,the first installment will not be made until FY 2012-13. Until the final bonds are issued,we anticipate using a portion of the Capital Asset Management(CAM) major projects placeholder in the CIP fund to make interest payments. The current timeline estimates that the final bonds will be issued for the project in late June of 2013, so the City would likely make only one year's interest payment on the note, although the stated maturity on the note will be three years from the date of issuance. This note will provide funding for the final design of the UPAC and associated costs. Major categories include: Architecture, Engineering and Preconstruction 9,566,902 Other Professional Fees 1,295,357 Owners Costs(including project management, legal costs, reimbursement and property negotiations) 4,137,741 $ 15,000,000 The Administration is proposing the use of this short term financing note for several reasons. Over the next year,design work and other preparations will take place. During this process,the overall project cost will be refined before final bonds are issued and construction of the facility begins. In addition,the City will continue to pursue private and other potential funding sources that are not yet secured. This strategy assumes that bonds for the complete project will be issued at a later date and used to refund the short term financing note. If a decision were made not to proceed with this project in the future,the City would continue to be obligated to repay this short term note. The note would need to be re-financed at maturity, and could be refinanced over a period of time. The tax implications for this type of re-financed note, however,are not clear. It is possible that the proceeds could become taxable if the project does not move forward as is currently anticipated. Attached are two debt service runs for the UPAC project provided by the City's financial advisor. One run estimates debt service on the short term financing note,and the other estimates annual debt service on the entire estimated project amount of$110,000,000. As stated above,at current rates,the annual interest only debt service payment on the short term note will likely be approximately$262,500. Assuming bonds were issued at current market rates,estimated interest only bond carrying costs for FY 14 and FY 15 would be approximately$3.7 million annually. 1 Fiscal Year 2011-12 Budget Amendment#3 Expenditure Revenue On-going or Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount Amount One time FTEs Section A: New kerns 1 UPAC Short Term Financing: Project Design CIP 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 one-time 0 Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section D: Housekeeping . Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff•Resources Section F: Donations Section G: Council Consent Agenda-•Grant Awards Section I: Council Added Items Total of Budget Amendment Items 15,000,000.00 Total by Fund,Budget Amendment 83: CIP Fund 15,000,000.00 Total of Budget Amendment Items 15,000,000.00 Current Year Budget Summary,provided for information only FY 2011-12 Budget,Including Budget Amendments FY 2011-12 Adopted Budget BA Ill Total BA 42 Total BA 113 Total BA III Total Total To-Date General Fund $195,154,853 15,000,000.00 $210,154,853 CIP Fund $19,618,798 $18,000,000 $37,618,798 Certification I certify that this document is a full and correct copy of Ordinance of 2011,amending Salt Lake City Ordinance of 2011,which adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City Utah for the fiscal year beginning June 1 2011 and ending June 30,2012. Budget Director Deputy Director,City Council 1 $15,000,000 Preliminary; subject to change Salt Lake City, Utah 10.18.11 Subordinated Excise Tax Revenue Notes (UPAC Project) Series 2012 Table of Contents Report Debt Service Schedule 1 Sources&Uses 2 SLC UPAC BAN,Series 2011 I SINGLE PURPOSE I 10/182011 I 5:02 PM 1C1f1f 1l1 $15,000,000 Salt Lake City, Utah Subordinated Excise Tax Revenue Notes (UPAC Project) Series 2012 Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total 02/15/2012 09/15/2012 131,250.00 131,250.00 03/15/2013 15,000,000.00 1.500% 112,500.00 15,112,500.00 06/01/2013 - 15,243,750.00 Total $15,000,000.00 - $243,750.00 $15,243,750.00 Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars $16,250.00 Averag_e Life 1.083 Years Average Coupon 1.5000000% Net Interest Cost(NIC) 1.5000000% True Interest Cost(TIC) 1.4994948% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 1.4994948% All Inclusive Cost(AIC) 1.4994948% IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost 1.5000000% Weighted Average Maturity 1.083 Years SLC UPAC BAN,Series 2011 I SINGLE PURPOSE I 10/18/2011 I 5:02 PM 11==gr Trill!!! Page 1 $15,000,000 Salt Lake City, Utah Subordinated Excise Tax Revenue Notes (UPAC Project) Series 2012 Sources & Uses Dated 02/15/2012 I Delivered 02/15/2012 Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds $15,000,000.00 Total Sources $15,000,000.00 Uses Of Funds Deposit to Project Construction Fund 15,000,000.00 Total Uses $15,000,000.00 SLC UPAC BAN,Series 2011 I SINGLE PURPOSE 1 10/18/2011 I 5:02 PM Irrrrrr�� Page 2 $110,000,000 Preliminary; subject to change Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, UT 10.18.11 [Tax Increment] Revenue Bonds, Series 2013 (UPAC - 25-yr Tax-Exempt) Table of Contents Report Debt Service Schedule 1 Sources&Uses 2 Total Net Debt Service 3 SLC UPAC$110M,RDA 25-yr I SINGLE PURPOSE I 10/18/2011 I 5:04 PM ii 1Effffiii $110,000,000 Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, UT [Tax Increment]Revenue Bonds,Series 2013 (UPAC-25-yr Tax-Exempt) Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total 03/152013 - - - - - 10/012013 - - 1,963,279.73 1,963,279.73 - 04/012014 - - 1,803,012.00 1,803,012.00 3,766,291.73 10/01/2014 - - 1,803,012.00 1,803,012.00 - 04/012015 - 1 803 012_00 1,803,012.00 3x606 024_00 10/01/2015 - - 1,803,012.00 1,803,012.00 - 04/012016 3,545,000.00 0.950% 1,803,012.00 5,348,012.00 7,151,024.00 10/012016 - - 1,786,173.25 1,786,173.25 - 04/012017 3,580,000.00 1.270% 1,786,173.25 5,366,173.25 7,152,346.50 10/012017 - - 1,763,440.25 1,763,440.25 04/012018 3,625,000.00 1.600% 1,763,440.25 5,388,440.25 7,151,880.50 10/012018 - - 1,734,440.25 1,734,440.25 - 04/012019 3,680,000.00 1.850% 1,734,440.25 5,414,440.25 7,148,880.50 10/012019 - - 1,700,400.25 1,700,400.25 - 04/012020 3 750,000.00 2.120% 1,700 400.25 4,450,400.25 7,150 800.50 10/012020 - - 1,660,650.25 1,660,650.25 - 04/012021 3,830,000.00 2.420% 1,660,650.25 5,490,650.25 7,151,300.50 10/012021 - - 1,614,307.25 1,614,307.25 - 04/012022 3,925,000.00 2.660% 1,614,307.25 5,539,307.25 7,153,614.50 10/012022 - - 1 562,104.75 1,562 104.75_....__ - 04/012023 4,025,000.00 2.780% 1,562,104.75 5,587,104.75 7,149,209.50 10/012023 - - 1,506,157.25 1,506,157.25 - 04/012024 4,140,000.00 3.050% 1,506,157.25 5,646,157.25 7,152,314.50 10/01/2024 - - 1,443,022.25 1,443,022.25 - 04/012025 4 265,000.00 3.180% 1,443,022.25 5,708,92225 7,151 944.50 10/012025 - - 1,375,208.75 1,375,208.75 04/01/2026 4,400,000.00 3.310% 1,375,208.75 5,775,208.75 7,150,417.50 10/01/2026 - - 1,302,388.75 1,302,388.75 - 04/012027 4,545,000.00 3.420% 1,302,388.75 5,847,388.75 7,149,777.50 10/01/2027 - - 1,224,669.25 1,224,669.25 - 04/01/2028 4,700,000.00 3.520% 1,224,669.25 5,924,669.25 7,149,338.50 10/01/2028 - - 1,141,949.25 1,141,949.25 - 04/01/2029 4,865,000.00 3.620% 1,141,949.25 6,006,949.25 7,148,898.50 10/012029 - - 1,053,892.75 1,053,892.75 - 04/01/2030-_- 5 045 000,00 3.720% 1,053 892.75 6 098 892_75_...__7,152,785.50 10/012030 - - 960,055.75 960,055.75 - 04/012031 5,230,000.00 3.820% 960,055.75 6,190,055.75 7,150,111.50 10/01/2031 - - 860,162.75 860,162.75 - 04/012032 5,430,000.00 3.890% 860,162.75 6,290,162.75 7,150,325.50 10/012032 - _ 754,549.25 _.._..... 754,549.25 - 04/012033 5,640,000.00 3.950% 754,549.25 6,394,549.25 7,149,098.50 10/01/2033 - - 643,159.25 643,15925 - 04/012034 5,865,000.00 4.000% 643,159.25 6,508,159.25 7,151,318.50 10/012034 - - 525,859.25 525,859.25 - 04/012035 6,100,000.00 4.030% 525,859.25 6,625,859.25 7151 718.50 10/012035 - - 402,944.25 402,944.25 - 04/012036 6,345,000.00 4.050% 402,944.25 6,747,944.25 7,150,888.50 10/012036 - - 274,458.00 274,458.00 - 04/012037 6,600,000.00 4.070% 274,458.00 6,874,458.00 7,148,916.00 10/012037 - - 140148.00..__ 140148.00 ----__---- 04/01/2038 6,870,000.00 4.080% 140,148.00 7,010,148.00 7,150,296.00 Total $110,000,000.00 - $61,838,621.73 $171,838,621.73 - Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars ___ _ $1,697,728.89 Average Life - ---...-----...---- 15.434 Years Average Coupon __ 3.6424321% Net Interest Cost{NIC) ... 3.6424321% True Interest Cost e:IC)._._ 3.5872619% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes ..... .... 3.5872619% All lnclusive Cost(AIC) IRS Form 8098 Net Interest Cost Weighted Average Maturity 15.434 Years SLC UPAC SIIOM.RDA 25,I SINGLE PURPOSE I 10/152011 I 5 04 PM Q 111• fill Page 1 $110,000,000 Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, UT [Tax Increment] Revenue Bonds, Series 2013 (UPAC - 25-yr Tax-Exempt) Sources & Uses Dated 03/15/2013 I Delivered 03/15/2013 Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds $110,000,000.00 Total Sources $110,000,000.00------- Uses Of Funds Retire Subordinated Excise Tax Revenue Notes $18,135,000.00 Amount Deposited to Construction/COI Fund $91,865,000.00 Rounding Amount $0.00 Total Uses $110,000,000.00 SLC UPAC$110M,RDA 25-yr I SINGLE PURPOSE I 10/18/2011 1 5:04 PM Page 2 .$128,000,000 Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, UT [Tax Increment]Revenue Bonds,Series 2013 (UPAC-25-yr Tax-Exempt) Total Aggregate Debt Service: Notes & Bonds Date Principal Interest Net New DM Fiscal Total 02/15/2012 - - - - 09/15/2012 - 157,500.00 157,500.00 - 03/15/2013 - - - - 04/01/2013 - - - 157,500.00 10/01/2013__._._.. - 1,963,279.73 1,963,279.73___ 04/01/21314 - 1,803,012.00 1,803,012.00 3,766,291.73 10/01/2014 - 1,803,012.00 1,803,012.00 - 04/01/2015 - 1,803,012.00 1,803,012.00 3,606,024.00 10/01/2015 - 1,803,012.00 1,803,012.00 - 04/01/2016 _..... _3,545,000.00 1,803,012.00 5,348,012.00 7,151,024.00 10/01/2016 - 1,786,173.25 1,786,173.25 - 04/01/2017 3,580,000.00 1,786,173.25 5,366,173.25 7,152,346.50 10/01/2017 - 1,763,440.25 1,763,440.25 - 04/01/2018 3,625,000.00 1,763,440.25 5,388,440.25 7,151,880.50 10/01/2018_---......--- - 1,734,440.25.--- 1,734,440.25 ...--- - 04/01/2019 3,680,000.00 1,734,440.25 5,414,440.25 7,148,880.50 10/012019 - 1,700,400.25 1,700,400.25 - 04/012020 3,750,000.00 1,700,400.25 5,450,400.25 7,150,800.50 10/01/2020 - 1,660,650.25 1,660,650.25 - 04/01/2021 _._ 3,830,000.00 1,660,650.25 5,490,650.25 7,151,300.50 10/01/2021 - 1,614,307.25 1,614,307.25 - 04/012022 3,925,000.00 1,614,307.25 5,539,307.25 7,153,614.50 10/01/2022 - 1,562,104.75 1,562,104.75 - 04/01/2023 4,025,000.00 1,562,104.75 5,587,104.75 7,149,209.50 10/01/2023 —— - 1,506,157.25__----_ 1,506,157.25 - 04/01/2024 4,140,000.00 1,506,157.25 5,646,157.25 7,152,314.50 10/012/324 - 1,443,022.25 1,443,022.25 - 04/01/2025 4,265,000.00 1,443,022.25 5,708,022.25 7,151,044.50 10/01/2025 - 1,375,208.75 1,375,208.75 - 04/01/2026 4400,900.00 900_00 1375,208.75 5,775,208.75 7,150,417.50 10/01/2026 - 1,302,388.75 1,302,388.75 - 04/01/2027 4,545,000.00 1,302,388.75 5,847,388.75 7,149,777.50 10/01/2027 - 1,224,669.25 1,224,669.25 - 04/012028 4,700,000.00 1,224,669.25 5,924,669.25 7,149,338.50 10/01/2028 - 1 141 949_25 1,141 949.25 - 04/01/2029 4,865,000.00 1,141,949.25 6,006,949.25 7,148,898.50 10/01/2029 - 1,053,892.75 1,053,892.75 - 04/012030 5,045,000.00 1,053,892.75 6,098,892.75 7,152,785.50 10/01/2030 - 960,055.75 960,055.75 - 04/012031 5 230 000.00 960 055.75 6,190,055.75 7 150 111.50 10/01/2031 - 860,162.75 860,162.75 - 04/012032 5,430,000.00 860,162.75 6,290,162.75 7,150,325.50 10/01/2032 - 754,549.25 754,549.25 - 04/012033 5,640,000.00 754,549.25 6,394,549.25 7,149,098.50 10/01/2033 - 643,159.25 643,159.25 - 04/01/2034 5,865,000.00 643,159.25 6,508,159.25 7,151,318.50 10/01/2034 - 525,859.25 525,859.25 - 04/012035 6,100,000.00 525,859.25 6,625,859.25 7,151,718.50 10/01/2035 - 402,944.25 402,944.25 - 04/012036 6,345,000_00 _-_-402944.256 747,944_25 7 150,888.50 10/01/2036 - 274,458.00 274,458.00 - 04/01/2037 6,600,000.00 274,458.00 6,874,458.00 7,148,916.00 10/01/2037 - 140,148.00 140,148.00 04/01/2038 6,870,000.00 140,148.00 7,010,148.00 7,150,296.00 Total $110,000,000.00 $61,996,121.73 $171,996,121.73 - Par Amounts Of Selected Issues Series 2012 Notes 18,000,000.00 Series 2013 Bonds 110,000,000.00 TOTAL 128,000,000.00 Appwple 11016^A11 1504 PM Iiiiiir F I hf t1 Page 3 FY 2011-12 Variance Annual Revised Favorable Revenue Budget Forecast (Unfavorable) Total General Fund 195,114,853 194,559,704 (555,149) Selected Discussion Items Total Property Taxes 63,175,537 63,175,537 0 Discussion: Total Sales and Use Tax 45,622,655 45,622,655 0 Discussion: Total Franchise Tax 28,434,888 28,366,228 (68,660) Discussion: Franchise Fee for Public Utilities is lower than budgeted due to a cooler and wetter summer. License and Permits: 18,452,058 18,379,780 (72,278) Discussion: Intergovernmental Revenue 5,426,994 5,426,994 0 Oiscussion: interest income 780,000 780,000 0 Discussion: Total Fines&Forfeiture 10,988,815 10,567,259 (421,556) Discussion: Parking Ticket revenue is down due to parking ticket issuance being down. Parking Meters 1,651,000 1,651,000 0 Discussion: Charges and Services 4,118,852 4,126,197 7,345 Discussion: Miscellaneous Revenue 3,020,641 3,020,641 0 Discussion: Interfund Reimbursement 9,907,993 9,907,993 0 Discussion: Transfers 3,535,420 3,535,420 0 Discussion: 4? 11.15.2011 Utah Performing Arts Center—follow-up briefing Financial Q&A There have been a few questions raised by Council Members since the last briefing about how the construction and financing of the Theater affects the rest of the City's financial picture. There are a variety of ways to view this question, and a variety of assumptions one must make in attempting to answer this question. The following is a VERY brief list of questions and general answers provided by Council Staff related to this issue. These answers were not provided by the Administration, but were put together by Council Staff based on the proposal presented by the Administration: General Direct Economic Impact- It is very likely that the theater will increase sales tax revenues in the immediate downtown area, which will result in increased revenue to the general fund—which will help with CIP and other general fund expenses. However,this amount is difficult to estimate and would not cover debt service. Sales tax revenue is shared by the City,County, and State. Of the total Sales Tax Rate charged, 1%is dedicated to local government. That percentage is then distributed on a 50/50 population/point of sale basis. Because of SLC's point of sale and population in relation to other Utah cities,SLC only keeps about .75 of this 1%. This means for every$100 spent in Salt Lake City,the City keeps about 75 cents. Question 1:If the City did not fund construction of the UPAC would there be more money available for the CIP? • Yes,although it is not money that is currently dedicated towards City CIP projects. • The two main streams of revenue that are proposed to fund the theater are a "CDA" and the "SARR" funds from the payoff of the Energy Solutions Arena bonds. Both of these streams of revenue would otherwise be folded into the general fund for use in any general fund purpose, including CIP. • Note:The"CDA" stream of revenue will likely be greater if a Theater is built,than if no CDA was created and no theater was built,and those funds were to just roll to the general fund as normal. This is assuming that the associated office tower would probably not be built but for the construction of the theater. o The proposed financing of the UPAC calls for pledging 70%of the City's portion of the Block 70 CDA(estimated to be$406,290 when the CDA is fully developed). o This leaves$174,124 of revenue that would be new to the general fund when the CDA is fully developed (note that it is not possible to identify the exact amount of increment available the in the future. The CDA assumptions include an aggressive development schedule and plan for the block). • The "SARR"stream of revenue is not available until FY 2015,and is approximately$3 million per year(general fund share). If this stream of revenue was not pledged for debt service on the UPAC, it would be treated as any other revenue to the general fund,and would be new money that could be used for CIP projects, police,fire, etc. 1 of current funds. If neither of these options were viable, the backstop would be the general fund (CIP). o In the best case (county participation, low interest rates), the short-term gap that needs to be covered is$3.9 million in year one, and$3.3 million in year two. o In the worst case (no county participation, high interest rates),the short-term gap that needs to be covered is$6.7 million in year one,and$6 million in year two. The gap then continues through the life of the bond with an average shortfall of$3.3 million per year. • The$2.5 million set aside could also be needed if the County chooses not to participate, or if interest rates increase, in order to cover the gap in debt service.$1.5 million per year in the best case (3.6%interest rate),$3.3 million per year worst case (5.9%interest rate) • If the City elects not to move forward with the theater after design of the facility,the$2.5 million set-aside could also be used to pay off the$15 m bond (payments would be approximately$1.3 million per year). Question 5:Is there any money that is going to the theater that could otherwise go into the City's general fund? • Yes—see bullet points relating to "SARR" and "CDA" in the answers to Question 1. Question 6:What are the shortfalls if the County participates and where would these shortfalls come from? • See first bullet point, Question 4. Question 7:Is the City's basic maintenance of existing capital facilities covered by the current amount in CIP? • No—there were approximately$450 million in identified Capital Improvement needs over the next 10 years(roads, streets, parks, etc). This was constrained down to$150 million to reflect the budget realities of the City. This leaves approximately$300 million in unmet CIP needs over the next 10 years($30 million in un-met needs per year). • Impact of Steiner Ice Sheet Payments-Additionally—a payment that was originally paid for by the RDA will begin coming due in FY 2016 to finish out the bond for the Steiner Ice Sheet. These payments are$5.3 million per year for 6 years,and will have to come out of the general fund. o Originally,the SARR stream of revenue that will be coming to the general fund in FY 2016($3million per year)was planned on offsetting this added payment. o Now that this payment will be largely diverted to the theater,the City will be responsible for paying this debt service within existing revenues. o While this payment is factored into the current, proposed version of the 10 year plan, it significantly hampers the City's ability to cover necessary City projects. If the general fund were to "hold the CIP harmless"the general fund would need to contribute an extra$5.3 million towards CIP per year for those years. This may result in other general fund shortages. • It is safe to say that no American City has an excess of revenue to cover all of its capital needs. Salt Lake City's situation with deferred maintenance is not unique. 3