11/06/2003 - Minutes PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2003
The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Thursday, November
6, 2003, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South
State Street.
In Attendance: Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Eric Jergensen, Nancy
Saxton, Jill Remington Love, Dave Buhler and Dale Lambert.
Also in Attendance: Gary Mumford, Council Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor;
Michael Sears, Council Budget and Policy Analyst; Gordon Hoskins, Controller; Steve
Fawcett, Management Services Deputy Director; Susan Roberts, City Economist; Lehua
Weaver, Council Constituent Liaison; Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer; Kerri
Nakamura, Utah League of Cities and Towns; Edwin Rutan, City Attorney; Russell Weeks,
Council Policy Analyst; Ken Bullock, Utah League of Cities and Towns Executive Director;
Roger Tew, Utah League of Cities and Towns; Mayor Janice Auger, Taylorsville City;
Dave Nimkin, Mayor' s Chief of Staff; Doug Dansie, Downtown/Special Projects Planner;
Joel Paterson, Special Projects Planner; LuAnn Clark, Housing and Neighborhood
Development Director; Rosemary Kappas, Housing Authority; Brent Wilde, Deputy Director
of Planning; and Beverly Jones, Deputy City Recorder.
Councilmember Christensen presided at and conducted the meeting.
The meeting was called to order at 5:32 p.m.
AGENDA ITEMS
#1. REPORT OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, INCLUDING REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS
AND ANNOUNCEMENTS.
Mr. Mumford said an Executive Session was not needed. He said someone would be
taking video during the Utah League of Cities and Towns presentation to be used for
Local Officials Day.
#2. RECEIVE A BRIEFING FROM THE UTAH LEAGUE OF CITIES & TOWNS REGARDING REVENUE TRENDS.
View Attachment
Kerri Nakamura, Ken Bullock, Roger Tew and Janice Auger briefed the Council with the
attached handouts and a computer presentation. Councilmember Saxton asked about
Streamlined Sales Tax (SST) . Mr. Tew said the plan was for SST to go to Congress next
year. He said SST would expand the sales tax base because every entity that sold
through the internet or catalogs would be required to collect Utah sales tax.
Councilmember Saxton asked if a formula existed which showed when property taxes needed
to be increased to offset or keep up with growth increase. Ms. Nakamura said they
were starting to center on core services. She said that meant property taxes would be
at different levels in different communities.
#3. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A LOAN FROM THE SALT LAKE CITY HOUSING TRUST FUND FOR
THE REFINANCING OF THE JEFFERSON CIRCLE SECTION 8 PRESERVATION PROJECT LOCATED AT 1750
SOUTH JEFFERSON CIRCLE. View Attachment
LuAnn Clark and Michael Sears briefed the Council from the attached handouts.
Councilmember Christensen asked if Housing and Urban Development (HUD) money came from
the Housing Trust Fund. Ms. Clark said no. She said the City would be listed first
on the loan but HUD money went to the Housing Authority. Councilmember Christensen
asked if this loan would facilitate other Section 8 projects. Ms. Clark said the
Housing Authority was first to go through the new and improved Section 8 reorganization.
03 - 1
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2003
She said the experience could now be shared with other entities.
Councilmember Saxton asked why the additional loan was needed. Ms. Clark said the
Section 8 preservation contract was expiring so the Housing Authority had to refinance
the project. All Council Members were in favor of moving this item forward.
#4. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A LOAN FROM THE SALT LAKE CITY HOUSING TRUST FUND FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE JEFFERSON SCHOOL PHASE II APARTMENT PROJECT LOCATED AT 1031
SOUTH WEST TEMPLE. View Attachment
LuAnn Clark, Rosemary Kappas and Michael Sears briefed the Council from the attached
handout. Councilmember Christensen asked if the affordable housing component in Phase
II was substantially larger than the first phase. Ms. Clark said when the first
project was put together, the Housing Authority wanted affordable housing to be 60/40.
She said to get debt coverage they had to increase the number of affordable units. She
said when completed the project would be 50/50. Council Members were in favor of
moving this item forward.
#5. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A-FRAME SIGNS AND PORTABLE SIGNS IN CERTAIN DISTRICTS.
View Attachment
Joel Paterson, Ed Rutan, Doug Dansie and Brent Wilde briefed the Council from the
attached handout. Councilmember Christensen said the Planning Commission requested
that the ordinance sunset in one year. He said he did not see a sunset clause in the
proposed ordinance. Mr. Paterson said the Planning Commission asked staff to come
back to them by November 15, 2004. He said the Commission agreed the City needed to
come up with a more aesthetically coordinated method for signs.
Councilmember Jergensen said he was concerned about portable signs being placed in
front of homes and in residential areas in the Residential Mixed Use (RMU) and Mixed
Use (MU) zones in the Capitol Hills area. Mr. Wilde said the large body of RMU extended
from 200 East to 500 East between South Temple and north of 400 South. Councilmember
Jergensen asked about enforcement of the ordinance. Mr. Wilde said enforcement would
be by complaint.
Councilmember Turner said the proposed ordinance allowed a 3-foot by 4-foot sign. He
said it made it hard to place a sign when the sidewalk was 4-feet as well. He said
signs would be clustered and block sidewalks. He said enforcement was a problem and
the A-frame signs could be a detriment to his area. Mr. Wilde said that issue could
be addressed by not allowing signs in neighborhood business zones and residential
business zones.
Councilmember Buhler asked if there was zoning that applied to areas with narrower
sidewalks. He said taking signs out of the neighborhood business zone would remove
them from 1700 East and 1300 South and other areas. Mr. Wilde said they would have to
remove signs from the Commercial Neighborhood (CN) zones. Councilmember Buhler said
he felt portable signs worked in those districts.
Councilmember Saxton said she had some of the same concerns. She said width of the
sidewalk along the 400 South corridor was minimal and did not work for even a
pedestrian. She said there was not a strip between the sidewalk and the street. She
said businesses on the main street did not have an issue with signs. She said it was
businesses on the side streets because of the City' s traffic patterns. She said a few
businesses had unusual or unique needs because their location required additional
signage. She said the City should put the burden back on those businesses and allow
some creative thinking to take place for signage. She said she did not want portable
03 - 2
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2003
signs in Salt Lake City. She said enforcement of signs should not be placed on the
public.
Councilmember Love said she liked the sandwich signs. She said they showed a city
that was more vital and vibrant. She said she had not seen any sign abuse. She said
if signs were not cost effective, businesses would not place signs.
Councilmember Lambert said he felt the ordinance needed a sunset provision because
unforeseen problems could arise. He said the City had allowed the signs for six
months. He said he had not seen any abuse or problems caused by signs. Councilmember
Buhler asked about the narrowness of a sidewalk. Mr. Paterson said if there was a 4-
foot sidewalk and a narrow strip, a 3-foot wide sign could be placed.
Councilmember Christensen said signs were starting to proliferate as neighboring
businesses placed their signs. He said there were no standards on how the signs needed
to look. He asked if there was intent to educate business owners on what was
appropriate. Mr. Wilde said they could work with business organizations and through
newsletters on what the City's expectations were. He said design standards could be
built into the ordinance.
Councilmember Christensen asked why the signs needed to be so large when businesses
were trying to target pedestrians. Councilmember Love said by making the signs smaller,
it could address some concerns the Council had. She said then the purpose of the signs
would be for pedestrians and would not be a billboard for cars driving by.
Councilmember Christensen asked if the City could limit signs to one per business. Mr.
Rutan said it depended on what the Council was trying to regulate and what the policy
reasoning was. He said if there was proliferation of signs on a block creating safety
or access issues, then the City could act. He said if there was not a governmental
interest in not allowing businesses more than one sign, signs could not be limited.
Councilmember Love said the Council had initially considered the option of attended
signs. She asked about businesses allowing other businesses to place a sign in front
of their business. Mr. Rutan said as long as an arrangement had been made to have a
sign attended, the sign could be placed two blocks away.
Councilmember Lambert asked if the Council could sunset the ordinance if it was not
working. Mr. Rutan said a sunset date of one year was an automatic termination. He
said if the Council did not act, the sunset provision would take effect. He said if
the Council wanted to act prior to the sunset date, they could change or amend the
ordinance.
Councilmember Christensen asked for a straw poll on a one year sunset clause and to
reduce the size of signs from 4-feet in height and 3-feet in width to 3-feet in height
and 2-feet in width. All Council Members were in favor of both changes.
Councilmember Saxton asked that a motion be prepared that addressed attended signs.
Councilmember Jergensen said he wanted to take another look at the 8:00 a.m. to 11:00
p.m. timeframe. Councilmember Christensen said Council staff would work with Mr. Wilde
to draft motions. He said an attended sign would give businesses the responsibility
of the signs. He asked that Planning staff provide some education material to
businesses.
#6. CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, IN KEEPING WITH UTAH CODE, TO
DISCUSS PENDING OR REASONABLY IMMINENT LITIGATION, PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE ANN. 52-4-4
AND 52-4-5 (1) (a) (iii) , AND ATTORNEY-CLIENT MATTERS THAT ARE PRIVILEGED PURSUANT TO
UTAH CODE ANN. 78-24-8.
03 - 3
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2003
No Executive Session was held.
The meeting adjourned at 7 :47 p.m.
bj
03 - 4
Res-008-2003 Sales Tax Headroom
Whereas: the sales tax provides the vast majority of the State of Utah's general fund
• resources and an increasing majority of the general fund resources for
Utah's cities and towns; and
Whereas: historically sales taxes have been used by state governments and cities and
towns to pay for essential services provided to citizens throughout the
state
Whereas: the overall Utah sales tax rate is already relatively high and if adjusted for
the sales on food the actual effective rate is among the highest in the
United Sates; and
Whereas: a number of public agencies are looking at the sales tax as a source of
revenue and discussing various levels of additional local option sales tax
as a funding source; and
Whereas: there is serious concern among state and local governments, as well as
various tax experts that Utah is approaching maximum rate levels an that
there is very little"head-room"before additional sales tax rate increases;
and
Whereas: there is a need to have a serious discussion among Utah state and local
policy makers regarding the sales tax rate"head-room"before additional
• rate increases are imposed;
Therefore Be It Resolved that we the members of the Utah League of Cities and Towns:
Support a study and development of a policy prior to authorization of any additional
general sales tax rate increases or additional local option sales tax authority.
Be it further resolved that we the members of the Utah League of Cities and Towns:
Support legislative efforts to broaden the sales tax base rather than use rate increases to
obtain additional revenue and achieve equity in the imposition of the sales tax.
Bountiful City
City(s),Towns,and/or Affiliate Group submitting this resolution
Tom Hardy
Person preparing the form
(801) 298-6140
Phone Number
•
UTAH LEAGUE OF CITIES AND TOWNS SURVEY
SERVICES ONLY
• Date: August 6— 11, 2001 Date: September 2—8, 2003
Universe: Statewide Universe: Statewide
Sample size: 601 Sample size: 627
Tolerated error: ±4.0% Tolerated error: ±4.0%
Hello, I'm calling from Dan Jones &Associates, a professional, independent
research firm in Salt Lake City. We are conducting a public opinion survey in this area concerning some
important issues. May I speak with someone in the home who is 18 years of age or older? May I ask you
some questions?
1. First, do you live within an incorporated city or town or do you live in an area that is unincorporated?
2001 2003
79% 83% City/town
17% 14% Unincorporated
3% 3% Don't know (vol)
2. And, overall, how would you rate your city or town government?
2001 2003
(N=476) (N=518)
11% 14% Excellent
50% 52% Good
. 28% 23% Fair
7% 9% Poor
4% 2% Don't know (vol)
2.33 2.27 Mean score
3. Overall, how would you rate your county government?
2001 2003
6% 6% Excellent
48% 54% Good
31% 29% Fair
6% 6% Poor
9% 5% Don't know (vol)
2.42 2.37 Mean score
•
DAN JONES &ASSOCIATES,INC. Page 1
, e
4. Overall, how would you rate Utah state government...would you say it is...
2001 2003
7% 9% Excellent •
59% 50% Good
26% 29% Fair
6% 10% Poor
2% 1% Don't know (vol)
2.32 2.42 Mean score
5. What are the THREE most important issues facing your neighborhood today?
(First Response)
2001 2003
26% 19% Don't know
8% 8% Growth/population
14% 9% Crime
4% 4% Traffic
8% 11% Education
5% 8% Water issues
3% 4% Taxes
3% 3% Roads/streets
6% 3% Safety/security
1% 2% Drugs
1% 0% Open space4 1% <1% Electricity/power issues
1% 2% Planning/zoning
1% 3% Economy
1% <1% Legacy Highway
0% <1% Transportation
2% 2% Clean up yard/property deterioration
1% 4% Employment/jobs
1% 1% Sidewalks/curbs and gutters
<1% <1% Police issues
1% 0% Recreation programs
1% <1% Parking issues
5% <1% Nothing/it is good
8% 5% Miscellaneous
-
3% Development/over building/construction
-
2% Government issues/politicians
-
1% Improved services/cheaper services
-
1% Miscellaneous housing issues
-
1% Need better tax base/more economic development
- 3% Miscellaneous social issues/parental rights
-
<1% Environmental issues
III
DAN JONES &ASSOCIATES,INC. Page 2
6. What are the THREE most important issues facing your neighborhood today?
(Second Response)
• 2001 2003
(N=601) (N=430)
47% 74% Don't know
5% 1% Growth/population
7% 2% Crime
3% 1% Traffic
7% 2% Education
6% 3% Water issues
3% 1% Taxes
3% 2% Roads
1% 1% Safety
3% 1% Drugs
1% <1% Open space
1% 0% Electricity/power issues
1% <1% Planning/zoning
1% <1% Economy
<1% 0% Legacy Highway
1% <1% Transportation
1% 1% Clean up yard/property
1% 1% Employment/jobs
• 1% <1% Sidewalks/curbs and gutters
1% <1% Police issues
<1% 0% Recreation programs
0% 0% Parking issues
0% 1% Nothing/it is good
8% 5% Miscellaneous
- 1% Development/over building/construction
- 1% Government issues/politicians
- 0% Improved services/cheaper services
- <1% Miscellaneous housing issues
- 0% Need better tax base/more economic development
- 0% Miscellaneous social issues/parental rights
- 1% Environmental issues
IIII
DAN JONES &ASSOCIATES,INC. Page 3
7. What are the THREE most important issues facing your neighborhood today?
(Third Response)
2001 2003 •
(N=601) (N=430)
70% 74% Don't know
3% 1% Growth/population
4% 2% Crime
3% 1% Traffic
2% 2% Education
2% 3% Water issues
2% 1% Taxes
3% 2% Roads
1% 1% Safety
1% 1% Drugs
<1% <1% Open space
1% 0% Electricity/power issues
0% <1% Planning/zoning
1% <1% Economy
<1% 0% Legacy Highway
1% <1% Transportation
1% 1% Clean up yard/property
0% 1% Employment/jobs
<1% <1% Sidewalks/curbs and gutters •
1% <1% Police issues
1% 0% Recreation programs
0% 0% Parking issues
<1% 1% Nothing/it is good
5% 5% Miscellaneous
- 1% Development/over building/construction
- 1% Government issues/politicians
- 0% Improved services/cheaper services
- <1% Miscellaneous housing issues
- 0% Need better tax base/more economic development
- 0% Miscellaneous social issues/parental rights
- 1% Environmental issues
•
DAN JONES &ASSOCIATES, INC. Page 4
Please rate the following services you receive on the local level ...
Don't Don't Mean
Excellent Good Fair Poor receive know score
• 8. Police
2001 29% 55% 10% 4% 1% 2% 1.90
2003 31% 47% 16% 4% 0% 2% 1.91
9. Parks
2001 26% 54% 12% 3% 1% 4% 1.95
2003 29% 45% 15% 6% 2% 2% 1.99
10. Water
2001 18% 60% 14% 6% 1% 1% 2.13
2003 21% 49% 19% 9% 1% 1% 2.16
11. Fire
2001 32% 56% 6% 1% 1% 6% 1.77
2003 34% 53% 6% 1% 1% 5% 1.72
12. Libraries
2001 29% 47% 10% 4% 4% 5% 2.02
2003 34% 40% 12% 5% 5% 4% 1.86
13. Road maint/const
2001 8% 38% 39% 14% <1% <1% 2.61
III 2003 8% 39% 35% 17% 0% 1% 2.62
14. Garbage collection
2001 21% 67% 9% 1% 1% 1% 1.93
2003 29% 60% 8% 2% 1% 1% 1.82
15. Sewer
2001 17% 67% 6% 1% 5% 3% 2.06
2003 22% 62% 6% 1% 5% 4% 1.85
16. Recreational programming
2001 16% 43% 19% 5% 4% 14% 2.28
2003 20% 40% 20% 7% 3% 9% 2.15
17. Planning/Zoning
2001 3% 40% 28% 13% 2% 14% 2.65
2003 5% 34% 35% 15% 1% 9% 2.68
18. Snow removal
2001 15% 53% 18% 6% 5% 3% 2.30
2003 15% 50% 21% 5% 5% 4% 2.17
•
DAN JONES &ASSOCIATES,INC. Page 5
Don't Don't Mean
Excellent Good Fair Poor receive know score
19. Cemeteries
2001 18% 54% 6% 1% 5% 16% 2.04
2003 21% 49% 7% 2% 7% 15% 1.88
Please tell me if, in your community, you have used any of the following services within the last 24
months...
Yes No Don't know
20. Police
2001 31% 69% <1%
2003 34% 66% 0%
21. Parks
2001 80% 20% <1%
2003 76% 23% 1%
22. Planning/Zoning
2001 18% 82% <1%
2003 25% 73% 2%
23. Cemeteries
2001 32% 68% 1%
2003 23% 76% 0%
24. Recreational programs •
2001 50% 49% 1%
2003 50% 49% 1%
25. Fire
2001 7% 93% 0%
2003 14% 85% 0%
26. Libraries
2001 72% 28% 0%
2003 71% 28% 1%
27. Ambulance
2001 11% 88% 0%
2003 14% 86% 0%
•
DAN JONES&ASSOCIATES,INC. Page 6
28. If your city/town services had to be reduced or eliminated, which ONE service could be reduced or
eliminated?
2001 2003
• 33% 27% Don't know
34% 24% None
17% 28% Parks/recreation
4% 4% Planning/zoning
2% 3% Police
2% 3% Cemeteries
1% <1% Road maintenance
1% 2% Library
1% <1% Ambulance
1% 1% City Council
1% 1% Garbage
1% <1% Fire Department
<1% <1% Curbside pickup
<1% <1% Snow removal
<1% 0% Keep fluoride out of water
1% 0% Town beautification
2% 4% Miscellaneous
- 1% City government employees/mayor
•
•
DAN JONES &ASSOCIATES,INC. Page 7
How would you evaluate your community on efforts to accomplish the following...
Don't Mean
Excellent Good Fair Poor know score
29. Providing trails and bike paths •
2001 10% 34% 27% 17% 13% 2.58
2003 15% 33% 22% 23% 7% 2.56
30. Maintaining water quality
2001 15% 61% 17% 4% 3% 2.10
2003 22% 56% 15% 4% 3% 2.02
31. Reducing traffic congestion
2001 5% 36% 40% 17% 2% 2.69
2003 7% 32% 32% 24% 5% 2.76
32. Protecting property values
2001 6% 52% 27% 8% 7% 2.41
2003 9% 44% 31% 13% 4% 2.49
33. Keeping the right mix of housing
and businesses in neighborhoods
2001 6% 58% 24% 8% 4% 2.36
2003 11% 45% 28% 12% 4% 2.43
34. How safe do you feel walking alone i
in your neighborhood when it is dark?
2001 27% 47% 14% 10% 2% 2.07
2003 39% 39% 14% 7% 2% 1.88
There are some services that local government provides that some say can be provided by a private
business. Of the services in the following list, please tell me who should provide the service.
Local Private Don't Don't
Government Business Need know
35. Golf courses
2001 10% 86% <1% 4%
2003 19% 70% 4% 8%
36. Ambulance
2001 74% 22% <1% 3%
2003 64% 30% 0% 6%
37. Street maintenance
2001 86% 12% 0% 2%
2003 85% 11% 0% 3%
•
DAN JONES &ASSOCIATES,INC. Page 8
•
Local Private Don't Don't
Government Business Need know
38. Swimming pools
• 2001 38% 54% <1% 5%
2003 51% 42% 1% 6%
39. Recreation centers
2001 50% 41% 1% 7%
2003 63% 30% 1% 6%
40. Garbage collection
2001 63% 32% 0% 4%
2003 60% 37% 0% 3%
41. Youth recreational programs
2001 53% 34% 1% 10%
2003 69% 24% 0% 7%
*42. Do you belong to a public recreation/fitness center?
16% Yes
84% No
0% Don't know (vol)
*43. Do you belong to a private recreation/fitness center?
•
22% Yes
78% No
0% Don't know (vol)
44. Do you have a home computer?
2001 2003
80% 86% Yes
20% 14% No
0% 0% Don't know (vol)
45. Do you have internet access either at home, school or work?
2001 2003
24% 29% Home only
1% 1% School only
6% 7% Work only
3% 3% Home and school
21% 22% Home and work
18% 21% All of the above
27% 17% None of the above
• 1% 0% Don't know (vol)
DAN JONES &ASSOCIATES,INC. Page 9
46. When new development occurs, water and sewer lines need to be installed as well as new roads and
neighborhood parks. Should these improvements be paid for by...
2001 2003
5% 9% A property tax increase
64% 70% An impact fee on the new development
18% 12% Both property tax increase and impact fee on new
development (vol)
1% 1% Don't allow new growth(vol)
12% 9% Don't know (vol)
47. If there is undeveloped land in your community should local leaders...
2001 2003
38% 44% Preserve open space
2% 3% Allow high density housing
13% 7% Maximize revenues by allowing whatever
development will pay/collect the highest taxes
26% 32% Allow for single family housing
22% 14% Don't know (vol)
48. In order to attract new business and industry your city may have to build capital projects to improve
the water, sewer, and roads and other vital services. Would you prefer to...
2001 2003
•
25% 19% Not have the new business/industry
55% 69% Build the improvements
3% 4% Neither(vol)
2% 1% Both (vol)
16% 7% Don't know (vol)
Focusing on water rates...
49. Are the rates you pay for drinking water ...
2001 2003
16% 27% Too high
71% 62% About right
2% 4% Too low
11% 7% Don't know (vol)
•
DAN JONES &ASSOCIATES,INC. Page 10
50. Compared to drinking water rates around the country, are the rates you pay for water ...
2001 2003
• 7% 11% Higher
33% 21% About the same
15% 22% Lower
45% 45% Don't know (vol)
Would you pay a higher water rate if you knew the revenue was going to be used for the following...
Yes No Don't know
51. Promote water conservation
2001 45% 43% 12%
2003 52% 40% 8%
52. Improve the reliability of your
water delivery system
2001 52% 40% 8%
2003 67% 27% 7%
53. Develop a new or additional
water supply
2001 67% 22% 11%
2003 72% 21% 6%
Now,just a few questions about yourself in order to categorize the data:
•
54. Gender:
2001 2003
49% 50% Male
51% 50% Female
55. Age category:
2001 2003
13% 10% 18-25
18% 20% 26-35
21% 16% 36-45
16% 18% 46-55
12% 15% 56-65
20% 20% Over 65
<1% 1% Refuse (vol)
•
DAN JONES &ASSOCIATES,INC. Page 11
56. Religious preference:
2001 2003
5% 4% Catholic
6% 4% Protestant •
65% 69% LDS
9% 8% Other
10% 12% None
5% 4% Refuse (vol)
57. In politics today, do you usually think of yourself as a Republican, Democrat, an independent voter,
or what?
2001 2003
44% 46% Republican
17% 16% Democrat
34% 30% Independent voter
3% 4% Other(SPECIFY)
3% 5% Refuse(VOL)
58. And, do you consider yourself politically as liberal or conservative?
2001 2003
15% 19% Very conservative
39% 41% Somewhat conservative
26% 15% Moderate
12% 13% Somewhat liberal .
5% 6% Very liberal
3% 4% Don't know (vol)
1% 2% Refuse (vol)
59. Annual family income category:
2001 2003
4% 7% Less than$15,000
9% 11% $15,000- $24,999
11% 10% $25,000- $34,999
12% 12% $35,000- $44,999
10% 12% $45,000- $54,999
9% 11% $55,000- $64,999
15% 17% $65,000 -$100,000
9% 9% Over$100,000
22% 13% Refuse(vol)
III
DAN JONES &ASSOCIATES,INC. Page 12
60. Do you own or rent your residence?
2001 2003
• 86% 86% Own (buying)
12% 12% Rent
1% 1% Other
1% 1% Refuse (VOL)
61. Length of residence in your community:
2001 2003
9% 11% Less than 2 years
16% 17% 2—5 years
17% 17% 5— 10 years
57% 54% More than 10 years
1% 1% Refuse(Vol)
62. Area of residence:
2001 2003
11% 11% Davis County
39% 39% Salt Lake County
17% 17% Utah County
9% 9% Weber County
23% 24% Other Counties (specify)
<1% 0% Refuse(vol)
THANK YOU.
•
DAN JONES &ASSOCIATES,INC. Page 13
UTAH LEAGUE OF CITIES AND TOWNS SURVEY
TAXES ONLY
• Date: August 9-20, 2001 Date: August 21, 2003—September 6, 2003
Universe: Statewide Universe: Statewide
Sample size: 624 Sample size: 603
Tolerated error: ±4.0% Tolerated error: ±4.0%
Hello, I'm calling from Dan Jones&Associates, a professional,independent
research firm in Salt Lake City. We are conducting a public opinion survey in this area concerning some
important issues.May I speak with someone in the home who is 18 years of age or older? May I ask you
some questions?
1. Do you live within an incorporated city or town or do you live in an area that is unincorporated?
2001 2003
82% 88% City/town
16% 10% Unincorporated
2% 2% Don't know (vol)
2. And, overall, how would you rate your city or town government?
2001 2003
(N=523) (N=571)
• 13% 12% Excellent
49% 49% Good
28% 26% Fair
8% 8% Poor
2% 5% Don't know (vol)
2.32 2.32 Mean score
3. Overall,how would you rate your county government?
2001 2003
4% 3% Excellent
51% 49% Good
32% 30% Fair
10% 7% Poor
4% 10% Don't know (vol)
2.49 2.46 Mean Score
•
DAN JONES&ASSOCIATES,INC. Page 1
4. Overall,how would you rate Utah state government...would you say it is...
2001 2003
7% 8% Excellent •
52% 49% Good
31% 29% Fair
9% 10% Poor
1% 4% Don't know (vol)
2.43 2.42 Mean Score
Please tell me how well each of the following are doing in managing your tax dollars.
Don't Mean
Excellent Good Fair Poor know score
5. Federal Congress
2001 1% 26% 46% 25% 2% 2.97
2003 1% 22% 42% 29% 6% 3.05
6. State Legislature
2001 1% 32% 46% 20% 2% 2.85
2003 1% 30% 43% 19% 7% 2.86
7. Your County Commission/Council
2001 3% 34% 42% 16% 6% 2.76 •
2003 2% 33% 36% 12% 16% 2.71
8. Your Municipal Council
2001 5% 36% 34% 13% 12% 2.63
2003 3% 39% 30% 10% 18% 2.56
9. Your School Board
2001 7% 37% 29% 16% 10% 2.62
2003 5% 33% 26% 18% 18% 2.70
DAN JONES&ASSOCIATES,INC. Page 2
•
10—51. I am going to read a list of taxes. Please tell me which level of government receive any tax
revenue. These levels of government include Federal, state, county, city/town, school district or special
service districts. (MARK ALL THAT APPLY)
(PERCENT MENTIONED)
City/ School Special Don't
Federal State County Town District Service District Know
Income taxes
2001 76% 56% 16% 14% 17% 12% 15%
2003 73% 51% 6% 5% 7% 3% 23%
Sales tax
2001 11% 75% 24% 31% 11% 6% 11%
2003 4% 70% 22% 23% 4% 2% 21%
Property tax
2001 6% 41% 50% 33% 31% 7% 8%
2003 3% 29% 53% 28% 25% 4% 21%
Gas tax
2001 43% 70% 10% 9% 3% 3% 12%
2003 24% 50% 15% 17% 2% 2% 29%
Local tax on telephone
2001 14% 41% 16% 30% 2% 3% 23%
2003 8% 26% 13% 30% 3% 3% 39%
•
Energy sales tax
2001 24% 47% 10% 14% 2% 3% 29%
2003 16% 31% 12% 16% 2% 4% 42%
52. Of the following taxes, which would you object to the most if it were raised?
(PLEASE ROTATE)
2001 2003
29% 26% Property
26% 25% Income
11% 11% Sales
11% 13% " Gas
20% 22% All (vol)
1% 2% None (vol)
1% 1% Don't know (vol)
•
DAN JONES&ASSOCIATES,INC. Page 3
53. Which tax would you object to the least? .
(PLEASE ROTATE)
2001 2003
•
23% 22% Property
9% 11% Income
33% 27% Sales
23% 21% Gas
2% 3% All(vol)
7% 13% None (vol)
4% 3% Don't know (vol)
Would you support an increase in your city taxes if the revenue from taxation was tied to a specific
service increase or enhancement in...
(PLEASE ROTATE)
Probably Definitely Don't Mean
Definitely Probably Not Not Know Score
54. Public safety
2001 35% 45% 10% 9% 1% 1.94
2003 18% 42% 21% 14% 4% 2.33
55. Road maintenance or
transportation
2001 27% 43% 15% 13% 1% 2.15
2003 15% 33% 29% 19% 4% 2.54 0
56. Parks/open space
2001 26% 42% 16% 14% 2% 2.18
2003 15% 32% 30% 18% 5% 2.53
57. Recreation centers/
programming
2001 20% 45% 18% 16% 2% 2.29
2003 16% 30% 29% 21% 5% 2.57
58. Skate board park
2001 11% 23% 28% 36% 1% 2.90
2003 8% 20% 34% 35% 4% 2.99
59. Pedestrian &bike trails
2001 21% 41% 19% 17% 2% 2.33
2003 19% 31% 27% 19% 4% 2.48
•
DAN JONES&ASSOCIATES,INC. Page 4
60. Currently Utah's cities and towns have the ability to impose a 6%tax on natural gas and electricity.
Do you support or oppose the city's ability to impose this type of tax?
• 2001 2003
4% 7% Strongly support
17% 15% Somewhat support
23% 23% Somewhat oppose
52% 49% Strongly oppose
4% 7% Don't know (vol)
3.30 3.23 Mean score
61. Rather than a tax on electricity and natural gas,would you prefer to pay a higher property tax?
2001 2003
31% 30% Yes
65% 62% No
6% 8% Don't know (vol)
62. As you are aware, this past year the natural gas and electricity rates have risen. Because of this
increase,the tax imposed on these utilities has also increased. When utility rates increase should the cities
and towns be able to collect this additional tax revenue?
2001 2003
56% 60% Yes
38% 32% No
•
6% 8% Don't know (vol)
63. What about when the utility rates go down—as they did during the 1980's and 1990's—should the
cities be able to increase the tax rate to maintain municipal revenues?
2001 2003
31% 21% Yes
64% 69% No
5% 11% Don't know (vol)
64. Some people say that paying a property tax is preferable to paying the tax on natural gas and
electricity because the property tax is deductible from the income tax. Others say that the energy tax is
preferable because all of the property tax exempt properties have to pay this utility tax and thus the
revenue collected is spread to more entities. With which statement do you agree?
2001 2003
43% 41% Pay property tax
48% 35% Pay energy sales tax
9% 24% Don't know (vol)
•
DAN JONES &ASSOCIATES,INC. Page 5
*65.Are you aware of the recent addition of tax on your cable service?
48% Yes
47% No
•
5% Don't know(vol)
66. Do you support or oppose the removal of sales tax from food purchased in a grocery store?
2001 2003
60% 51% Strongly support
14% 18% Somewhat support
11% 13% Somewhat oppose
13% 13% Strongly oppose
3% 5% Don't know(vol)
1.75 1.89 Mean score
67. If the sales tax is removed from food,should your local community be allowed to raise the lost
revenue from another source?
2001 2003
51% 52% Yes
45% 40% No
4% 7% Don't know(vol)
68. If another tax is to be increased to offset the revenue loss from removing the sales tax from food,
should it be..
2001 2003
16% 10% Property tax
4% 4% Tax on utilities
57% 44% Increase the sales tax on non-food items
5% 4% Other(vol)
12% 26% No tax should be increased(vol)
6% 11% Don't know(vol)
69. Should a sales tax be collected when goods are purchased over the internet or through catalogues?
2001 2003
- 54% 49% Yes
42% 44% No
4% 6% Don't know(vol)
•
DAN JONES&ASSOCIATES,INC. Page 6
70. Should a sales tax be imposed on lawyers, doctors, accountants and other services?
2001 2003
• 24% 18% Yes
72% 76% No
4% 5% Don't know (vol)
71. Would you be more or less inclined to impose a sales tax on these services if the overall sales tax rate
on goods purchased was reduced by an equal amount?
2001 2003
51% 39% More inclined
41% 48% Less inclined
8% 13% Don't know (vol)
*72.When comparing the sales taxes you pay in Utah to other states,would you say that your Utah sales
taxes are...
40% Higher
36% Just about the same
7% Lower
17% Don't know (vol)
*73. If another tax or fee is used for road maintenance, should it be...
III 3% Property tax
8% State and local sales tax
28% Impact fee on new development
43% Vehicle registration fees
3% Other(vol)
8% No tax should be increased(vol)
7% Don't know (vol)
74. Based upon what you know or have heard, does the gas tax you pay fully cover the cost of local
government road maintenance and construction?
2001 2003
9% 5% Definitely
19% 14% Probably
35% 32% Probably not
20% 20% Not at all
17% 28% Don't know (vol)
2.79 2.93 Mean score
•
DAN JONES&ASSOCIATES,INC. Page 7
75. In addition to the gas tax revenue, should local government use other tax revenues they collect for
road maintenance and repair?
2001 2003
69% 47% Yes
II
25% 37% No
6% 16% Don't know (vol)
76. What percentage of your local government road construction and maintenance budget should be
funded by the tax on gasoline?
2001 2003
27% 26% 100%
30% 18% 75%
20% 16% 50%
10% 9% 25%
2% 1% 0%
11% 30% Don't know (vol)
77. You currently pay 24.5 cents tax per gallon of gasoline. Of this amount the state receives 75% and
local governments receive 25%for their road construction and maintenance budget. Should the local
government share of this revenue?
2001 2003
32% 33% Increase
57% 47% Stay about the same .
8% 3% Decrease
3% 17% Don't know (vol)
78. If the state legislature raises the gas tax, should local government continue to receive 25% of the
increased tax for their needs, should they get a higher percentage, or should the state keep this amount for
state road projects?
2001 2003
34% 41% Retain local government share
33% 32% Get higher percentage
27% 10% State keep all of the revenue
6% 17% Don't know (vol)
79. Would you support or oppose a local option gas tax to be used exclusively by your local government
for local government roads?
2001 2003
12% 10% Strongly support
30% 27% Somewhat support
19% 17% Somewhat oppose
33% 32% Strongly oppose
6% 13% Don't know (vol)
2.79 2.82 Mean score •
DAN JONES&ASSOCIATES,INC. Page 8
Shifting to the property tax...
Of the total property taxes you pay what percent goes to each of the following?
0 Less Don't
than 10% 10-24% 25%-49% 50%-74% 75%-100% Know
80. Schools
2001 10% 17% 18% 18% 8% 29%
2003 6% 10% 11% 12% 6% 55%
81. County
2001 7% 25% 22% 6% 1% 40%
2003 6% 19% 11% 1% 0% 63%
82. City/town
2001 14% 25% 15% 4% <1% 41%
2003 10% 16% 8% 1% 0% 64%
83. Special districts
2001 32% 15% 4% 1% 1% 47%
2003 14% 12% 4% 0% 1% 69%
84. When comparing the property taxes you pay in Utah to other states, would you say that your Utah
property taxes are...
2001 2003
41% 28% Higher
25% 30% About the same
• 18% 13% Lower
16% 30% Don't know (vol)
85. What percentage of your municipal services you receive is paid from by the property taxes you pay to
your city/town?
2001 2003
2% 1% 100%
12% 8% 75%
24% 16% 50%
27% 16% 25%
1% 6% Renter(vol)
1% 1% None(vol)
32% 51% Don't know (vol)
•
DAN JONES&ASSOCIATES,INC. Page 9
86. When the property taxes are computed on your home, your home is given an assessed value—or what
the county says your house is worth. Would you sell your home for the assessed value amount?
2001 2003
0
9% 10% Definitely
20% 18% Probably
27% 23% Probably not
38% 32% Not at all
1% 8% Renter(vol)
5% 9% Don't know (vol)
A number of services can be provided by charging a fee for service rather than using tax revenue. Please
tell me whether you approve or disapprove of your city/town having a fee for service on each of the
following:
Approve Disapprove Don't know
87. Water service
2001 71% 26% 3%
2003 63% 30% 6%
88. Fire alarm response
2001 61% 35% 4%
2003 48% 46% 6%
89. Cemeteries
2001 58% 39% 3% .
2003 47% 45% 8%
90. Ambulance
2001 67% 31% 2%
2003 56% 38% 5%
91. Neighborhood parks
2001 54% 43% 2%
2003 39% 55% 6%
92. Pedestrian/bike trails
2001 50% 47% 3%
2003 37% 56% 7%
93. Golf courses
2001 49% 49% 1%
2003 58% 36% 6%
94. Sewer service
2001 69% 28% 4%
2003 60% 35% 5%
•
DAN JONES &ASSOCIATES,INC. Page 10
Approve Disapprove Don't know
95. Fire service
2001 64% 34% 2%
2003 50% 44% 6%
96. Storm drainage
2001 58% 39% 3%
2003 49% 44% 7%
97. Libraries
2001 63% 35% 2%
2003 53% 40% 6%
98. Recreation programs
2001 70% 28% 2%
2003 66% 28% 7%
99. If a revenue increase is necessary at your municipal level, would you prefer to have your property
taxes raised or have a fee for service implemented?
2001 2003
22% 17% Raise property tax
67% 64% Implement a fee for service
5% 8% Neither(vol)
<1% 2% Both(vol)
5% 9% Don't know (vol)
100. On properties that are assessed at an equal amount, should the business owner and homeowner pay
an equal amount or should one pay more taxes than the other?
2001 2003
45% 42% Business owner pay more
1% 2% Homeowner pay more
47% 47% Pay the same
7% 9% Don't know(vol)
*101. When comparing the local income taxes you pay in Utah to other states, would you say that your
local income taxes are...
28% Higher
34% About the same
7% Lower
32% Don't know(vol)
•
DAN TONES&ASSOCIATES,INC. Page 11
102. Would you support or oppose a local income tax if the revenue was used to reduce or eliminate the
local property tax?
2001 2003
16% 13% Strongly support
•
30% 28% Somewhat support
18% 16% Somewhat oppose
28% 22% Strongly oppose
9% 21% Don't know (vol)
2.63 2.61 Mean score
Now,just a few questions about yourself in order to categorize the data:
103. Gender:
2001 2003
52% 47% Male
48% 53% Female
104. Age category:
2001 2003
9% 12% 18-25
21% 20% 26-35
21% 16% 36-45
18% 18% 46-55
14% 15% 56-65
17% 18% Over 65
1% 2% Refuse(vol)
ill
105. Religious preference:
2001 2003
5% 4% Catholic
5% 2% Protestant
67% 64% LDS
9% 7% Other
11% 13% None
3% 11% Refuse(vol)
106. In politics today, do you usually think of yourself as a Republican, Democrat, an independent voter,
or what?
2001 2003
43% 46% Republican
15% 13% Democrat
32% 32% Independent voter
7% 4% Other(SPECIFY)
3% 5% Refuse (VOL)
•
DAN JONES&ASSOCIATES,INC. Page 12
107. And, do you consider yourself politically as liberal or conservative?
2001 2003
• 20% 22% Very conservative
39% 35% Somewhat conservative
17% 17% Moderate
15% 9% Somewhat liberal
5% 7% Very liberal
2% 6% Don't know (vol)
2% 5% Refuse (vol)
108. Annual family income category:
2001 2003
6% 6% Less than$15,000
9% 6% $15,000-$24,999
13% 9% $25,000-$34,999
15% 10% $35,000-$44,999
13% 10% $45,000-$54,999
10% 11% $55,000- $64,999
20% 17% $65,000-$100,000
7% 5% Over$100,000
8% 25% Refuse (vol)
0 109. Do you own or rent your residence?
2001 2003
84% 82% Own (buying)
13% 15% Rent
2% 1% Other
1% 2% Refuse(VOL)
110. Length of residence in your community:
2001 2003
11% 11% Less than 2 years
18% 13% 2-5years
17% 19% 5- 10years
53% 55% More than 10 years
1% 2% Refuse(Vol)
S
DAN JONES&ASSOCIATES,INC. Page 13
111. Area of residence:
2001 2003
11% 10% Davis County
•
41% 39% Salt Lake County
16% 16% Utah County
8% 10% Weber County
24% 23% Other Counties (specify)
0% 1% Refuse
THANK YOU.
•
•
DAN JONES&ASSOCIATES,INC. Page 14
n
_,, _ .___, _ ,--ir- .,_ ___
)
C.__ ,
i
-n *
0\_ ,
z -0 c >
i
0 (-13< . Q
(D 0 ---1 107
CD CD o cEJ
0
s:), D 0 ...o ,_,
0 0 0
o 5- no *
m 0--
�
cn CD
m
K <
QQ
(D 0 K );
< � C
Z
Zc
o 0
o m
0 U)
cn
1-0
(II O1-0 1-01-ci (19
i..i ow�
� n
ct
0
I'
s,)
ct rr �
k(1)
< 1-1
(Do
6 Years Ago . . .
ULCT Staff and many local officials believed
that the municipal tax base was shifting
dependence away from property tax and
toward sales tax
The ULCT Board of Directors began funding7
program to gather municipal fiscal data to
validate our "gut feel"
As a result . . .
Our first chart was born
Cumulative Communities' Revenue History
r S �e5 oc r C�
Pr(°t icipal Franchise LiCO Inciu es fines,
portion sets'i.e charges,
impa,t fees,
grant ,and
/ m'sc• laneous
1999
2 „,,,,r,/,.e.,-- 0"
1968
I
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
...............
0 E H 51-- o- u) —1
o 0) m- ,... a) c m-.
3 = _.) 0 CO
. O CO O CO CD
3 ‘ in-: W3 CD r
E.-4:
_ m -v
a54-
�' C) 5• n
CDC C - � C.0 c
cii. 6 = -0
X 2) CD-is " 5- a)
c CD _. N--1- -0 n-+ _• 0)
3 p„ 6, o
3
o 5 0 .. .
CD CT m c � 0CD c 0
o a `< <— 1— `< CD
= < -0 n (I) 0 -0 r-t-
CD CD o -• .1 pj D-
O (D CD CD
CD CD 3 CD co CD
3
E. (7)-
a D
--% e-1- 3 = -IN -.
O CD 0 CD 0
r-1- s
�- 73 o
..„
CD CO
r--F ,
• • rn
CD 73
PO
Q -pp .
6 ;;"t 6 0
" o
co > Cr) -'
N C 0
Q Pa 11
O
&I Q.
Cl)
0 -51) V
n CT 73
(D
c O
CD M
(I)
CD
-,. - N N W OD
01 0 U1 O 01 0 01 O
O O O O O 0 O O
O O O O b O b O
o o O O O O O O
O O O o O O O O
O b O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O
co
co
N
1
c
c
W W
CO—.
co
co
4,_ —I
co
J
—.%
co
cri
a)
CD—
co
co D3
` CD
co
C
CID
CO
CO CO
COCD
N N.)
O
O
N
N 0
0 0
O
1 N)
N
O
O
N
T i::
--s
C) ('
_3
CD
1 N W .4. CO 0) V CO
O O O O O O O O
O• O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O
o• O O O O O O O
o o O O O O O O
i
co
co
N
co
W
U)
2)
'*
CD
r
A so
x
CD
f`°p n
N 74
CD/-� C7
-
J CD
co
N W
N
co
O -1
CD co
IQ =
V CD
CD
il
to CD
co C
CD
Z
c CD
cp
O
O
QOy
TJ 71
C "9
1 Crwi
ca CD•-N
CD
-11
5 5-
0 CD
Ro 0o
OT o (n o co CD CD
o
_ CD 3 cn
c 3 CO D)
C FDs
0) DJ Q
N., n
0
CD cn
C)
CD
cn m
-i. 0, ---,10 x
`� CC:
(n ♦� j
Q' o
CO
N
;171!\ A
X C)
TM cD .
ii
0
0
co0)
x
a)
co Er
� N
o ...I
CD K
6 c.
C)
cn co m
o o D)
Q o 7
CJ o
(D C
cn
cn ir,
V I
-
o
P rF
r—
GI co
O m
c 0
5• <<
o cla "I
o
ni s CD
= <D
N c
C) w T N
A7 6 j
0 (Si co
n o`G
N
X
.
m
C
Q
cn
m
5 r
m
20
0
ci' 0 N CD u s Cl)
m o Sx o • a1
-C " fD
C m 0) W u)
cn x o -4
cn ea
f
a) 5-
0 CO N
CD
n
sv m co
0 0 co 0 _, A>
�, (_) co
m B.
-0 C Al CD
A) =
CO c
r
CD m
cn
cn
-F, � C
o Ps coo CL
Pir CO
in U) Co
2.) O
74. N
r
,,An 11.
e CoCD
x Ii
o
o n
Cr) CD CD
c(n
x
u)
W �
N N
Zr, ...I
X
0
w
Cn
cn ca
T! C) 0
5 N
V� ° O o j
2° -0 Q a
o p _L0 n i :
r .-7D CD 0-
cn
m CO
C S
a O CD CO CI 3 a
CD ' cD cn
o o
0 70
pp
CD a.
Cl)
CO ma)
CL x0a coC' CD� � =N =
o C 0 cQ n
cn
W
x 0
CL CD
13 <
cto
0 =
cr. m
CL
CJ) O
N
co
a)
N a
CA)
0 -
o
x N cD
o
A3
X
cn
SD
o w
so
x -n
J 0
00 0
so
N
E
c
CO
r —I
DJ CD
X x
CD (D
0
Wm
0
N
133
o N J C)
X 0 CCD
-I
01
x
—• 0
G
n
N
Q =
CQ A.
r —I
_ a, a,
CD CD
0
w �
m
o •G
01
x
m
43 m
v, aD
N
0
o 0
CD X 'p
a �.
CD
X
Cn
nimmIL
rrt
r O
X N
CD
m
X Ca
aX
c tD
a N
m
0
0
cri
0
� w(D
x —1 a
x c"n N
v O
1— O
N
m
rn
c X
u)
0
c,„
co
o`G
CD
NJ 0
cn
W ° o
m (0
f
to
CD
N
73
(n W N v J
f o - (�\
D -� }L
>'<) rf
0
OD 3
r
X
O \_
0 r^
N V,
CCI
X
(i)
CD
7
rn
o•c
H
o � 0 0l X
cu _. a) � -0
3 co :
a) 5 cp m ' 0_
D.- 0
5. c13 * c-0 CD
.+ C
C
CD 5 � —'
- po C) T
—*'
m _ —' CD
A� 0_
CD W
rn 0_ n C73
Cn Q CO
0
cp'C 0 Cp CD
o
o Q M• ,
CD
-« o
O
o
(-5- w
2) 0-
2001
What Are Our Capital Improvement Needs?
(Without SL Intl Airport)
Total 5-Year Need=$1.3 Billion
Economic Development
3% Other Water Supply
Public Housing Projects Parks and Recreation ' 2% °
0.4% 16% _ 18/° Sanitary Sewerage
8%
Cultural and Civic Facilities 4111111
3%
(00
Other Government Buildings _
5% Stormwater and Drainage
Fire Facilities �= 7 7%
2% ./ Curb, Gutter, Sidewalks
Police Facilities Solid Waste 2%
2% Public Transit I 0.2%
1% Roads and Bridges Street Lighting and Utilities
Libraries 18% 5%
Cemeteries _ /Courts 3% Airports Parking°Facilities
0.3% 2% 1 /°
0.5%
0
, n 0 Xm
o —'
CD
< Q CD
CT) '< r- C) ,{ V,
c - CCD
o r 0
(t, - -. 0
CD Cl)
E Q CD
O
c p
C
c C Ccn CD U)
cn � '
• • —1,
cn 0
0 -'
o'
CD p'
3
0
CD
cltyirt A...a::
ii gIt.___:i
P 1 :r2i t41
vz ..,3_ ' Kati — y ,. /4
Fri i,f,,..- __.
CI
- ‘. ; /Y,A . ,- i II e,;) ,iittal
soil LA '
, 1i_..,1,..\,_,_
h
rt n '1 ii 1 f 4 - j C
r.
tVMt
OtCE?i_
___:
,,:._
114.,, _________ ,.:.tf., Li, CD
I1 w
„fir4W` '1
I ,1,1
I • r 1 O (N - z
I i - a�r4 �, CD
1" irk..i_ „],_____, ri
_ Q
q"s -i
117 ilia
F. * =
ED
- i AI
:1i'r11 [ j1'
I ' ;
IjiL1UL ma
' w * -
CY
0
0 o i
0
Cl) 0 G X -
0
. • ry r+ - TT
C o CD Q N
�J
_Q CD CD
0_
0 -' 5
3 - a CD
cn a) 0- m : 0
0 � �
P6) 0. .1 •
: 2 0" •
o
0
0 C Cl)
0 0
O Q)
Q 0
0
R
T /(2,10".:U-U p
59 Communities 1999
Rupunded —MNIFItft7
. ----- 1-- BUDGET
nun FainM %IAA 1,
.---- 1---,,, %IN& How do we tell our storiPPP
PK.. L.
— .-wililliffillf
,c, •--A .... Fume Know Budget logic Build . .
... ' larlIS Mum. Wt•Understand reuenue scums Relationships
w ......” • .. ... ... .. ... _
-
..•--------- _
..3.Veers el Data 1.614i1 UOV/OHS
— ."°"'"'".""'" •Know your local me01.
. Otti Nen_0,1, unloaded needs One:.
-, •In Commun.La me -,
,n„,, ,,,,, •MRiniElig 011gOing
.rrge with Stale program aim.Jane -
NYCO S.. . Disseminate Facts i°Z.°=1., .-,.21--S58 Million
•MO IMAM prole. 5911810IS-1811theM
T ,,,,,„„*,:: _,.,...., •Special surveys whatvornid011igl
A ' •One on one conversations
x
Property Taxes: Where Does
H .=,.."' the Money Come From?
Key Policy Concerns trmruan
T :,........,florddre impact:i nf aging iennaznink \
ara........
me%an,,, ro6
infrastructure as our oinnoniinanen mature?
Key Municipal Revenue and Expense
Comparisons .Will demonic'commerce
Y '••=7..= be wined inn some es
>&willies rhe(wren,stare-lorni ray . physical transactions? 1:: nnn . ft.ninu
t ructure- ew cred in the 1930s draw Inman ,....pi*,...•.0."
Ii§1:=171=1 st industrial economy-nine,the mode,.
•Cillni economy besei I on knowledge,infornsigion. I =a=
TAX REVIEW -:-.:7L and minim? nlYintlin federal smilax —,-
REALITIES ---" " government continue to
make plane-based
Maliiiiii innesinienn in local
•Political Implication .= ;111IftheSguretegiAmorepruvide communities?
igr;:.)je, Local tra.:1,I
January.,
• INW...i 1, ...111 .al MO..al A ll infficient revenue or ming anthorin.to 040.
•Public Perceptions._, local governments can do what must be
done in ensure economic vinbilio, •:=7:1'.'::::1=';':' lr,===
•Political Philosophy ..,1
•Factual Information
•••-•,.-•••••-• .
wan but Government General fund ....
and
Ca. ........
....
. . .. .. . ..
Cumulative Communities.Revenue History
call Goveriti, ....,_
Revenue Realities :-,„..-- ,:g., "=:•77—
gta?—..2:4—.
za :....................................—..., —,''''•'•;.-. ri.elY", EM.-717-71-:L=_L=.: MI
loilwi r..."---. ..1,211=.•,•":2'.7,-.
0". _• .....
•/:.0*—__. 11111.,'•••...... _ _ ' /
till '•-• 111110' '- 1011.".[ IIIII
'•
oi. a. .... ,••• ea view
.. ....
4 ri ,.:J sm.mx.yourmoneysworth.org
....
H
CD
CD
' CD0 C
CD
n0
p
i D
0
x 0
CD
.44
C
O_
0 N
1 /CD
i
DESERET
• SUNDAY,APRIL 27,200
Morning News Pt,•
,.. Sales-tax Rivalry
.,...,...,.
No new taxes, Utahns say "-..,,..
. frenzy ..
pits 2
.........___._.
tztzt-. teat
„ .......„..... rty-tax s favors big Utah
.,,,,,,,,trtrzt.
h IQ ptope
utal. — __------,-,c21.--"nr:::, I.-,1-,21:5.-.. retailers
,.....,," ,'15,r47,,,,,,",..4v ' ..„.n. cities
ur.,, mi2oa
__;__...,._
tilillercyk.battle
cOMPara°t.° \ ..:
other states
OW." ...,..... By 6:5s, SW..
al.....
.-. '. \ : . . I A 1• "..-'" R a 1 1
..lt"V YAgailiSt •
__
Big•BOx
S
reS jghst rang ending the latest
---- he economie development
-osoltntintnnY t, l ,,..ennwvw`Y.Y 7.-stt—Ylaalr.ttltss lYtilttill: al-Mart CedH ar illtO
to Pr — ,,,,,.,,,u„..,two lamest
TORREY,°TAU " -
•o•,)}I,. 1-r°Posal Tonigh .,
, s„,,LozAr 1,,nine Maio Street." t '''.
IfirMopetation,WO SS:5'you Can ettl-
..
)t Stop Pro
gres s
tents and another 5750.000 in
_
ees.the NAC—a listure in
2. —01450,-,1 jo,,,,, I fr S.ItLak City for 50Years
IV ON ITS LOCATION..
,...v.ti
- F .
Cities Respond to Sluggish Economy D . Stores Vacant gionts moss Utah 6 o little 1
to help the economy,and frusurnic
communities where!hey languish
b Looffrenix City Fiscal Conditions :'a a.'"'"'''.l't`...l IS "a'..all.'Lla!'",..
As the national vasnomy COM i. li:117=:::OZ In(=ICT re1.110'7'1,1:rar;'::[:"1.14i .--,_..._ •
demnward spiral,local,ssters arc Ink, I.-Mi.:said GiLli111.00. aho le,ascd the nesults ot it,ann
drastic 11.14.6 10 ward off acIkiis and -= A panel ofcx,rta convened hy Mr Sun,of City FlacJI CondiUum I
shortfalls that mild fal.mows.in
[I! last monthconcludcd that savcrol favors month.The national mail survey Tax growth,,.,f,„
tax.and scnice ken
0 MI AZL-,hong tat h,kcal and NLIIC tInctcd Oh rvbruarY, I aig WM/M.2000
Inchtedua)
in•••=•-)mro.•••)r)no rflo.oe •City rcvanucs dmppcd by I pcm income
Lvo sin,A an tte CIE,[0411101...... 'e 4,' rk.ing he.h,L.R,co,4nd cuts to to, in comtanl dol,lx.cun 200: •
Soles
oet..in B
corporate
o erso, t°'a te tT ra
.
Saft Lake,t-Nvig
PrOPeny 9.5%
........_........, 7.7%
Ftsei
MET%) THURSDAY,MAY 15,2003
Taut.11111111. 71111111"....i
7.5% growt9.n rote.e
nt•SALT LAME C't •Vit.197:E'll•^, • ,,,,,Y,,,,•SATiOV•/AMU,•At', I,•7.1.0,1510CE•weST insets 4eY
state tiptoes into red ink , 0
2 4 6
8
' PERcENT 10 i2
• • • • 1
c63 53 - cD = C� X CD o _.
Cn NQ � ,, = O
_
O CD CD 0- O 'X ' CC
— CD
-: cnP � o � m � � A) CD
cD CD cn W cD
I CD ( — �- un c . o D
CDco � cn 0) Qm o � ° C
CD CD * A) 0- (cQ CD 2
CD
0' CI) _• ¢�) co (�/) A) 2
CD C 3 X O CD �'D
0 CD
- '{ C0 V) 5 Wm
V?
CD D O n
e3 w O O
-o - c Q O- ° 3
O CD ix
n• 5 -O -A
O CD
_ Q) ''' o -
el
* 0 -% CD
CD `G
V)
O
fD
3
s i-H
5 rh �, 1JJj
CD CD Q CD
s
al
gin' li •• .•
••
•
• • •
*/.., *
O •• ��� • IA
Q r , �• *«• •
o TWOAL. w + •
• S. •••
rt i . • 0 #
•5i • • • •
i
3 I..
• • • • 1
O 0) � �
' O CO CDC
CD CD * O CD X 0)
(/) CD = -ff D 0 -1 *
CD . cD O + 0 CD CD
a ` Cl) 3 m- �
o SDO 0 m (DcQo CD
m o_ � _ CD
D-I'XCDV3n CD -I-0 M cp O 0 0-
n' �, sa -o CD .
a
CD Cl) co
C m a 1
-N
CD M A) D
= C O cD Q Q
CD N :=
CD CD
0
c Cl)
.-+ -
r"* CD
CCDD U)_ CD
Cl) -'
•.r i
•
,rii 1 \ 0
H
r
r CD
,e-- 3
, •
. . . . . . . . . . .
7 11 1 CD CD
N Po 55 O N N CD CD m C 1
X
w CD c Po < Q O iZ O ' Q CD CD CD m
Q O - �, CO CAD •N - h CQ Cn \D
ca p D O & Cn X X
3 X 3 .0 O -g Cn c 5
is m W cn O CD Q O
o SD C 3 =
z w O (2% h O a 3 O Po 5' 5-
° D 0 Cn C
co
O O n Q Cn CD - PO W -1 a
_0 Q < sp 0 CD w CD W —
cn
CD CD '"` <
-, n' Q CCDD X 0 ,- -
- CD CD N Q Q. 3 CD C O
CD O
OCO Ncn
O X C N
N O CD = 0
O CO wCn CD
O a0) Cn
X
• CC•
•
O O X O C 2 0
3 CD 5- O O CD •
O
, O 3 O co = r+
CD
x. p Q A)
A� ,-+- co
-« r1
,G -a O X' ?a+
CD cp O Q O m
CD -0 -0 `V
O
CD O. O
cn
0_
IV ik
P 7 I . cp
A.,
,a.,, It __J
0
ill
(D
‘<
f _F„.
_rik
p
CD
w ill ii irl# A z
1. lel '
441tre .
•
.v'^
. ` r
i
The long term fix
necessary will not be
accomplished by
simply shifting one
tax or another
CO
O �
O
0, c CD C
0
08 D a
N 3
CD '
SX CD
D -'
it;
T '<
_ < �F
m (D � X
v C -
S - CD CD
c x PO
m M
oo. y o 3
0
1 0E-i0 O .
C CD
,t O (n
D' O
N = �+
0
o C7
. * CD
O
O -4%
5.57
•J
CD
e
iv n
o CD
CD
V
0
V
Cn CD
-
CD —
n
0 S.
o p
CD
N N
c L/
0
•
V•
rF
r
C CD
Wo
0
00
. Co,
0
. 1
0
0
0111111,
3
x
CD
r-F J�
•N
CD
ter" S�1
h i
Y
O
CD
o e
N n e-l.
(,) r-i- =
DJ
BCD �- CD
v CD
0
V *
= 0
°
Q CD
0 r+
I w
0
>C
CD
° CD
° -
W n CCDD
s N —.
a)
ea ' PJ CD
41. ,< °
triomcn "0
0 0 r+
m � O
CD -
CD CT
CD
r-i_ rC+
CD� C
C/) CD
"J CD
, L . r 7.1
....__:______ \_. . . , , 41,..,. .,.,,4.,:.:...,...,...,.}.,. .,:.,,,,.;
.. ,
. .
--li14-
,,,..z,
-.--,),-
\1
_... ,
k
(
C
\ii
I R -•,'
0 --....
(i34 51) Of-f. CA *
-N.) .-+: 0 - -•
_. _ _. .......
cn 0 c
=_. -% (D
16
,,....
, , I - IS —h u)
C T a, 9 J
I.
O
,11 m O
° 0�1 OAo ? `G a-- ° R X C^D C
Ri
C ✓
aE C)
CO
0
T M 73 _'
a _ CD
OD
m N N f Q n �� = N D^\
3
` N 3 m O C
w O T!
O 3 V
1 v, n - cp
N g. OjJ
CO X
�cu � 0 O I
.J
W it; 3. N
_ d
Sp, m
CD
n•
* m 3 m O ■ •�
D a m s m W
i° mmg � x
<o _ 2) (D y g 1
M Cr
A S 3 c C 3 /A
Q .yi tin)
y l a) CD
V
m a o 0 co
m
y
Salt Lake City's Story . . .
FY 2002
Core Services Core Revenue
Public Sat_ 70,458.933 Property Tax 57,708,455
Parks &Recreation 15,667,143
Road Construction&Maintenancei 17,065,612 Class C Roads 5,827,748
Total Expenses _ 103,191,688 Total Core Revenue 63 536,203
Deficit 39,655,485 38%
Other Revenue _
Safes Tax 45,620,957
Franchise Tax 22,820,257
Funding for Other Services 28,785,729
0-lls� N W . 01 0) .I CO tv I
x "'Man w 0
UN *
<1 I I 3
XCO
! _
IMMO .
n i4%:
3 ' u)
4, N a)
iY �e, \ c X I I I I \D
`' o
col
o =�- Cn
a1 ��o ,.. .
51)
x funims
s o ; x
2 �4'
X
CD
Cl) 1111.111111.1
CD
x C19
an a
(,, I - -
- x O
tD 1/6111111,1".1
r O
� 3
1y
i �z H z CD
O o
X.
n
H 0 G�,(4
.'S ., _ ,-..
fa- I
rn .„
iik.),,
4
. , / .
...jr. ,,, ,, 1 1----;-- .. .!
•}',}::
Yid•ell':` r k;Q
00,
m a
Q m
_ O CD
0,
...-- it.....iii, r .!.ii,
,,,,,„%
c... .
0 .
, A. . n 0 m-
t..
, 1:4.
. _ _
_. _...
' liii
1
[n
o CD
0
m C1)
o
3 D Cl)�
0
0 rF
0
O
r
2)
5 D.
00
• \`o
2) a
m=+ O
\D
v, CT
CD
Ste.
rf
O
rf
•J
CD
Cn
CD
Ati' ! s'
•
R
--, u
r� K J
cp
T � _,,)
7 CD
IP
11
t n
`t� = o
.4, ' '444.3/4...Vi;
`''; CD CAD
CD
CD
D
E 4, <
L co
�' -A_I'
iu ' ^� = ~ -rT7
rh
a 3 G
o -o
,1 � I o.
;�
III it
r+ po
33 J
o O
0 0
cn
-+ no CD
.A m
a, x
illi
co c
3 d111‘ 7.:
a) _.
II
--•
i-M
•
r..
cn ,, ,� C'
ti •\ - r- =�
X
T
' 1
..• -4:-ig‘ 13
•
•
I i
g m-* ( E.
D -' O C O O ON( Pa C CD O
N(Q - O a OCDa- =+ a p(p O -. CD O �`) (I) CD
-� nCD
• Cl) X O = O
cc o 2 3 CD C � � 2
p' CD a CD .. Cl)
(_p J 0 (n
.J O
Its p.)(1-
1
—i op)
H - � V
CD 0
V 1
•-0
11
Fr
P)
X
ff; 4 fl.,,t
7:4r ft)1,1 Pti.-..
•-1 (i.4 Ill Z
PC1 r--0. (1) = tt
Z. PO Pdli 18 '
41 ' 11'
/11.°11 cri a' Pi =a cA
?) =V. b-i et ra § et.1.-
10 Pr cwt. set 0 EA v.-
e-10.z1 i
0, 5 * AP. tz , . 1-
01 go Ti.-4, I
m r.:','(-3 0.. e.° e
z :: "" Cr II
0
CD CO al
() WO° 05 (1) MI
C 0 rj) Er
I.)
0
t- fInelo (tD t, C)wet e)
I
Pal 743 P' .
IWO a PIO" eD
cil
it'
1
il
, ,
4:. .
l,;.
.v,,,,,.
g
fp. 11
1
r ti;
i 23
00"111 eing", kisei '
VI P-- 0 VI
CO M
i A.41,I/1.f,r.,,,•;,i:,•
$(1-oi,, .e-• chn
et
C•
imp ; M
Si.
,1",,
• SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 31,2003
SUBJECT: Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund loan to the Housing Authority of
Salt Lake City for refinancing the Jefferson Circle Section 8
Preservation project
AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: District 5
STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears,Budget&Policy Analyst
ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT.
AND CONTACT PERSON: Housing and Neighborhood Development,LuAnn Clark
KEY ELEMENTS:
The Administration is proposing that the City Council approve a resolution authorizing the
Mayor to execute a loan agreement and related loan documents with the Housing Authority of
Salt Lake City for a$255,000 loan from the City's Housing Trust Fund.This action would
• facilitate the refinancing of the Jefferson Circle Section 8 Preservation project located at 1750
South Jefferson Circle.The project has 20 two bedroom townhouse units,all of which are rented
to residents at 30% or less of area median income.Average income for residents is$9645 with
the average tenant portion of the rent being$121 per month.The remaining rent is currently
being subsidized by Section 8 monies from HUD.
MATTERS AT ISSUE
OPTIONS:
1. ["I move that the Council"] Adopt the resolution as proposed.
2. ["I move that the Council"] Not adopt the resolution.
➢ POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
The proposed project is consistent with policy statements in the City's 1974 Central City
Community Master Plan,Community Housing Plan,Vision and Strategic Plan,the Futures
Commission report,the 1990 Urban Design Element and other related master plans.
➢ ANALYSIS
The Jefferson Circle project consists of 20 two bedroom townhouse units.This project is being
refinanced with Salt Lake City as the lender-on the first moitgage.HUD will carry the second
mortgage on the project.This project is being refinanced as part of the HUD/Office of
• Multifamily Housing Assistance Restructuring(OMHAR) review.Salt Lake City is now
authorized by HUD as a local lender.There are not any other local lenders authorized to
participate in this type of refinancing.
Page 1
The Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board reviewed this proposal on September 18,2003 and the
transmittal includes the minutes of that meeting. The Poplar Grove Community Council did
not review this project as the use of the project has not changed.
•
> BUDGET RELATED FACTS
The proposed loan from the Housing Trust Fund will be for$255,000 at 5% interest for 30 years.
The U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development and equity from the Housing
Authority of Salt Lake City are also providing funding for this project.The total cost of project
will be$932,013.
The current balance of the Housing Trust Fund is approximately$2,362,922.
cc: Rocky Fluhart,Cindy Gust-Jenson,David Nimkin,Alison Weyher,David Dobbins,
LuAnn Clark,and Sandi Marler
File location: Michael\Staff Reports\Housing Trust Fund
•
•
Page 2
•
Sly", fe @} ' CI j 1 ®i. Y 1 41
1111
- �' 1
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RO5S C. "ROCKY" ANDERSONMAYOR
COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
TO: Rocky Fluhart,Chief Administrative Offigi ( DATE: September 19,2003
FROM: Alison Weyher (\<(.,
RE: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute a loan agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation
and the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City,for the refinancing of the Jefferson Circle Section 8 Preservation
project located at 1750 South Jefferson Circle.
STAFF CONTACT: LuAnn Clark
DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution
BUDGET IMPACT: A loan of$255,000 will be made from the Housing Trust Fund
DISCUSSION: The Housing Authority of Salt Lake City is requesting a$255,000 loan for 30 years at 5%
interest from the City's Housing Trust Fund to refinance a Section 8 Preservation project at the end of its HUD
contract. This project is located at 1750 South Jefferson Circle and consists of 20 two-bedroom townhouse
ID
units. All 20 units are affordable for residents at 30%or less of area median income. The average income of the
residents is $9645 and the average tenant pays$121 per month for rent. HUD's Section 8 program subsidizes
the remainder of the rent.
As part of the HUD/Office of Multifamily Housing Assistance Restructuring(OMHAR)review and fmancial
restructuring process the Housing Authority is required to refinance the first mortgage with a new lender with
HUD carrying a large cash-flow second mortgage. There are no local lenders authorized by HUD to participate
in this type of refinancing. The Housing Authority wanted to deal with a local lender especially because the
project is small and many of the larger out of state institutions would not be interested or would charge higher
fees. They asked HUD to consider approving Salt Lake City as-a local lender. After a conversation with staff
from Housing and Neighborhood Development and our Attorney Office's,HUD approved Salt Lake City as a
local lender. The interest rate on this loan is higher than we usually see for this type of project but it was set
during the restructuring of the deal. Our funds will be leveraged with funding provided by HUD and an equity
investment by the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City. The City will be in first position on the loan and HUD
will only accept payments on the second if there is sufficient cash flow. It is anticipated the total cost of the
project will be$932,013.
On September 18,2003,the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board reviewed this proposal and recommended
approval of a$255,000 loan for 30 years at 5%. Attached please find a copy of the staff report and the minutes
of the September Board meeting. The Board agreed that the project would not need to be reviewed by the
Poplar Grove Community Council since it is not changing the use.
The current balance of the City's Housing Trust Fund is $2,362,922; approval of this loan request and the loan
request for the Jefferson Circle preservation project would leave the fund balance at$2,107,922.
•
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1
TELEPHONE: 801-535-6230 FAX: 801-535-6005
10 RECYCLED PAPER
• RESOLUTION NO. OF 2003
AUTHORIZING A LOAN FROM
SALT LAKE CITY'S HOUSING TRUST FUND
TO THE JEFFERSON CIRCLE SECTION 8 PRESERVATION PROJECT
WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Corporation (the City) has a Housing Trust Fund to
encourage affordable and special needs housing development within the City; and
WHEREAS, the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City, has applied to the City for a
$255,000 loan at 5% over thirty years to refinance the Jefferson Circle Section 8
Preservation project consisting of 20 two-bedroom affordable townhouse units for
residents at 30% or less of area median income located at 1750 South Jefferson Circle
in Salt Lake City, Utah.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
1. It does hereby approve Salt Lake City to enter into a loan agreement with the
Housing Authority of Salt Lake City, for$255,000 at 5% over thirty years from Salt Lake
City's Housing Trust Fund.
2. The Housing Authority of Salt Lake City will use the loan to refinance the
Jefferson Circle Section 8 Preservation project located at 1750 South Jefferson Circle,
II Salt Lake City, Utah.
3. Ross C. Anderson, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, following approval of the
City Attorney, is hereby authorized to execute the requisite loan agreement documents
on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation and to act in accordance with their terms.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of
, 2003. •
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
By:
CHAIR
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM
SALT LAKE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
DATE: Come, Jo03
BY:
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER
0
• EVALUATION
SALT LAKE CITY HOUSING TRUST FUND
Name of Organization: Housing Authority of Salt Lake City (HASLC)
Name of Project: Jefferson Circle
Location of Project: 1750 South Jefferson Circle
Project Description: This project is a 20-unit, two-bedroom Section 8 townhouse project
located at 1750 South Jefferson Circle and is an expiring Section 8 project
owned by the Housing Authority. The Housing Authority has chosen to retain the
subsidy and affordability of the project.
Tenants will range between 30-50% of area median income. Rents will average
$121.00 per month.
Amount and terms requested: $255,000 at 5% for 30 years
Is the entire project eligible for Housing Trust Fund money?
Yes
• Proposed Funding:
1st Mortgage SLC 255,000
2nd Mortgage HUD 643,150
Equity HASLC 33,863
TOTAL: $932,013
Does the requesting agency have sufficient cash flow to repay the loan?
Yes. HUD has committed to that they will always make enough funds available to cover
the first mortgage and any capital repairs required now and in the future.
Does the project have demonstrated community support?
Community Council review is not required since this is not a new construction
project.
Does the requesting agency have a track record of owning, operating and maintaining
this type of housing project?
Yes. Detailed applicant information is included in the application.
Project Strengths:
This project will retain viable, preservation project-based Section 8 housing units
currently at the end of their HUD contract.
SLC will be in a first place position on the loan. The appraisal lists the "as improved"
•
market value of the property at $1,043,00.
Project owner has successfully built, developed, owned and rehabilitated many
affordable housing projects.
The Housing Authority of Salt Lake City currently has several loans with Salt Lake
City and has met all requirements, is current on existing loans and provides required
information in a timely manner.
The project meets priority goals of the Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan to
retain existing affordable housing units.
The project will remain affordable for 30 years.
Project Weaknesses:
Financial information provided is estimated, not actual. Signet, the designated HUD
restructuring partner, however, has stated that HUD will assure there is sufficient
cash flow available to cover the first mortgage and capital repairs. This project is the
first to go through the new and improved restructuring process with the Office of
Multifamily Housing Assistance Restructuring (OMHAR). This project is being
presented at this time since the timeframe will be extremely limited once HUD •
approves the loan and final documents need to be signed.
Board Options
Recommend approval of applicant's loan as requested.
Deny applicant's loan request.
III
HOUSING TRUST FUND ADVISORY BOARD
Meeting of September 18, 2003
The following board members were in attendance: Curtis Anderson, Edward Barbanell, Karen
Cahoon, Daniel Greenwood, Cara Lingstuyl, Kent Moore, Peter Morgan, Geneva Powell and
Richard Tyler. Staff members in attendance were LuAnn Clark, Director of Housing and
Neighborhood Development, Sandi Marler, CD Program Specialist, and Jan Davis,
Administrative Secretary.
Chairperson Kent Moore called the meeting to order at 12:14 p.m.
Briefing on the National Housing Trust Fund
Ms. Linda Hilton of Crossroads Urban Center briefed the Board on the National Housing Trust
Fund (NHTF) Campaign. Ms. Hilton said establishing the NHTF would serve as a source of
funding for new housing, preservation and rehabilitation of existing housing for low income
people. Ms. Hilton said the trust fund monies will be for local non-profits and private entities, not
public housing. Ms. Hilton advised that the money available will come from the Ginnie Mae
escrow account reserves. Ms. Hilton indicated that the current reserve funds are very high and
• are not being used and it would be ideal for the NHTF to acquire them to provide critical housing
needs. Ms. Hilton said local funds will be matched by the NHTF.. If the entity uses state, local
or private revenue, it will receive two federal NHTF dollars for every dollar it provides. With local
controlled federal dollars, it will receive one NHTF dollar for every dollar.
The Board inquired about applying and keeping the funds for rental housing projects and Ms.
Hilton replied the NHTF money goes to the fund, not to a specific project, thus money could be
used for rental housing. Ms. Hilton said the method of distribution of funds to recipients is
uncertain but will probably be managed by an annual grant process.
Ms. Hilton discussed with the Board the coalition of organizations and legislative support
endorsing the NHTF campaign.
Ms. Luann Clark proposed that the Board tentatively make a motion to support the campaign
based upon the mayor and council supporting the National Housing Trust Fund.
Mr. Edward Barbanell motioned to approve the request to endorse the NHTF Campaign subject
to Mayoral and City Council approval. Geneva Powell and Peter Morgan seconded the motion.
All voted "Aye." The motion passed.
Consider a request from the Housing Assistance Management Enterprise, a nonprofit
subsidiary of the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City to construct the Jefferson School
Phase II Apartment project consisting of 42 mixed-income one and two-bedroom units to
be located at 1031 South West Temple.
• Ms. Rosemary Kappes, Executive Director for the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City, and
President of the Housing Development Corporation and the Housing Assistance Management
Enterprise; Kathy Ricci, Finance Manager; and Bill Nighswonger, Development and Facilities
Manager were present to provide details and answer questions pertaining to the project.
Ms. Kappes provided background and experience details to the Board on the Housing Authority •
organization and their two non-profit arms. Ms. Kappes said they were requesting a loan from
the Housing Trust Fund in the amount of$700,000 at three percent interest to be amortized
over thirty years. This project will consist of 60 units, 24 of which will be affordable units for
those whose incomes are at 51% of area median income or less. Ms. Kappes acknowledged
that the loan they were requesting was high for the number of affordable units but added that
she believes further development in the West Temple corridor will enhance viability in the
community, bring stability and increase property values in the neighborhood.
Mr. Bill Nighswonger said that a meeting was scheduled with the Community Council on
October 1 to start the rezoning for this site and he believes they will support this project because
of the Community Council unanimous support of Jefferson School I.
The Board asked why the Housing Authority was approaching the HTF board before securing
the tax credits. Ms. Kappes stated that the tax credit application is in the process but funding
approved by Salt Lake County will be lost if they do not close on this project by the end of the
year.
Peter Morgan stated he was favorable for the project and motioned to approve the loan request
for$700,000 at 3% for 30 years. Richard Tyler seconded the motion. Cara Lingstuyl suggested
an amendment to the motion stating that approval for the loan should be based on the Housing
Authority receiving the tax credits this round.
Discussion followed between the Board and Ms. Kappes regarding the tax credits process. Ms.
Kappes said she believes they will receive the tax credits but is not able to guarantee that it will
be this round.. The Board expressed concern that other funds requested may not be loaned for
the project. Ms. Clark advised that the applicant would then be out of compliance and would
need to return to the Board to discuss their options.
Cara Lingstuyl withdrew her amendment to the motion. All voted "Aye", Cara Lingstuyl
opposed. The motion passed.
Consider a request from the Housing Housing Authority of Salt Lake City to finance a
$255,000 first mortgage on a 20-unit, two bedroom townhouse complex located at 1750
South Jefferson Circle. This is an expiring preservation project-based Section 8 complex
owned by the Housing Authority who has chosen to retain the subsidy and affordability
of the project.
Ms. Rosemary Kappes presented the details on the request to refinance the first mortgage on
the property at 1750 South Jefferson Circle. Ms. Kappes stated that this is a HUD Section 8
Preservation project which is at the end of its 20 year HUD contract and the Housing Authority is
approaching the HTF to refinance the first mortgage. The project consists of 20 two-bedroom
units. The average income of the tenants is $9,645 which is less than 30% of the area median
income. The average rent payment is $121.00 with the remainder of the rent subsidized by
HUD.
Ms. Kathy Ricci, Finance Manager of the Housing Authority, stated that at the end of November
2003, the Housing Authority contract with HUD will expire which will require them to restructure
•
the contract. Ms. Ricci reviewed in detail the HUD restructuring with the Office of Multifamily
Housing Assistance Restructuring (OMHAR) that this project must go through in order to remain
2
' affordable. HUD will carry a second cash flow mortgage that will not need to be paid unless
there is not sufficient cash flow from the project. HUD basically guarantees the first mortgage.
• There are no local lenders authorized by HUD to participate in this type of refinancing. The
Housing Authority wanted to deal with a local lender especially because the project is small and
many of the larger out of state institutions would not be interested or would charge higher fees.
They asked HUD to consider approving Salt Lake City as a local lender. After a conversation
with staff from Housing and Neighborhood Development and our Attorney Office's HUD
approved Salt Lake City as a local lender. The interest rate on this loan is higher than we
usually see for this type of project but it was set during the restructuring of the deal.
Cara Lingstuyl motioned to approve the loan request for$255,000 at 5%for 30 years. Curtis
Anderson seconded the motion. All voted "Aye." The motion passed.
Discuss City housing policies and issues.
Kent Moore requested to postpone City housing discussion until the next Board meeting.
LuAnn Clark stated that the City Council asked for a response in October. The Board and staff
discussed a date in October to meet to conduct the discussion on City housing policies and
October 9 was selected.
LuAnn Clark said that a November meeting will need to be scheduled to discuss HOME
applications and discuss the allocation of the second round of HOME money. It was decided by
the Board and staff to meet November 20.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 1:45.
•
•
3
• SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 31,2003
SUBJECT: Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund loan to the Housing Assistance
Management Enterprise for the Jefferson School Phase II Apartments
AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: District 5
STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears,Budget&Policy Analyst
ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT.
AND CONTACT PERSON: Housing and Neighborhood Development,LuAnn Clark
KEY ELEMENTS:
The Administration is proposing that the City Council approve a resolution authorizing the
Mayor to execute a loan agreement and related loan documents with the Housing Assistance
Management Enterprise,a nonprofit subsidiary of the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City for a
$700,000 loan from the City's Housing Trust Fund.This action would facilitate the construction
411/ of the Jefferson School Phase II Apartment project located at 1031 South West Temple.The
project will have 60 units,24 of which will be market rate units,the remaining 36 units will be
rented to people at 35-50% of area median income.
OPTIONS AND MOTIONS:
1. ["I move that the Council") Adopt the resolution as proposed.
2. ["I move that the Council") Not adopt the resolution.
> POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
The proposed project is consistent with policy statements in the City's 1974 Central City
Community Master Plan,Community Housing Plan,Vision and Strategic Plan,the Futures
Commission report,the 1990 Urban Design Element and other related master plans.
> ANALYSIS
The Jefferson School Phase II Apartment project consists of 60 mixed income one and two
bedroom units 1031 South West Temple.The project developer will set aside 4 units for
homeless transitional persons,physically handicapped and mentally ill persons.All ground
floor units will be visit-able.
The project will consist of twenty-four units at market rate and the remaining 36 units being
priced for renters with 35-50% of area median income. The project financing is based on area
median income rents being between$340 and$619 for the affordable units,depending on
tenant income and unit type. The market units will be between$587 and$860 per month.
The Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board reviewed this proposal on September 18,2003 and
recommended approval of a$700,000 loan for 30 years at 3.0%.The applicant presented this
Page 1
project to the People's Freeway Community Council on October 1,2003 and received support
for this project.
The proposed project site will need to be rezoned to allow construction of this project.The •
rezoning process is underway.Additionally,as part of the City's ordinance on Impact Fees,this
project is exempt for the payment of impact fees.The General Fund will need to cover the
$32,040 exemption.Typically all impact fee exemptions come before the Council during the last
budget amendment of each fiscal year.
The transmittal includes the minutes of the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board July 17,2003
meeting.
> BUDGET RELATED FACTS
The proposed loan from the Housing Trust Fund will be for$700,000 at 3.0% interest for thirty
(30)years.Salt Lake County,Federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credits,and equity from the
Housing Assistance Management Enterprise are also providing funding for this project.The
total cost of project will be$5,248,994.
The Administration is recommending that this loan come from the appropriation from the
Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake to the Housing Trust Fund.The current balance of the
Housing Trust Fund,RDA appropriation is$1,780,798.
cc: Rocky Fluhart,Cindy Gust-Jenson,David Nimkin,Alison Weyher,David Dobbins,
LuAnn Clark,and Sandi Marler
File location: Michael\Staff Reports\Housing Trust Fund
•
Page 2
OCT 2 2 2003
ALISON WEYHER S g� ,�+ " A\a_�'` riy�e.�0�IT� "A 110 ROES C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON
IIIDIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR
COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
TO: Rocky Ftuhart, ief dministrative Office DATE: October 14, 2003
FROM: Alison Weyher € L
RE: A resolution authoriz g the Mayor to e cute a loan agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation
and the Housing Assistance Management Enterpr se, a nonprofit subsidiary of the Housing Authority of Salt
Lake City, for the construction of the Jefferson School Phase II apartment project located at 1031 South West
Temple.
STAFF CONTACT: LuAnn Clark
DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution
BUDGET IMPACT: A$700,000 loan will be made from the Housing Trust Fund. Additionally, under
current city ordinance low-income housing is exempt from the city's development impact fees. The General
Fund will need to cover the$32,040 exemption.
DISCUSSION: The Housing Assistance Management Enterprise(HAME), a nonprofit subsidiary of the
Housing Authority of Salt Lake City, is requesting a $700,000 loan for 30 years at 3% interest from the
Redevelopment Housing Trust Fund to construct Jefferson School Phase II. The project is located at 1031
• South West Temple and will consist of 60 mixed-income one and two-bedroom units. Jefferson School Phase II
will consist of 36 affordable and special needs housing units with the remaining units being market rate. The 36
affordable units will be available for residents between 35-50%with rents ranging from $340 to$619, depending
on the tenants' income and size and type of unit. The rents for the market units will range between$587 and
$860 per month. HAME will set aside four of the affordable units for individuals with special needs.
The loan requested from the Housing Trust Fund will be used for property acquisition and demolitions costs.
These funds will be leveraged with funds provided by a financial institution for the construction loan as well as
Federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, Salt Lake County, and an equity investment by HAME.The City
currently will be in first on the property but will need to subordinate to the construction lender as well as the first
mortgage holder. It is anticipated the total cost of the project will be$5,248,994. The project will remain
affordable for 99 years.
On September 18, 2003,the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board reviewed this proposal and recommended
approval of a$700,000 loan for 30 years at 3%. HAME made adjustments to the mix of the units and the
Housing Trust Fund Board reviewed the request again at its October 9 meeting. The board recommended
approval of the proposed changes. Attached please find a copy of the staff report and the minutes of the board
meetings.
NAME presented this project to the People's Freeway Community Council on October 1, 2003 and received a
positive recommendation for the project as well as the zoning amendment.
We are recommending that funding for this project come from the appropriation from the Redevelopment
Agency to the Housing Trust Fund. The current balance of the RDA appropriation is$1,780,798 and approval of
this loan request will lower it to$1,080,798.
•
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1
TELEPHONE: 801-535-6230 FAX: 801-535-6005
�.3 RECYCLED PAPER
RESOLUTION NO. OF 2003 •
AUTHORIZING A LOAN FROM
SALT LAKE CITY'S HOUSING TRUST FUND
TO THE JEFFERSON SCHOOL APARTMENTS II
WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Corporation (the City) has a Housing Trust Fund to
encourage affordable and special needs housing development within the City; and
WHEREAS, the Housing Assistance Management Enterprise, a nonprofit subsidiary of
the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City, has applied to the City for a $700,000 loan at 3% over
thirty years to construct the Jefferson School Phase II apartment project consisting of 60 mixed-
income one and two bedroom units with approximately 36 affordable housing units for residents
between 35-50% of the area median income to be located at 1031 South West Temple in Salt
Lake City, Utah.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
1. It does hereby approve Salt Lake City to enter into a loan agreement with the
Housing Assistance Management Enterprise, a subsidiary of the Housing Authority of Salt Lake
City, for$700,000 at 3% over thirty years from Salt Lake City's Housing Trust Fund.
2. The Housing Assistance Management Enterprise, will use the loan for construction of
the Jefferson School Phase II Apartment project to be located at 1031 South West Temple, Salt
Lake City, Utah. IIII
3. The loan requested from the Housing Trust Fund will be used for property acquisition
and demolitions costs. These funds will be leveraged with funds provided by a lending
institution for the construction loan as well as Federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, funding
provided by Salt Lake County, and an equity investment by HAME. The City will be in third
position on the loan. It is anticipated the total cost of the project will be $5,248,994.
4. Ross C. Anderson, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, following approval of the City
Attorney, is hereby authorized to execute the requisite loan agreement documents on behalf of
Salt Lake City Corporation and to act in accordance with their terms.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of
, 2003.
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
By:
CHAIR
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM
SALT LAKE CITY ATTORNEY'S FFICE
DATE: / r lY-
BY:
•
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER
• EVALUATION
SALT LAKE CITY HOUSING TRUST FUND
Name of Organization: Housing Assistance Management Enterprise (NAME),
a nonprofit subsidiary of the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City (HASLC)
Name of Project: Jefferson School Phase II Apartments
Location of Project: 1031 South West Temple
Project Description: This project is a new construction project that will be
comprised of 60 mixed-income one and two-bedroom units with 36 affordable
units, four units for special needs population, and 24 market rate units. All
ground floor units will be accessible.
AMI Targets: Rents:
4 units at 35% (1 bdrm/1 bath) $340.00
14 units at 50% (1 bdrm/lbath) $521.00
12 units at 50% (2 bdrm/1 bath) $619.00
6 units at 50% (2 bdrm/2bath) $619.00
One unit will be set aside for the mentally ill, one unit will be set aside as a
homeless transitional unit, and two units will be wheelchair accessible.
•
The applicant is requesting funding for property acquisition and demolition of an
existing, unsightly warehouse located on the site.
Amount and terms requested: $700,000 at 3% for 30 years
Is the entire project eligible for Housing Trust Fund money?
No. 36 units are eligible for HTF funding.
Are the funds leveraged with non-government dollars?
Yes
Proposed Funding:
Equity Tax Credits $ 1,950,000
1st Mortgage To be selected 2,021,182
2nd Mortgage SLC 700,000
SL County 200,000
HASLC 377,812
TOTAL: $ 5,248,994
Does the requesting agency have sufficient cash flow to repay the loan?
• Yes.
1
ti
Does the project have demonstrated community support?
•
HAME presented this project to the People's Freeway Community Council on
October 1, 2003 and received a positive recommendation for the project as
well as the zoning amendment.
Does the requesting agency have a track record of owning, operating and
maintaining this type of housing project?
Yes. A list of completed projects is included in the application.
Project Strengths:
The project will strengthen the residential component of this community and
help revitalize the neighborhood. This project is adjacent to a redevelopment
target area with the goal of putting more market rate housing in the
neighborhood.
Project owner has successfully built, developed, owned and rehabilitated
similar projects.
The Housing Authority of Salt Lake City currently has several loans with Salt
Lake City and has met all requirements, is current on existing loans and
provides required information in a timely manner.
HAME has previously owned and managed tax credit properties. •
The project meets priority goals of the Salt Lake City Community Housing
Plan to increase the number of affordable housing units for lower income and
special needs populations.
The project will remain affordable for 99 years.
Project Weaknesses:
No formal appraisal or market study submitted because the developer does
not own the property at this time. An appraisal and a market study will be
needed for the tax credit application. The Housing Authority's project next
door, the Jefferson School Apartments Phase I, is 98% rented.
Higher loan request than is typical for the number of affordable units. This
neighborhood, however, will benefit more from a mixed-income project than
from a project offering a higher number of affordable units.
Capital replacement reserves at $200 per unit/per year are below the State of
Utah Safe Harbor Schedule of$300 per unit/per year. Since this is a new
construction project, the $200 may be adequate.
•
2
Board Options:
Recommend approval of applicant's loan as requested.
Deny applicant's loan request.
•
•
3
•
HOUSING TRUST FUND ADVISORY BOARD
Meeting of September 18, 2003
The following board members were in attendance: Curtis Anderson, Edward Barbanell, Karen
Cahoon, Daniel Greenwood, Cara Lingstuyl, Kent Moore, Peter Morgan, Geneva Powell and
Richard Tyler. Staff members in attendance were LuAnn Clark, Director of Housing and
Neighborhood Development, Sandi Marler, CD Program Specialist, and Jan Davis,
Administrative Secretary.
Chairperson Kent Moore called the meeting to order at 12:14 p.m.
Briefing on the National Housing Trust Fund
Ms. Linda Hilton of Crossroads Urban Center briefed the Board on the National Housing Trust
Fund (NHTF) Campaign. Ms. Hilton said establishing the NHTF would serve as a source of
funding for new housing, preservation and rehabilitation of existing housing for low income
people. Ms. Hilton said the trust fund monies will be for local non-profits and private entities, not
public housing. Ms. Hilton advised that the money available will come from the Ginnie Mae
escrow account reserves. Ms. Hilton indicated that the current reserve funds are very high and
are not being used and it would be ideal for the NHTF to acquire them to provide critical housing
needs. Ms. Hilton said local funds will be matched by the NHTF.. If the entity uses state, local •
or private revenue, it will receive two federal NHTF dollars for every dollar it provides. With local
controlled federal dollars, it will receive one NHTF dollar for every dollar.
The Board inquired about applying and keeping the funds for rental housing projects and Ms.
Hilton replied the NHTF money goes to the fund, not to a specific project, thus money could be
used for rental housing. Ms. Hilton said the method of distribution of funds to recipients is
uncertain but will probably be managed by an annual grant process.
Ms. Hilton discussed with the Board the coalition of organizations and legislative support
endorsing the NHTF campaign.
Ms. Luann Clark proposed that the Board tentatively make a motion to support the campaign
based upon the mayor and council supporting the National Housing Trust Fund.
Mr. Edward Barbanell motioned to approve the request to endorse the NHTF Campaign subject
to Mayoral and City Council approval. Geneva Powell and Peter Morgan seconded the motion.
All voted "Aye." The motion passed.
Consider a request from the Housing Assistance Management Enterprise, a nonprofit
subsidiary of the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City to construct the Jefferson School
Phase II Apartment project consisting of 42 mixed-income one and two-bedroom units to
be located at 1031 South West Temple.
41
Ms. Rosemary Kappes, Executive Director for the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City, and
President of the Housing Development Corporation and the Housing Assistance Management
r
Enterprise; Kathy Ricci, Finance Manager; and Bill Nighswonger, Development and Facilities
Manager were present to provide details and answer questions pertaining to the project.
iMs. Kappes provided background and experience details to the Board on the Housing Authority
organization and their two non-profit arms. Ms. Kappes said they were requesting a loan from
the Housing Trust Fund in the amount of$700,000 at three percent interest to be amortized
over thirty years. This project will consist of 60 units, 24 of which will be affordable units for
those whose incomes are at 51% of area median income or less. Ms. Kappes acknowledged
that the loan they were requesting was high for the number of affordable units but added that
she believes further development in the West Temple corridor will enhance viability in the
community, bring stability and increase property values in the neighborhood.
Mr. Bill Nighswonger said that a meeting was scheduled with the Community Council on
October 1 to start the rezoning for this site and he believes they will support this project because
of the Community Council unanimous support of Jefferson School I.
The Board asked why the Housing Authority was approaching the HTF board before securing
the tax credits. Ms. Kappes stated that the tax credit application is in the process but funding
approved by Salt Lake County will be lost if they do not close on this project by the end of the
year.
Peter Morgan stated he was favorable for the project and motioned to approve the loan request
for$700,000 at 3% for 30 years. Richard Tyler seconded the motion. Cara Lingstuyl suggested
an amendment to the motion stating that approval for the loan should be based on the Housing
Authority receiving the tax credits this round.
• Discussion followed between the Board and Ms. Kappes regarding the tax credits process. Ms.
Kappes said she believes they will receive the tax credits but is not able to guarantee that it will
be this round.. The Board expressed concern that other funds requested may not be loaned for
the project. Ms. Clark advised that the applicant would then be out of compliance and would
need to return to the Board to discuss their options.
Cara Lingstuyl withdrew her amendment to the motion. All voted "Aye", Cara Lingstuyl
opposed. The motion passed.
Consider a request from the Housing Housing Authority of Salt Lake City to finance a
$255,000 first mortgage on a 20-unit, two bedroom townhouse complex located at 1750
South Jefferson Circle. This is an expiring preservation project-based Section 8 complex
owned by the Housing Authority who has chosen to retain the subsidy and affordability
of the project.
Ms. Rosemary Kappes presented the details on the request to refinance the first mortgage on
the property at 1750 South Jefferson Circle. Ms. Kappes stated that this is a HUD Section 8
Preservation project which is at the end of its 20 year HUD contract and the Housing Authority is
approaching the HTF to refinance the first mortgage. The project consists of 20 two-bedroom
units. The average income of the tenants is $9,645 which is less than 30% of the area median
income. The average rent payment is $121.00 with the remainder of the rent subsidized by
HUD.
Ms. Kathy Ricci, Finance Manager of the Housing Authority, stated that at the end of November
2003, the Housing Authority contract with HUD will expire which will require them to restructure
• the contract. Ms. Ricci reviewed in detail the HUD restructuring with the Office of Multifamily
Housing Assistance Restructuring (OMHAR) that this project must go through in order to remain
2
affordable. HUD will carry a second cash flow mortgage that will not need to be paid unless
there is not sufficient cash flow from the project. HUD basically guarantees the first mortgage.
There are no local lenders authorized by HUD to participate in this type of refinancing. The •
Housing Authority wanted to deal with a local lender especially because the project is small and
many of the larger out of state institutions would not be interested or would charge higher fees.
They asked HUD to consider approving Salt Lake City as a local lender. After a conversation
with staff from Housing and Neighborhood Development and our Attorney Office's HUD
approved Salt Lake City as a local lender. The interest rate on this loan is higher than we
usually see for this type of project but it was set during the restructuring of the deal.
Cara Lingstuyl motioned to approve the loan request for$255,000 at 5% for 30 years. Curtis
Anderson seconded the motion. All voted "Aye." The motion passed.
Discuss City housing policies and issues.
Kent Moore requested to postpone City housing discussion until the next Board meeting.
LuAnn Clark stated that the City Council asked for a response in October. The Board and staff
discussed a date in October to meet to conduct the discussion on City housing policies and
October 9 was selected.
LuAnn Clark said that a November meeting will need to be scheduled to discuss HOME
applications and discuss the allocation of the second round of HOME money. It was decided by
the Board and staff to meet November 20.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 1:45.
•
S
3
• MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 4,2003
SUBJECT: A-Frame sign issue
FROM: Cindy Gust-Jenson
The Administration has forwarded the Planning Commission's recommendation on the portable sign
ordinance. The Council adopted a moratorium on enforcement and established a set of interim
regulations which will expire on November 13, 2003. In order to minimize the amount of time
between the expiration and formal consideration of the proposal,we have advertised a hearing for
November 18. This hearing can be cancelled should the Council want to hold it at a later date.
As you will recall, allowing these signs in the public right-of-way and establishing the conditions was
a complex legal matter due to free speech considerations. The City clearly has the authority to prohibit
use of the public way for commercial purposes,but if the City does allow use of the public way for
signage, the content cannot be regulated by the City.
. The Administration's transmittal outlines the key issues raised at the Planning Commission, including
the potential to create a cluttered streetscape and the free speech protections that limit the ability of the
City to regulate the placement of portable political signs.
The ordinance allows portable signs to be displayed during the hours of 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. in certain
zoning districts(see page 2 of the draft ordinance). The maximum size is four feet high and three feet
wide. No illumination or attached decorations is allowed. Unobstructed sidewalk space must be at
least four feet in all areas except the Central Business District where it must be at least six feet. The
ordinance also indicates that a portable sign may not be placed in any location that would obstruct any
ADA accessible feature. As with the temporary regulation,the draft ordinance does not require a
permit, or proof of insurance.
While the Planning Commission recommended support of this ordinance, they also recommended that
the Planning staff continue to work on provisions to augment the portable sign regulations,particularly
the way-finding program and devices to provide identification for businesses and eliminate the
potential for sign clutter. They directed staff to prepare recommendations for review by the Planning
Commission by November 15,2004.
One option to address the concerns that have been raised about this ordinance is the potential for the
City to sponsor a 'way-finding' signage system that business owners could participate in. This
approach would give the City the design control and additional opportunities to consider`time,place
and manner' regulations. An example of a way-finding program sponsored by a governmental entity
• and participated in by private business is the freeway signs designating specific restaurants and other
services that are available at particular exits. Again, the City would control the design of any way-
finding program it elected to establish.
1
ALISON WEYHERS ` , t�a2 vl II�,��E��t 1111 ROSS C. "ROCKY"ANDERSON
DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR
•
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
TO: Rocky Fluhart, C 'ef Adm. istrative Officer Date: October 27, 2003
FROM: Alison Weyher
RE: Petition 400-03-26: A Petition by e Salt Lake City Administration
requesting to amend the text of the sign regulations found in Chapter 21A.46
of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance by creating regulations for portable
signs in certain districts
STAFF CONTACTS: Joel Paterson, Senior Planner(535-6141)
e-mail: joel.paterson@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
BUDGET IMPACT: None
• DISCUSSION: Petition 400-03-26 is a request by the Salt Lake City
Administration requesting to amend the text of the Chapter 21A.46 (Signs) of the Salt
Lake City Zoning Ordinance by creating regulations for portable signs in certain districts.
ISSUE ORIGIN: In May, 2003, the City Council enacted temporary zoning regulations for
portable signs on City-owned right-of-way(sidewalk or park strip) in certain zoning
districts. The Administration proposed these regulations to encourage and facilitate
additional retail activity in the City. Under State law,temporary regulations may be
enacted for a period of six months. The existing temporary portable sign regulations
expire on November 13, 2003.
PUBLIC PROCESS: The Planning Division mailed notice of the proposed text amendment
to all the Community Council chairs,Downtown Alliance/Chamber of Commerce,
Downtown Merchants Association,Vest Pocket Business Coalition and the Business
Advisory Board. Staff received no comments,correspondence or other type of
communication from any of these organizations.
During the Planning Commission public hearing on October 22, 2003, the Commission
raised the following concerns:
1. There is potential to create a cluttered streetscape because there is no limit on the
number of portable signs or design standards to create an aesthetically
• coordinated system of directional signage;
4DI UUIM SIAIt SI Kit l, KUUM 4U4,SALI LAKt L:IIY, UTAM I74I I I
TELEPHONE:801-535-6230 FAX:SDI-535-6005
�� nem�co r.Pen
2. Free speech protections limit the ability of the City to regulate the placement of
portable political signs.
Mindful of November 13,2003 expiration of the existing temporary portable sign
•
regulations, the Planning Commission acknowledged the importance of codifying the
portable sign regulations at this time to ensure that merchants would be able to continue
the use of portable signs without interruption.
After closing the public hearing,the Planning Commission recommended that the City
Council adopt an ordinance to amend the text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.46 to
allow portable signs as proposed by Petition 400-03-26.
The Planning Commission further recommended that Staff continue to work on
provisions to augment the portable sign regulations and submit any needed revisions or
refinements to these regulations to the Planning Commission by November 15, 2004.
The proposed ordinance is attached as Exhibit 2. Draft minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting on October 22, 2003, are attached as Exhibit 5c of this transmittal.
Staff will forward the official minutes when approved by the Planning Commission
following its meeting on November12,2003.
CITY COUNCIL POLICY AND MASTER PLAN CONSIDERATIONS: The Urban Design
Element encourages signage that provides ample opportunities for business to advertise
products and services without having a detrimental effect upon the community.
Guidelines for signs include: Require signs within a view corridor to be low profile and •
preferably mounted parallel to the building surface. Encourage sign design as an integral
part of the design of buildings and developments.
RELEVANT ORDINANCES: Salt Lake City Code section 21A.50.050 Standards for
General Amendments(see Exhibit 5B,Planning Commission Staff Report to review the
relevant findings).
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. CHRONOLOGY
2. PROPOSED ORDINANCE
3. CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE
4. MAILING LABELS
5. PLANNING COMMISSION
a. Hearing Notice and Postmark
b. Staff Report
c. Agendas/Minutes
6. ORIGINAL PETITION
•
Transmittal of Petition 400-03-26
•
•
Exhibit 1
CHRONOLOGY
•
Transmittal of Petition 400-03-26
• CHRONOLOGY
PETITION 400-03-26
By the Salt Lake City Administration
October 6, 2003 Petition assigned to Joel Paterson, Senior Planner
October 7, 2003 Notice of this hearing was sent to all the Community
Council chairs,Downtown Alliance/Chamber of
Commerce,Downtown Merchants Association, Vest
Pocket Business Coalition and the Business Advisory
Board.
October 22, 2003 Planning Commission public hearing.
•
•
Transmittal of Petition 400-03-26
•
•
Exhibit 2
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
•
Transmittal of Petition 400-03-26
• SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. of 2003
(Amending the City Zoning Code to allow for
portable signs in certain zoning districts)
AN ORDNANCE AMENDING THE CITY ZONING CODE TO ALLOW FOR
PORTABLE SIGNS IN CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICTS.
WHEREAS, on May 13, 2003, the Salt Lake City Council adopted Ordinance No.
26 of 2003 enacting temporary zoning regulations for portable signs in certain zoning
districts; and
WHEREAS, on September 10, 2003, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 65
of 2003 amending the prior ordinance; and
WHEREAS, after having held public hearings before the Planning Commission
and the City Council, the City Council desires to amend the City's zoning ordinance to
• make the display of portable signs, as authorized in the temporary zoning regulation,
permanent; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed amendments are
in the best interest of the City;
NOW, THEREFORE,be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah:
SECTION 1. Section 21A.46.030.1 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and
hereby is amended to read as follows:
I. Permission Required for Signs and Marques on or Over Public
Right of Way: Except for portable signs authorized pursuant to section
21A.46.055 below, signs, marques and other structures encroaching on or
over the public sidewalk or on or over a public right of way shall obtain
permission from the City pursuant to the City's right of way encroachment
policy.
•
SECTION 2. Section 21A.46.040.N of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and
hereby is enacted to read as follows: •
N. Portable Signs: Portable signs as authorized pursuant to Section
21A.46.055 below.
SECTION 3. Section 21A.46.055 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby
is enacted to read as follows:
21A.46.055 Temporary Portable Signs.
Pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in this ordinance,portable
signs shall be allowed on public property in Residential Business (RB),
Residential Mixed Use(RMU),Neighborhood Commercial (CN),
Community Business (CB), Community Shopping(CS), Commercial
Corridor(CC), Sugar House Business(CSHBD), General Commercial
(CG), Light Manufacturing(Ml),Heavy Manufacturing(M2), Central
Business District(Dl),Downtown Support(D2),Downtown
Warehouse/Residential (D3),Downtown Secondary Central Business
District(D4), Gateway-Mixed Use(GMU)and Business Park(BP)zoning
districts. Such portable signs may only be displayed during the hours of
8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. During other periods all such portable signs must •
be removed.
A. Size: The maximum size of such portable signs shall not exceed
four feet (4)in height and three feet(3')in width on a sidewalk.
Illumination and other attached decorations or objects on such signs are
prohibited.
B. Location: Within the zoning districts identified above, any person
may display a free standing portable sign on the City owned right of way
(sidewalk or park strip). Signs may not be attached to any utility poles,
traffic signs,newsracks or any other item or fixture in the public way. The
usable sidewalk space must remain unobstructed. Unobstructed sidewalk
space must be at least four feet(4')in all areas except the Central Business
District where it must be at least six feet(6'). In addition, any portable
sign may not be placed in any location that would obstruct any ADA
accessible feature.
C. Construction: All portable signs must be built so as to be
reasonably stable and to withstand expected wind and other weather
elements.
2
•
SECTION 4. Section 21A.46.070.K of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and
hereby is amended to read as follows:
K. Signs on Public Property: Except for portable signs authorized
pursuant to Section 21A.46.055 above, no sign shall be located on
publicly owned land or inside street rights of way, except signs
erected by permission of an authorized public agency.
SECTON 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date
of its first publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah, this day of
, 2003.
CHAIRPERSON
• ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on
Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed.
ROSS C.ANDERSON
MAYOR
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. of 2003. -. to -z3- 03
Published:
• G:\Ordinance 03\Amending Code to allow for portable signs-Clean-Oct 16,2003.doe I,,,�
3 `/ j
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. of 2003 •
(Amending the City Zoning Code to allow for
portable signs in certain zoning districts)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY ZONING CODE TO ALLOW FOR
PORTABLE SIGNS IN CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICTS.
WHEREAS, on May 13, 2003, the Salt Lake City Council adopted Ordinance No.
26 of 2003 enacting temporary zoning regulations for portable signs in certain zoning
districts; and
WHEREAS, on September 10, 2003, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 65
of 2003 amending the prior ordinance; and
WHEREAS, after having held public hearings before the Planning Commission
and the City Council, the City Council desires to amend the City's zoning ordinance to
make the display of portable signs, as authorized in the temporary zoning regulation, ID
permanent; and
WHEREAS,the City Council has determined that the proposed amendments are
in the best interest of the City;
NOW,THEREFORE,be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah:
SECTION 1. Section 21A.46.030.I of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and
hereby is amended to read as follows:
I. Permission Required for Signs and Marques on or Over Public
Right of Way: Except for portable signs authorized pursuant to section
21A.46.055 below, signs,marques and other structures encroaching on or
over the public sidewalk or on or over a public right of way shall obtain
permission from the City pursuant to the City's right of way encroachment
policy.
SECTION 2. Section 21A.46.040.N of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and
• hereby is enacted to read as follows:
N. Portable Signs: Portable signs as authorized pursuant to Section
21A.46.055 below.
SECTION 3. Section 21A.46.055 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby
is enacted to read as follows:
21A.46.055 Temporary Portable Signs.
Pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in this ordinance,portable
signs shall be allowed on public property in Residential Business (RB).,
Residential Mixed Use (RMU),Neighborhood Commercial (CN),
Community Business (CB), Community Shopping(CS), Commercial
Corridor(CC), Sugar House Business (CSHBD), General Commercial
(CG), Light Manufacturing(M1),Heavy Manufacturing(M2), Central
Business District (D1), Downtown Support (D2), Downtown
Warehouse/Residential (D3),Downtown Secondary Central Business
District (D4), Gateway-Mixed Use(GMU) and Business Park(BP)zoning
• districts. Such portable signs may only be displayed during the hours of
8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. During other periods all such portable signs must
be removed.
A. Size: The maximum size of such portable signs shall not exceed
four feet(4') in height and three feet(3') in width on a sidewalk.
Illumination and other attached decorations or objects on such signs are
prohibited.
B. Location: Within the zoning districts identified above, any person
may display a free standing portable sign on the City owned right of way
(sidewalk or park strip). Signs may not be attached to any utility poles.,
traffic signs,newsracks or any other item or fixture in the public way. The
usable sidewalk space must remain unobstructed. Unobstructed sidewalk
space must be at least four feet (4) in all areas except the Central Business
District where it must be at least six feet(6'). In addition, any portable
sign may not be placed in any location that would obstruct any ADA
accessible feature.
C. Construction: All portable signs must be built so as to be
reasonably stable and to withstand expected wind and other weather
elements.
•
2
•
SECTION 4. Section 21A.46.070.K of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and
hereby is amended to read as follows:
K. Signs on Public Property: Except for portable signs authorized
pursuant to Section 21A.46.055 above.,no sign shall be located on
publicly owned land or inside street rights of way, except signs
erected by permission of an authorized public agency.
SECTON 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date
of its first publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,this day of
, 2003.
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: •
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on
Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed.
ROSS C.ANDERSON
MAYOR
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. of 2003.
Published:
G:\Ordinance 03\Amending Code to allow for portable signs-Oct 16,2003.doc •
3
•
•
Exhibit 3
CITY COUNCIL
HEARING NOTICE
•
Transmittal of Petition 400-03-26
•
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council will hold a public hearing and consider adopting an ordinance
to amend the text of Chapter 21A.46 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance by creating
regulations for portable signs in certain districts
The City Council will hold a public hearing:
Date:
Time: 7:00 p.m.
Place: Room 315 (City Council Chambers)
Salt Lake City and County Building
• 451 S. State Street
Salt Lake City,UT
*Please enter the building from the east side*
You are invited to attend this hearing, ask questions or provide input concerning the topic
listed above. If you have any questions, contact Joel Paterson at 535-6141 between the
hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., or send e-mail to joel.paterson@slcgov.com
We comply with all ADA guidelines. Accessible parking and entrance are located on the
east side of the building. Hearing impaired who wish to attend the above meeting should
contact Salt Lake City's TDD service number at 535-6021, a minimum of four days in
advance so that an interpreter can be provided.
Transmittal of Petition 400-03-26
•
•
Exhibit 4
MAILING LABELS
•
Transmittal of Petition 400-03-26
. Wynn Johnson Katherine Gardner Ana Archuleta
GREATER AVENUES CAPITOL HILL CENTRAL CITY
852 Northcliffe Drive 606 De Soto Street 204 E Herbert Avenue
Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
"'Catherine New Jeff Davis Chris Viavant
LIBERTY WELLS PEOPLES FREEWAY RIO GRANDE
P.O. Box#521744 1407 South Richards Street 404 South 400 West
Salt Lake City, Utah 84152-1744 Salt Lake City,Utah 84115 Salt Lake City, Utah84101-2201
Dave Mortensen Ellen Reddick
ARCADIA HEIGHTS/BENCHMARK BONNEVILLE HILLS
2278 Signal Point Circle 2177 Roosevelt Ave FOOTHILL/SUNNYSIDE
Salt Lake City, Utah 84109 Salt Lake City,Utah 84108 Vacant
Shawn McMillen Mike Zuhl Paul Tavler
H ROCK INDIAN HILLS OAK HILLS
1855 South 2600 Fast 2676 Comanche Dr. 1165 Oakhills Way
Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 Salt Lake City,Utah 84108
Doug Foxley Jeffrey Mullins Tim Dee
ST. MARY'S SUNNYSIDE EAST ASSOC. SUNSET OAKS
1449 Devonshire Dr. 873 S.Woodruff Way 1575 Devonshire Dr.
Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 Salt Lake City, Utah 84108
�Beth Bowman Kenneth L. Neal Tom Bonacci
VASATCH HOLLOW ROSE PARK YALECREST
1445 E.Harrison Ave. 1071 North Topaz Dr. 1024 South 1500 East
Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 Salt Lake City, Utah 84105
Carol Goode Boris Kurz Angie Vorher
EAST CENTRAL EAST LIBERTY PARK JORDAN MEADOWS
823 South 1000 East 1203 South 900 East. 1988 Sir James Dr.
Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 - Salt Lake City, Utah 84116
John Storrs Jilene Whitby Kadee Nielson
POPLAR GROVE STATE FAIRPARK WESTPOINTE
1028 West 500 South 846 W 400 N. 1410 N.Baroness Place.
Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 Salt Lake City, Utah 84116
Helen Peters Jesse Draper -�
SUGAR HOUSE WEST SALT LAKE -o.e.-lt (C V o -i
2803 Beverly Street 863 Fremont Ave_
2f-f50 6 La4n bcAvrrV4{
Salt Lake City, Utah 84106 Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 LC j Lt,T i,06
b Roert Farrington
Updated September 25, 2003 g �� �R �'Yg v�
JC Downtown Alliance f75 E. 400 S. Ste. 600 �37 5• sfz, S/ vty,
SLC, UT 84111 SLC, err y)J/
®09i5 JoJ ale1dwal as fl
w jslaa4S paai yloows
Tony Caputo Mary Corporon Gregory Gruber
Tony Caputo Market and Deli Corporon and Williams McDonalds Restaurants
308 West 300 South 808 E South Temple 8318 S Ridge Point Road
Salt Lake City,Utah 84101 Salt Lake City,Utah 84102 Sandy,Utah 84093 •
Rebecca Guevara Peter Caroon Peggy Lander
Art House Graphic Studio Vest Pocket Business Coalition Richter 7
182 South 600 East 444 South 700 East 280 South 400 West#200
Salt Lake City,Utah 84102 Salt Lake City,Utah 84102 Salt Lake City,Utah 84101
Ylanda Sanchez Carol Diblee
Arts Place Downtown Merchants Association
do 553 Garn Way 9 E Exchange Place, 9th Floor
Salt Lake City,Utah 84104 Salt Lake City,Utah 84111
•
•
Exhibit 5
PLANNING COMMISSION
•
Transmittal of Petition 400-03-26
•
Exhibit 5a
PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARING NOTICE
AND POSTMARK•
Transmittal of Petition 400-03-26
A. LOUIS ZUNGUZE it__�a_U�GA ORI�� [ ROSS C.ANDERSON
PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR
• BRENT B.WILDE PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION
DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR
DOUGLAS L.WHEELWRIGHT, AICP
DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR
October 7, 2003
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Planning Commission has received Petition 400-03-26,by the Salt
Lake City Administration to amend Chapter 21A.46 Signs to allow portable signs in
certain zoning districts.
The Planning Commission will hold an informal hearing to accept public comment on:
October 22, 2003
Salt Lake City County Building
451 South State Street
Room 326
6:30 P.M.
Since it is very difficult for us to inform all interested parties about this request, we
would appreciate you discussing this matter with your neighbors and informing them of
the hearing. If you are the owner of rental properties, please inform your tenants of this
meeting.
If you have any questions on this issue, please call Joel Paterson (535-6141). Copies of
the staff report are available at the Planning Division Office after 5:00 P.M the Friday
before the public hearing. The Planning Division is located in the City & County
Building,451 South State Street,Room 406.
Respectfully,
y,`
oel Paterson,AICP
Senior Planner
We comply with all ADA guidelines.
Assistive listening devices and interpreter services provided upon 24-hour advance request.
•
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406,SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1
TELEPHONE:801-535-7757 FAX:801-535-6174
:: RECYCLED PAPER
A. LOUIS ZUNGUZE .�� lilkle v JI emeRimmANi ROSS C.ANDERSON
PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR
BRENT B.WILDE PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION
DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR •
DOUGLAS L.WHEELWRIGHT,AICP
DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR
October 7, 2003
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Planning Commission has received Petition 400-03-26,by the Salt
Lake City Administration to amend Chapter 21A.46 Signs to allow portable signs in
certain zoning districts.
The Planning Commission will hold an informal hearing to accept public comment on:
October 22, 2003
Salt Lake City County Building
451 South State Street
Room 326 •
6:30 P.M.
Since it is very difficult for us to inform all interested parties about this request, we
would appreciate you discussing this matter with your neighbors and informing them of
the hearing. If you are the owner of rental properties, please inform your tenants of this
meeting. _
If you have any questions on this issue, please call Joel Paterson (535-6141). Copies of
the staff report are available at the Planning Division Office after 5:00 P.M the Friday
before the public hearing. The Planning Division is located in the City & County
Building,451 South State Street,Room 406.
Respectfully, _
oel Paterson,AICP
Senior Planner
We comply with all ADA guidelines.
Assistive listening devices and interpreter services provided upon 24-hour advance request.
•
451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 406,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH B41 1 1
TELEPHONE:801-535-7757 FAX:801-535-61 74
:. EnOLEO.A.EIe
11/-
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Salt Lake City Planning Division
k :14:riTAGE,*;
Attn: Joel Paterson A.!
451 S. State Street, Room 406 /
fjCiqra3 n 7
Salt Lake City,UT 84111 1.‘44z1
•
Lf.z- I
•
•
Exhibit 5b
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
•
Transmittal of Petition 400-03-26
DATE: October 17,2003
•
TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission
FROM: Joel G. Paterson,AICP
Senior Planner
Telephone: 535-6141
E-mail: joel.paterson@slcgov.com
RE: Staff Report for the October 22, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting
CASE NUMBER: 400-03-26
APPLICANT: Salt Lake City Administration
• STATUS OF APPLICANT: Salt Lake City Administration
PROJECT LOCATION: The proposed text amendment will affect the
placement of portable temporary signs in the following zoning districts: Residential
Business(RB),Residential Mixed Use(RMU),Neighborhood Commercial (CN),
Community Business(CB), Community Shopping(CS), Commercial Corridor(CC),
Sugar House Business(CSHBD), General Commercial (CG), Light Manufacturing(M-
1), Heavy Manufacturing(M-2),Central Business district(D-1),Downtown Support(D-
2), Downtown Warehouse/Residential(D-3),Downtown Secondary Central Business
District(D-4), Gateway-Mixed Use (G-MU) and Business Park(BP).
COUNCIL DISTRICT: District 1, Council Member Christensen
District 2, Council Member Turner
District 3, Council Member Jergensen
District 4, Council Member Saxton
District 5, Council Member Remington Love
District 6, Council Member Buhler
District 7, Council Member Lambert
•
Planning Commission Staff Report
Petition 400-03-26 —1—
REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant is requesting to amend the text of the Chapter
21A.46 Signs of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance by creating regulations for portable
signs in certain districts(see the list of affected zoning districts listed above). •
PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT: The proposed text amendment is an
extension of a temporary measure adopted by the City Council to allow portable signs in
the public right-of-way. The signs must be freestanding and may not be attached to any
pole or public furniture. Size limitations apply. A minimum clear walking area must be
maintained.
APPLICABLE LAND USE REGULATIONS:
Chapter 21A.46 Signs
Purpose: The regulations of this chapter are intended to:
1. Eliminate potential hazards to motorists and pedestrians by requiring that
signs are designed, constructed, installed and maintained in a manner that
promotes the public health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of Salt
Lake City;
2. Encourage signs which, by their good design, are integrated with and
harmonious to the buildings and sites, including landscaping,which they
occupy;
3. Encourage sign legibility through the elimination of excessive and confusing •
sign displays;
4. Preserve and improve the appearance of the city as a place in which to live
and to work, and create an attraction to nonresidents to come to visit or trade;
5. Allow each individual business to clearly identify itself and the nature of its
business in such a manner as to become the hallmark of the business which
will create a distinctive appearance and also enhance the city's character;
6. Safeguard and enhance property values; and _
7. Protect public and private investment in buildings and open space.
Prior to the enactment of the temporary regulations, Salt Lake City did not
permit portable signs on public property.
MASTER PLAN SPECIFICATIONS: The Urban Design Element encourages signage
that provides ample opportunities for business to advertise products and services without
having a detrimental effect upon the community. Guidelines for signs include: Require
signs within a view corridor to be low profile and preferably mounted parallel to the
building surface. Encourage sign design as an integral part of the design of buildings and
developments.
SUBJECT HISTORY: In May, 2003, acting on a request by the City Administration,
the City Council enacted temporary zoning regulations for portable signs on City-owned •
Planning Commission Staff Report
Petition 400-03-26 —2—
right-of-way(sidewalk or park strip)in certain zoning district to encourage and facilitate
• additional retail activity in the City and to promote such activities. Under State law,
temporary regulations may be enacted for a period of six month and the existing
temporary regulations will expire on November 13, 2003. The proposed text amendment
will codify the portable sign standards to ensure continuous on-going regulation of these
signs.
COMMENTS,ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
1. COMMENTS:
Community Council: Notice of this hearing was sent to all the Community Council
chairs,Downtown Alliance/Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Merchants
Association,Vest Pocket Business Coalition and the Business Advisory Board. No
comments,correspondence or other type of communication has been received by
Staff from any of these organizations.
2. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
A decision to amend the text of the zoning ordinance or the zoning map is a matter
committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council and is not controlled by
any one standard. However, in making its decision concerning a proposed
• amendment,the Planning Commission and the City Council must consider the
following factors:
21A.50.050 Standards for General Amendments
A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals,
objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City.
Discussion: The Urban Design Element calls for signage policies that allow
ample advertising without having a detrimental effect upon the City. Some other
cities allow a-frame and portable signs on a limited basis,but there is a broad
range of associated regulations from distance limitations to outright prohibitions.
Other alternatives to portable signs include the development of an aesthetically
coordinated directional signage system to provide information without clutter.
For example: many rapidly growing cities in the Palm Springs area have
directional signage at major intersections to direct potential home buyers to new
subdivisions. These signs are coordinated by the City to be aesthetically uniform,
but open to all developers. This eliminates the need for multiple off-premise signs
at each intersection. The City of Midway,Utah uses small directional signs,
similar to street signs but different in color,to direct traffic to resorts within the
community.
•
Planning Commission Staff Report
Petition 400-03-26 —3—
The existing way-finding signage system in Salt Lake City could be modified to
accept directional signage to individual businesses. This could be done with an
associated fee to maintain and keep the system current. •
Findings: A-frame and other portable signs may provide for short-term or
limited business needs,but there remains a demand for a long-term directional
signage system.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character
of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property.
Discussion: The use of A-frame signs and other signs in the public right-of-way
has been prohibited since the early 1970's largely because they had resulted in a
cluttered and confusing streetscape. Because the right-of-way is public,concerns
over First Amendment issues regarding regulating content are heightened. For
example,political and personal speech is generally protected more than
commercial speech, therefore if commercial speech(store advertising)is allowed;
it is difficult to regulate other forms of speech. These concerns, in part,resulted
in the prohibition of advertising in the right-of-way.
Conversely,the use of portable signs has provided many small businesses with
visibility. The signs generally respond to a pedestrian scale and provide some
variety to the sidewalk.
Findings: The use of portable signs may have a positive effect on immediately •
adjacent business but also run the potential for clutter and abuse.
C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent
properties.
Discussion: One of the reasons advertising in the public right of way was
prohibited in the 1970's was because of the tendency to place advertising signs
for a business in front of a competing business. There is no location requirements
associated with proposed ordinance.
Findings: There is a potential for abuse of the portable signs,which would have
negative effect on adjacent land uses.
D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any
applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards.
Discussion: Portable signs may or may not be consistent with historic districts.
Because portable signs are not permanent or attached to historic structures, they
would not be subject to Historic Landmark review. Other overlay districts(South
State Street, Groundwater Source Protection, etc.) are not affected by the
ordinance.
Planning Commission Staff Report
Petition 400-03-26 —4—
• Findings: Overlay districts are not affected by the proposed zoning amendment.
E. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject
property, including but not limited to roadways,parks and recreational
facilities, police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems,
water supplies, and waste water and refuse collection.
Discussion: The proposed regulation requires that the portable signs not
interfere with pedestrian traffic. A 4 foot pedestrian pathway must be maintained
on all sidewalks, except Downtown where it is 6 feet. Because the signs are
portable,they are easily removable if they are incorrectly placed.
Findings: The proposed zoning amendment does not affect public facilities and
services.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the analysis and the findings presented in this
report, the Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive
recommendation to the City Council to approve Petition 400-03-26 to amend the zoning
ordinance text to allow portable signs.
The Staff also recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation
• that the issue of portable signs be considered a temporary or limited remedy until the
administration devises a more aesthetically coordinated system of directional signage.
Attachments:
1. Proposed Ordinance.
2. Photographs of A-frame signs that are in use as of October 2003.
Planning Commission Staff Report
Petition 400-03-26 —5—
•
•
ATTACHMENT 1
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
Planning Commission Staff Report
Petition 400-03-26
Draft
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
• No. of 2003
(Amending the City Zoning Code to allow for
portable signs in certain zoning districts)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY ZONING CODE TO ALLOW FOR
PORTABLE SIGNS IN CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICTS.
WHEREAS, on May 13, 2003,the Salt Lake City Council adopted Ordinance No.
26 of 2003 enacting temporary zoning regulations for portable signs in certain zoning
districts; and
WHEREAS, on September 10, 2003, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 65
of 2003 amending the prior ordinance; and
WHEREAS, after having held public hearings before the Planning Commission
and the City Council,the City Council desires to amend the City's zoning ordinance to
• make the display of portable signs, as authorized in the temporary zoning regulation,
peiuianent; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed amendments are
in the best interest of the City;
NOW, THEREFORE,be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah:
SECTION 1. Section 21A.46.030.I of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and
hereby is amended to read as follows:
I. Permission Required for Signs and Marques on or Over Public
Right of Way: Except for portable signs authorized pursuant to section
21A.46.055 below, signs,marques and other structures encroaching on or
over the public sidewalk or on or over a public right of way shall obtain
permission from the City pursuant to the City's right of way encroachment
policy.
•
SECTION 2. Section 21A.46.040.N of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and
hereby is enacted to read as follows: •
N. Portable Signs: Portable signs as authorized pursuant to Section
21 A.46.055 below.
SECTION 3. Section 21A.46.055 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby
is enacted to read as follows:
21A.46.055 Temporary Portable Signs.
Pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in this ordinance, portable
signs shall be allowed on public property in Residential Business (RB),
Residential Mixed Use (RMU),Neighborhood Commercial (CN).
Community Business (CB), Community Shopping(CS), Commercial
Corridor(CC), Sugar House Business(CSHBD), General Commercial
(CG), Light Manufacturing(Ml),Heavy Manufacturing (M2), Central
Business District (D1), Downtown Support(D2),Downtown
Warehouse/Residential (D3), Downtown Secondary Central Business
District(D4), Gateway-Mixed Use(GMU) and Business Park(BP)zoning
districts. Such portable signs may only be displayed during the hours of
8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. During other periods all such portable suns must ID
removed.
A. Size: The maximum size of such portable signs shall not exceed
four feet(4') in height and three feet (3') in width on a sidewalk.
IIlumination and other attached decorations or objects on such signs are
prohibited.
B. Location: Within the zoning districts identified above? any person
may display a free standing portable sign on the City owned right of way
(sidewalk or park strip). Signs may not be attached to any utility poles,
traffic signs,newsracks or any other item or fixture in the public way. The
usable sidewalk space must remain unobstructed. Unobstructed sidewalk
space must be at least four feet(4')in all areas except the Central Business
District where it must be at least six feet(6'). In addition, any portable
sign may not be placed in any location that would obstruct any
handicapped feature.
C. Construction: All portable signs must be built so as to be
reasonably stable and to withstand expected wind and other weather
elements.
2
• SECTION 4. Section 21A.46.070.K of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and
hereby is amended to read as follows:
K. Signs on Public Property: Except for portable sims authorized
pursuant to Section 21A.46.055 above, no sign shall be located on
publicly owned land or inside street rights of way, except signs
erected by peunission of an authorized public agency.
SECTON 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date
of its first publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,this day of
, 2003.
CHAIRPERSON
• ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on
Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. -
ROSS C. ANDERSON
MAYOR
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. of 2003.
Published:
G'Ordinance 03W tim ding Code to allow for portable signs-Oct 16,2003.doc
3
•
•
ATTACHMENT 2
Photographs
0
Planning Commission Staff Report
Petition 400-03-26
... . " ' y' - „ . . ' li: -, E, _Ott►.£
'°""'�o+>aQa�.."_. 4 ' ;', __ yx=ieT y,xt. - .
g.
•
r'� Din a�tt,b- .,: .; -•,.. ; a".a"f,.:11 M., '.,�. �-r.�. -a,,,,
ee}} }�,{ma`yy 4 µa`1t -`=' ,;. ,-;4,, .,-.-,.,
Q'J�fJe .il.,R_k -...r�`r `t1• t _ q�• :y<� .-4F.'f:5I
_ _ _
8 ,o5 :
M/'4":,:`. tsy ..: ="4
• W ,,
R'�s`v ,X'k.`;•'Kea ��<«
v'.y',.J2--as=' -N>.:�€w :ti n"S.sSk'^`.,- _- c�ce,xz:.s x'}"''.
" `•.:a?.,.a�r = .': ,",.,'19Y, w=". ,_<•— d-;4.-:' 4 :xsy_f5'-:�.,s ,£,
- , f
i . .,,..7.,,j
.. — - ,,,_._,,,it,,,,,,,,,,,_"'�. : ue•-- b.<..:.? .>�,` ;:..<c,.,a"'�,.'_.'n.,.4,-_ jy • `' R`�'�':-i-:;
_ tau �. > <' ,&e�-�-e - '.=��='': _ •_e.-`s - r.. •^..2.;1 i t
Altxc-s'
_
~ 'il:, R
1r •4'- '
4- .hg .
, , :..,£YS.K 95>:.,-nce'i�+p^x��:.. �. _ -..l '<' --yw� 3. &.^:'s_.k' c}
• w
; i t r is :'; '
Nar
'S•k'o". , •:>,rc'�yt..:as.,:Y-;.<�c .cEy:•aC"Y -.: -
% s�rsx ,, ,- sE :te y C a . " n�SX-"_�-.
;-, a "T�tt -t A°r -T _'��i4}� �,? ; Y�_ 4,0�. <:. �> :Ar_ + 0- 1 A�--- 5�' Fx .-
_.. ' sY : S,wXk c. ! � . '' l . ` � $ e r ° .�.+ €> - 2� -*<--s = ;...; .3` . ! �,
I"nac- -:`�k `� ".�> c, Fb. '.Rx%yam1.=.$�_�• _ '^^' -. Ms2s v`i �.i-. ;fi{ -" ,0.?;;°t`' >, _ sf£. g r :,is"S. ro£ E 'r _ o�-' x .;�s'� ,. ,-: l: p >�i. ^ ' -
113,
;? ''-';-,,,":"..!Xtt.-"-z-1-44.4;Vt.g'-';,t;')0,*( '.';.':.?' ,€:'f'''...;''''1;ktVXG-, -;-,-":,''.!1;VV.::'.. -R14`:', '''-' ;'i
AAx,, -* -. A_ . s'. - -,. 7:' :o,f,'' - - 4 - -T'i;: ups -
;.
r
3
2
ri
t
�� - - i>y -§S�<"E->�.')t. „• 4. b.>h. "
-_ 'sty\ ,-s � » ':;,, ;; .e''%s'�"+i' '"''n '•y '�<.;a:d m-ItY-
q r' ..# F '�fi;'3. » Y,'``e'i. :maFj:e4 - _ ...'',=1::r ,..c,A.:{,'`•�: ''.'-.L
."` �sa...�s,?,>T7," ,, F a e£ C'.,,,. 'K,.`8'.>, .,..„,,-.,•, ,....-.Stiff. s_`
� �+7---' ;i' ?�s:`� -�; ��- �.a' x "£� -"-a-a•. �3D� '-`a="^i n'z'�c;�;�`;-- ��k.� Y• �g. '!
_Jg. .V- .''-`4' F,,.,-N.yT.;:"<, -�8` -,. Tf'°.Z' y�3:::a� «$.a' $
,-`-ir9'° P, _' z�r.a [ 7 i_
ry3 ' A '.,. *,,,, 1''fqw` _=''*`` » u, " z �; , -:" , 1-, S'a_:C�3 ,?,;ems, _ ,a '/ J Ej
- ; � <`. 'biF' r - ' _ _ s 'r ,n ` ' Gti'a e: s d " ? r c �.,- . £;R >
.._..0$Y%:.ti;,,,,,,iy2: s , b
i
t-_
is ';., < J$
you;_»'' ; ^
:
u -
- -ram --' VA,
V.,, _- -
,
< I
_,..F� Cap,' �"' _ _ in _ ,�
$ -c.: 71
¢&, __ r:.!Ya _:L ... -%' _ .1. '€'_
_$ '� Yil,Teii_� - :te. ' - - z:Y i _,, ' i 1
' '- -:: ' =ri,-.;,-,-; =. : - ,i
�:4X; sa
,,. ,. ...,_... ,.._..,,._.. ....,,,,..,. . ,„., .. , . _ _ . , , . ..„, _
.,
.r.„..:,,,,:,,i,:z.. ..,,:,..7 ..4. .:7#,- - -------,,,,,,,,-1--;,--;;,..
y �P
3..E ..< .,:,':_ , . .
� - - ,. ., . .
<`�.,. ....._-,.-r...-.-. ...> - .
:?s. ,.7�T ,'.t1'^ . d'.'> _ - -_ aaa4ti ��idd
i
v-.' fv
^-' )• 7 '�'F �€ �^ice- ^a:!,s r'`>,,`>�,�
,
{
ii j"` _ , rim.•x - _ - -
”41
_ k
t'.
'
_ ‘,44.--,:„..:.i.....;1,-.,,...1'' . ,.:-. «-.. > -_ t-`,<` _.._..- _
d�� ^':fin. f
j
1 �VI
r�
I t
3�
;Ay;
) s
sa&
M.#
_eta>� _
t�.
- - rif - fit'
z Y
;-Cn
`max" �}-:7-
'
i
3 • •.�.: is r id. .
--,:ii,r -" i—7. . ,
,.i � .$-•� t. .;f. }'fir., - -
. <`_ use:. i T °- i
-
�. .: gym-
r ` s.<
F-s ,�p
_ �r fw t< ��
� s�t
- rX, .:i'i'- i f ai —
P`,a c a�
NY�,> j 1¢'.. ,r r i2 ;"?Yt�.7'sSa` •'t?fi4§.=°`� $` 1 _ _ $ rr ',
•53- ,n 4',k _ 7t ^a :t y4Y>Ty'G. P� fir x _°' E
H'''S���`�t 'ram � '�-" � � e. �si? ' _ _ � �
41
"'> .is '� _ fi'� - --
gs� - 3 fp,
! (tS k-= si s g_i=_ q°:i/,"v,,�z '";.d,t <,. a ..: _ _ ".. :..
��. a ^"`:�<"�'"��'-:'o�r�.t<�n=.sy t-1.- t ,,,,
i{� t�J - ;��,�{ r'.��A 5, `.n
j,'',.s.- ,fir.':', .`r.. � FF,m-x
v . � — ��''- �, _ max';. 'v�~ `: ^"
V >'$i .<3a�'SA3';. - FTis �{ ... ,4.:.' Sp':5:, '
F ��S��'�
'
r
<
3
Lz _ -
,, Y'
4 3'` x
A
„rya._ '� _ _
x'Sh {nC
^`sue� s"..
A� — yri
y
s...
t.
_E2 1 �-
�^t - —xf �i-ir
x} sy�<--.�:1rE fii�
r F
- .f
- ya
�Ti:
ti t..
1 "'e..'.'".3> >:. .: . , a., . "tYA �,£. ��P r'f"",.-.^.: -..Y- �tR++Y.3^Cn <.'�" :-,�.
e
6��: -
Y
G 3`'�is ' � � ?S.»Y- 'y
z�a
- ma's� I4 :�
'��^ YY _
`may �, �
C Y - v .
t' .:
..k> , x E �z-V-«:_^ i.g.4,-, R ,. .+,.�`,;.. ', z' rat^. _
,qa § }.stw 'W�..ts`,n3.,1�,_,.+L".--p'�3.�,�F..�� ,x',:"'>'` i x �^ ���'S��>"�
i
`
•
.�+.xre.asrx.x r?�1r .' ?>::`z,eu,� _ a: ",k_:
4.
14
....--, /
ass€5` ,, °if ax ': _i_� : .-r 5.--, _'3 F z 'r':;£c ,•;; -.S
<=, ..
--:,,.....-1 --
...„,„=4„.„4,1==_444,,k..:„._ ,
rig`>;f, 414 '
;t"&.`` £,;* ;i,-,,:3,,,.( .> -moo-:,
=> is, €t 3
yr .. ,<.,t �-lv ! R .jr tig�T !{ #S Sj s: .ss• r �` -...>` - - �yg ' < < _ _ Y� `�. r*-
.(i�;;.N- ''T-o '•y>Tt.-'- hm _': +j: S,c.e 'eaa`T.. - S�.'.. �•�<
^.ze.Ea6k' - -.`^-F• - yam
r:fr . I `� B" fir;
.
-�.`; ate•_`" r t-di 'x
_!II k ' ' - .. ,.. .. :a ;te � _V= r ,; a ,:v tj„F' : '_ - _(eY ;st_f < € x
:„.L:4.441 r=',.-',
- ^ # ., d_. ... - F%S <,Y.''< �; t7' sTF%fZ � 'S
_ F _ - ,} gg is _ 3�Zagi'e
.... _ _ '.. '"3:> :P" ? ra41:.4-1ys w�:
Pi
'b' =Sn.
t S
-sue; rI--4.`: e.
' `b� - 7 fir.-. - -
c.
.ems . .E '�" ;'- -i"i ',s;;s.. .; f4 ( „ y:,3,.
4
y-f _ • - �Y �_ - ii
• ,- -
..._„
...„...:,....,..:. . ,.... _
r,:_., s_ •, .... : 4,•-,-to-g- fs,:s.t.,,jei.-,;:,-',7•.-,:.-• - ,
st<:, 4:gip ;* > r FATS. ;
is � � - -�-�;� Oc 'gt $ - ; : :
149
-,-[ ,6 iff .. ,L • t�F : - ff,';'., I "` 3 - ,"• -- '-_ a?mow'" tl::
.:,:i:
> - ;,�fir- :4,.r' : _ .-- -- .
•
4,4
` =_ _R. f
[< ^' ..s:¢'-'4,..e.'w,y..�'.. ,£ t. L 7�
P.Yv__,`. ,in` . $ F3s-: �u l,r _ ' ' _ #yy�E ; < ,.:.Y :}S. P" :�°i. y ,,
,."5..`^ ,..+,'f4 - > ' - ` - f P` !;-i s ` $ .r
s.
_, - k . 1; t'' :: t`.I ?!..,s�3' t`' _ r....-,.:._ a ', z,. .",xg-•=#W6.,i' , '''' <E
*k "s; = 1 �t '"` "`:ry _I:�r`.. .<i :ray ;4- -—
-,,X-'''' . t. 1 _ �k..'�-': -�.Y. .,� r�-„vs,,----
.:. .ram-f 4=ri:" _.., ,{.�,5 , ," _ _ � } "a`
!-E',:sr's.„-' 'A— • llt.0.4, 1--!-1..kr,.-:,!1 A
EAR . y.4> �i t. `%
,
p'Y,s
v k
3 r�
.
.yc: i v _
—
•
� .Y- Z 1 g '�=`�. 1�'v .�t r�-, , ,W 6j . ,�„ ;�, �
:j _ .„.—
a gat>f ,r�-."- '�- , ��.
. - --. , . ma ,F. :_:r "r 3�: a`
:fit`" 1
d
` -_ ! =ice
" ' � '
.om
tdtL 31..3M','Cf - `,� C �
-- " .£. ,- _ - 3i , ., , Ito- e v. ;� -
,'.'., � ,: • °max-:_ .; ..,C' - '' '',r k '. S _a 'y ' fyw.SR: ..` a +,'-T
•
,rt
. A
y.
-c•` c
"`i- aye-,,.ii -
':Fi
- _ _ _ "F,y�-
�{r
3� k. ��
3`
x
°asY.g;,„•w fi, ",' '.,<-
3
rmk
>:' w # ,:y-uV_ 3„ s: ��tip s mo c --ws�Af� Il�- 2%<
.._w 4-1 4N t`=i Z
'- ° ems'` :,,. y�2 ' Ya, g + t ,'_ _ _°
-.-.5-<?/ ..-_. _' -
:`=?gin - 3.� .--'7":,
-_I•", ffi�,;_-.at '2 - '.`a^,;r. ``a..'' ltvgyr -
E'` bs
- �.b v
:j
f�.
�:,:�"$�'� „ v'a.,1. _ ,4, �e.: 'zr:,<3�, vu�ars• -
=':' ;fig.,,,_ _ - _ ��; 4 .�_ aF R.�a <'"% ,>' ,,:�&
- - - - � ;irk �t:.}--,..�-"`�i :� a�Tt -�`;� �_
S L
' 'f {`- ", b#. ,;'.:�. - .-..,,,^'V:- ', s'<b ,,, :?'>ems' 'yc.� -
%.:,, r"Rc--t= ,-,,,,.-s - 'z 9 k Y 4 L%7=: •6.'s.- ., -t,-.,,,,', rt '.: _
` ;_fir. ... # �' i
- -� _<� 2 } 'a,,. _�3--;::�'�ems=
<p
s3 ., - `d : , :, =,: ray 7 a
-1A-"' `_ tom's' ';._ 4._ ,-,21 _ lk
... Y- " °-' 'j
�_ •- `..'a �4, - ",y�` _ 4. i"'';'+sue -'r - <, (f.
•
77 }'n
:.':,''. ; xz, .t''t; - ,,^'s ,tV�isa .-,;i: K::i� €. � -<�.�� s,t u4:.:�_ .;Y:
1L-'''''''''7:-':
.j_��..e. g.
,c:,;.om- _ Yt� his
. 2'r:. a i' x ; ti,z Yf,, x - ; .
_ - �.i w, .z� ,-', Y<yp u^`v._. V' •i' Sty, , ifi. $i, ' `,„..% C.A. `.l nt:'-
'+ >� -. ' _ ' a,.. st 'bp�ss • , x �� :''`
I - v � ,"�.,�M1�r'': _ Y o TX .`6 r`z's '� '_CF'' 4 ^Rft _„4
F•;_ , 3..?T3 .. `5 < •`' S `_Z "']'�," r ;1Y. mod':
"' � '.' _F_:'> o '�r.;a. :'e ,fir s,- z.: =h.IL.* ; y-:r
:Ss
x 4. w �
, -, go u _..,
_- ....,...•, ..;_ -'4 _ 4 =i',-;s --'ts} J. ' t -r , -lam ;„ -:€ n:.'a 'a-t_ yi�$,' _l,p, ,
_ l r r J. as k _�` 4tv r:
A.E.-) .�'`§ • _'rp '",,,,'^A',Y/le., .�.
` - - 5:=i.,stie�.+° '-{ e-sib"- - ,:.' � „ _ �s
_ 1 r __
<< a
R i
6F` ++�Y. vH _ T __ _ - _- _ ,- -
_ _:
.tee'°'_« _ , T':`:
.ry �v
" - 3
2 ::s
`
'3 .3 ' _ mow. i .
_ I E,
` ' 'im
a
, ,' zit?4 ..
_ _ - _ r--
F
3
` x P,_ m Ill
K 9� S
t
I .■IMIIII11�!
•
:� :� -
•
•
•
Exhibit 5c
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDAS/MINUTES __
•
Transmittal of Petition 400-03-26
•
NOTE: The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m.
AGENDA FOR THE
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 326 of the City & County Building at 451 South State Street
• Wednesday, October 22, 2003, at 5:45 p.m.
The Planning Commission will be having dinner at 5:00 p.m., in Room 126. During the dinner,
Staff may share planning information with the Planning Commission. This portion of the meeting
will be open to the public.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Wednesday, October 8, 2003
2. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:00 p.m. — Petition No. 400-03-18, by the Salt Lake City Planning
Commission, requesting staff to analyze the appropriateness of amending the Northwest
Community Master Plan to identify the properties on the northeast section of the
intersection of 700 North and Redwood Road, as commercial rather than low density
residential. The properties include those between 726 and 766 North and Redwood Road
and the properties between 1612 and 1640 West 700 North.
(Staff— Cheri Coffey at 535-6188)
• b. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:30 p.m. — Petition No. 400-03-26, by Salt Lake City Administration
to amend Chapter 21A.46 of the zoning ordinance, to allow portable signs in certain zoning
districts. (Staff—Joel Paterson at 535-6141 or joel.patersonlaa slcgov.com)
c. PUBLIC HEARING at 7:00 p.m. — Petition No. 400-03-21, by the Salt Lake City Planning
Commission, requesting to amend the Salt Lake City zoning map, by changing the zoning of
the property located at 622, 624 and 626 South 1100 East from Institutional (I)to Single-
and Two-family (R-2) Residential. (Staff—Joel Paterson at 535-6141 or
joel.paterson(o�slcgov.com)
4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Salt Lake City Corporation complies with all ADA guidelines. If you are planning to attend the public meeting and,due to a
disability,need assistance in understanding or participating in the meeting,please notify the City 48 hours in advance of the
meeting and we will try to provide whatever assistance may be required. Please call 535-7757 for assistance.
• PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES AND PAGERS BEFORE THE MEETING BEGINS. AT YOUR
REQUEST A SECURITY ESCORT WILL BE PROVIDED TO ACCOMPANY YOU TO YOUR CAR AFTER
THE MEETING. THANK YOU.
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT•PLANNING DIVISION•451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 406•SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111
TELEPHONE:801-535-7757•FAX 801-535-6174
DRAFT
Petition No. 400-03-26, by Salt Lake City Administration to amend Chapter
• 21A.46 of the zoning ordinance, to allow portable signs in certain zoning
districts.
This hearing began at 6:48 p.m.
Senior Planner Joel Paterson presented the petition as written in the staff report.
He stated that earlier this year the Administration approached the City Council
and requested that they adopt temporary regulations that would allow portable
signs to be placed in the public right-of-way. In May of this year the City Council
adopted those temporary regulations. Under State law the temporary regulations
are enacted for a period of not more then six months and our regulations will
expire on November 13, 2003. This petition is intended to codify those
regulations in the zoning ordinance to ensure the continuous regulation of the
portable signs. The definition of a portable sign is a free standing sign located in
the public right-of-way, which is defined as the sidewalk or park strip. Portable
signs can be a maximum of 4-feet high and 3-feet wide. A portable sign must
provide adequate space for pedestrian movement, which is no less than 6-feet in
the Downtown area and 4-feet throughout the rest of the City. Portable signs can
not obstruct ADA required features. Mr. Paterson said that many other Cities
throughout the country allow portable signs; however, the regulations vary widely
from out right prohibition to spacing or distance requirements. Portable signs
have been prohibited in Salt Lake City since the early 1970's, due to concerns
• that the portable signs would contribute to a cluttered streetscape, and there
were no regulations for placing a sign in front of a competing business. He noted
that the current petition does not provide those kinds of regulations at this time.
As the location of portable signs is proposed to be in the public right-of-way,
there are concerns with first amendment rights. It is very difficult to regulate the
content of signs. If this petition is approved, a wider range of signs is anticipated
because the City does not regulate the content of a sign. The Administration
believes that portable signs have provided many small businesses with additional
visibility and contribute to the pedestrian scale and streetscape. Based on the
analysis and the findings presented in the staff report, the Staff recommends that
the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council
to approve Petition 400-03-26 to amend the zoning ordinance text to allow
portable signs. The Staff also recommends that the Planning Commission
forward a recommendation that the issue of portable signs be considered a
temporary or limited remedy until the administration devises a more aesthetically
coordinated system of directional signage.
Commissioner Scott referred to the aesthetically and coordinated system of
directional signage, and asked if that is a current project. Mr. Zunguze answered
that it is a current project that is still being worked on. To develop such a system;
the City or business community would need to sponsor such a program. He said
that there is a lot more work and negotiation that needs to take place. Staff did
• not have adequate time to get all of that done before the moratorium lapses. He
SLC Planning Commission Minutes 1 October 22, 2003
DRAFT
said that the proposal before the Commission has been in force for the last six
months and the City has not seen the negative elements that were anticipated. •
He said that Staff is working to address the number of signs a business could
potentially have. He expects that only the businesses that are concerned with
the need to advertise will bother with portable signs. Those businesses are
predominantly in the Downtown area.
Commissioner Scott worried that a majority of signs in the Downtown area are
advertising signs rather than directional signs.
Mr. Zunguze said that it is difficult to tell a directional sign from an advertising
sign, because most do both. He said that ultimately the City does not want to
regulate the content of a sign. It is time; place and manner issues that the City
intends to address.
Chair Jonas asked for the City Attorney's view on this issue.
Mr. Boyd Ferguson, Assistant City Attorney, stated that if there is going to be a
directional sign program it will constitute government speech, which is a new and
difficult area of the law. The purpose of this petition is to enliven Downtown and
help the retailers. The City Council feared that the area may become overrun
with political signs if portable signs were allowed. He said that he advised them
that if portable signs are allowed the City can not regulate the content of a sign.
He said that the current petition is a good temporary solution. •
Commissioner Seelig said that she appreciates the notion of wanting to do it
right. She also recognizes some of the concerns that have been raised
particularly about the competing businesses. She asked if it is possible to attach
a sunset date to the petition to ensure that the Commission would see this again.
Mr. Ferguson answered that that is certainly legal.
Commissioner Seelig referred to section 3, item B, under the proposed language
in the staff report, the last sentence "in addition any portable sign may not be
placed in any location that would obstruct any handicapped feature." She asked
for clarification by including ADA acceptable language.
Commissioner McDonough offered that the language be changed to read "ADA
accessible feature". Commissioner Seelig accepted that.
Chair Jonas asked if the City could regulate the number of signs in an area. He
referred to the Mall and the large number of tenants. He said that conceivably
with the current ordinance every Mall tenant could place portable signs in the
public right-of-way.
Mr. Ferguson answered that that is a time, place and manner issue which the
City can regulate. He asked the Commission how they propose to regulate the •
SLC Planning Commission Minutes 2 October 22,2003
DRAFT
number of portable signs, for example if the limitation was three signs per block
• face and there are five businesses on the block face. Would the limitation be on
a first come first served basis.
Mr. Zunguze stated that, that is one of the challenges Staff is currently
addressing. He noted that Staff has had the benefit of experience with this issue
because it has been in place for the past six months. He reiterated that there
have not been as many abuses as Staff initially anticipated.
Chair Jonas said that the amount of portable signs is probably not going to
increase based on the approval of this petition.
Mr. Zunguze said he is concerned with attaching a sunset date to this petition
because it may amount to a second moratorium.
Mr. Ferguson said that it would not be a moratorium if the sunset date were
longer than six months.
Commissioner Seelig said that her intent with the sunset date is that the issue of
the number of signs allowed would be addressed.
Commissioner Scott offered the scenario of a conditional use or nonconforming
use business using a portable sign and she asked if that business would be in
• violation because they are not in one of the prescribed areas. Mr. Paterson
answered that that is correct; the ordinance just allows portable signs in specific
zones.
Commissioner Chambless was concerned that the Downtown area would be
overrun with political signs. Mr. Ferguson answered that was expected to be the
case for the past six months but it did not materialize.
Commissioner Daniels asked if this proposal encompasses the sandwich boards
that people actually wear and walk around the street to advertise. Mr. Zunguze
answered that that is a free speech issue and the City does not regulate that
currently.
Commissioner Diamond asked how the appropriate timeline should be
determined for the sunset date.
Commissioner Seelig said that she recognizes that there are many issues with
this ordinance and she also appreciates the Administration's effort to study the
proposal further. That is why she suggested the sunset date should be six
months.
Mr. Ferguson said that that may look like another moratorium.
SLC Planning Commission Minutes 3 October 22, 2003
DRAFT
Mr. Zunguze suggested that the Commission send a separate recommendation
to City Council that would say that the Commission would like Staff to address •
the remaining issues by whatever date the Commission decides, as long as it is
longer than six months to avoid the impression of a second moratorium.
Mr. Ferguson said that City Council has done that on other ordinances and the
Attorney's Office takes that as clear direction that they need to work closely with
Staff to get the associated issues addressed.
Commissioner Chambless suggested that the Commission set the date for the
second week in November after the election.
Commissioner Scott said that she thought the original regulations were a
temporary measure to allow time for Staff to make a priority and carry out the
execution of a coordinated directional system. She asked if this is how we want
our City to look in the long term.
Chair Jonas clarified that the original regulations were a test to study if portable
signs could be beneficial to merchants. He said that the Administration has
decided according to the test, that this has worked in an orderly fashion and that
they want to go forward with a longer term solution. The Administration is not
prepared to present that solution at this point so they would like to extend the
temporary solutions to further study the issues.
Commissioner McDonough clarified that the solution that would go beyond this •
proposal would come back as an amendment to this petition and therefore an
ordinance.
Mr. Zunguze said that Staff would be augmenting this ordinance to take away the
potential for abuses discussed tonight, regarding the numbers of portable signs
that should be allowed.
Commissioner McDonough felt that it is reasonable for the Commission to ask for
an appropriate date to see the final language and the results of this experiment.
She said that it would be informative to extend this for an additional length of
time. She felt that five weeks before the election next year would be an
appropriate time to see the results.
Commissioner Diamond asked if this is the necessary solution for the merchants
or are the other ordinances too stringent for businesses.
Mr. Paterson answered that those are concerns that Staff has and those value
judgments would be a part of the continuing study.
Commissioner Diamond suggested that Staff look at where the portable signs are
being placed. Mr. Paterson agreed. •
SLC Planning Commission Minutes 4 October 22,2003
•
DRAFT
• Chair Jonas suggested that this be an item for the banner signs subcommittee to
review and discuss relevant concerns with this proposal.
Mr. Zunguze said that the Commission's comments are well taken. He said that
Staff will come back and address the Commission's concerns.
Commissioner Muir asked if the Commission has the time to table this item, the
Moratorium expires by November 13, 2003.
Mr. Zunguze said that the City Council is well aware of the issues that the
Commission has raised this evening and there is no way that Staff could come
back to the Commission and give the solutions to this very protracted challenges
prior to the time of the expiration of the current moratorium.
Commissioner Muir said that he recommends that the Commission move forward
with this petition and assign a sunset date. He added that the merchants are
struggling especially going into the holiday season.
Chair Jonas opened the public hearing.
Ms. Linda Pak a resident of 507 Heritage Center addressed the Commission to
say that she feels that the Staff proposal is a good solution. She felt that portable
• signs are appealing.
Commissioner Scott asked Ms. Pak if it would be an unpleasant experience if
every business displayed portable signs. Ms. Pak said that it does not seem to
be a problem at this point but if there were an overwhelming amount along the
street that would be blight.
Ms. Tarah Young a resident of 932 South 200 West, addressed the Commission
to say that the businesses along Main Street need help with advertising. She
said that from personal experience she could see problems arising from placing a
sign in front of a competing business but she supported the continuation of the
experiment.
Chair Jonas closed the public hearing.
Motion
Commissioner Muir made a motion based upon the analysis of Staff and the
findings presented in the staff report he recommended that the Planning
Commission forward a positive recommendation to City Council to approve the
petition 400-03-26 to amend the zoning ordinance text to allow portable signs
and a subsequent review to augment the remaining pieces by mid November
• 2004. Commissioner Galli seconded the motion.
SLC Planning Commission Minutes 5 October 22, 2003
DRAFT •
Commissioner Scott asked to amend the motion to include the priority that the •
Administration devises a more aesthetically coordinated system of directional
signage.
Commissioner Muir accepted the amendment. Commissioner Galli accepted the
amendment as well.
Chair Jonas referred to the discussion of changing the language of ADA
accessible features and asked that that be incorporated into the motion.
Commissioner Muir accepted the amendment. Commissioner Galli accepted the
amendment as well.
Amended Motion
Commissioner Muir made a motion based upon the analysis of Staff and the
findings presented in the staff report he recommended that the Planning
Commission forward a positive recommendation to City Council to approve the
petition 400-03-26 to amend the zoning ordinance text to allow portable signs
and a subsequent review to augment the remaining pieces by November 15,
2004, with the addition that the Administration devises a more aesthetically
coordinated system of directional signage, and that language of the last sentence
of section 3 item B be modified to read "in addition any portable sign may not be •
placed in any location that would obstruct any ADA accessible feature.".
Commissioner Galli seconded the motion.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner Diamond,
Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir,
Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted
"Aye". Jeff Jonas as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the
motion was approved.
SLC Planning Commission Minutes 6 October 22,2003
•
•
Exhibit 6
ORIGINAL PETITION
•
Transmittal of Petition 400-03-26
PETITION NO. yY t - O 3 -p-C
• PETITION CHECKLIST
Date Initials Action Required
Petition delivered to Planning
/(O/b/a 5 /��eT Petition assigned to: `f i jscr �
1e(-27J03 4 '> Planning Staff or Planning Commission Action Date
/O/Z/a3 l' Return Original Letter and Yellow Petition Cover
ip/Z)/d 3 Chronology
, 4 i.,..„(//i--7 Property Description (marked with a post it note)
1 4- Affected Sidwell Numbers Included
�� �� Mailing List for Petition, include appropriate
Community Councils•
402 ,/ Mailing Postmark Date Verification
Planning Commission Minutes
/d t.� 0 3 PlanningStaff Report
/ � ��� P
/O/7 47 Cover letter outlining what the request-is and a brief
description of what action the Planning Commission or
Staff is recommending.
/00 7,3 Ordinance Prepared by the Attorney's Office
to Ordinance property description is checked, dated and
initialed by the Planner. Ordinance is stamped by
/ Attorney.
'L /� Planner responsible for taking calls on the Petition
r3c 4,/4/ jo -1 p4J-e_r vrr(0S k i e V.Gcrfr.-r
Date Set for City Council Action _
0 Petition filed with City Recorder's Office
•MARXS Petition No.00-03-26 •
gy City Administration
Is requesting amendment of Temporary
Zoning Regulartions for Portable
Signs in Certain Zoning Districts.
Date Filed
Address