Loading...
10/07/2003 - Minutes (3) PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2003 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Tuesday, October 7, 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: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Tim Harpst, Transportation Director; Michael Sears, Council Budget and Policy Analyst; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Lehua Weaver, Council Constituent Liaison; Dan Mule' , Treasurer; Sylvia Jones, Council Research and Policy Analyst/Constituent Liaison; Edwin Rutan, City Attorney; Janice Jardine, Council Planning and Policy Analyst; Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer; LuAnn Clark, Housing and Neighborhood Development Director; David Dobbins, Business Services Director; Blythe Nobleman, Mayor' s Minority Affairs and Communication Coordinator; Laurie Dillon, Budget Analyst; Doug Wheelwright, Land Use and Transportation/Subdivisions Planner; LeRoy Hooton, Public Utilities Director; Gary Mumford, Council Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor; Bob Farrington, Downtown Alliance; and Beverly Jones, Deputy City Recorder. Councilmember Christensen presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:33 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. Ms. Gust-Jenson said Councilmember Christensen wanted to complete the work session by 7:00 p.m. because of the Primary Election. She said there were a number of announcements. She said if they were not completed, they could be referred to Thursday's meeting. See File No. M 03-5 for announcements. #2. INTERVIEW RICHARD LEE PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HIS REAPPOINTMENT TO THE GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND ADVISORY BOARD. Mr. Lee said he had been a professional golfer for approximately 14 years. He said he played golf for Brigham Young University (BYU) and the University of Utah. He said he had served on the Public Relations Committee for the Professional Golf Association (PGA) nationally. He said the City was trying to establish a fair amount to charge people to play public golf courses. He said that was also a big issue for the Golf Advisory Board. Councilmember Turner asked about Glendale Golf Course. Mr. Lee said he had played more golf at Glendale this year. He said there were some water problems and restrictions but he thought the golf course looked good. Councilmember Saxton asked what items the Board dealt with. Mr. Lee said mostly budgetary issues. Councilmember Saxton asked if the Board needed some members who did not play golf. Mr. Lee said he felt the board needed members who played golf. #3. INTERVIEW BONNIE MANGOLD PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HER APPOINTMENT TO THE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD. 03 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, OCTOBER 7 , 2003 Ms. Mangold said she came to Salt Lake City in 1969. She said transportation issues were a large part of preservation. She said she had lived in Los Angeles, New York City, London and Bogota, Columbia. She said it was crucial to look at land use planning in connection with transportation. Councilmember Buhler said the Council had recently asked the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) to look at traffic calming plans. He asked about her views on traffic calming measures and programs. Ms. Mangold said traffic calming programs were important. She said if the City failed to address the issues of regional planning, then smaller solutions would become meaningless. #4 . RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND RESOLUTION. View Attachment Michael Sears and Rocky Fluhart briefed the Council from the attached handout. Councilmember Lambert said there were certain expenditure restrictions on some of the bond issues. Mr. Sears said those restrictions were not listed on the ballot but were listed in the resolution. He said the amendatory resolution changed the actual ballot language by adding the words "and providing related facilities". Mr. Sears said the other change was the date the Board of Canvassers would meet. Councilmember Saxton asked about proposed funding for landscaping and for the exterior of the old main library building. She said initial discussion was about retrofitting the interior of the building. Councilmember Christensen said construction would ruin the outside of the building and the landscaping. Councilmember Turner asked how much money would be used for landscaping. Mr. Sears said a breakdown on anticipated costs had not been received. Councilmember Buhler asked about the voter information guide and the process. Mr. Fluhart said the Council would receive a draft of the guide shortly. He said they wanted to mail the guides out approximately two weeks before the election. #5. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A LOAN FROM THE HOUSING TRUST FUND TO THE TRENTON APARTMENT PROJECT LOCATED AT 544 EAST 100 SOUTH. View Attachment LuAnn Clark and Michael Sears briefed the Council from the attached handout. Council Members had no questions. #6. RECEIVE A REPORT FROM THE COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE REGARDING THE CENTRAL BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT. View Attachment Russell Weeks, David Dobbins and Bob Farrington briefed the Council from the attached handout. Councilmember Buhler said the subcommittee concurred with the Administration's recommendation to issue a new contract with the Downtown Alliance/Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce. Councilmember Love said the subcommittee felt with the new merger of the Downtown Alliance and the Chamber of Commerce that this was not the time to change contractors. Councilmember Christensen said property owners wanted to know who would be providing services before deciding whether to protest. Councilmember Lambert asked if any property owners had complained about the assessment. Mr. Dobbins said there had been some concerns expressed about the district itself but not the fees. Councilmember Lambert asked how the merger would affect the Alliance' s efficiencies or ability to administer the funds. Mr. Farrington said it would not affect their ability to deliver the proposed services. He said they were an affiliate of the Chamber and they continued to have a separate board of directors. He said a separate legally charted organization had the responsibility to make sure the funds 03 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, OCTOBER 7 , 2003 were spent as intended. Councilmember Saxton said the Alliance had been involved in this work for a number of years. She asked if the City was more or less involved in what the Alliance had done over the last four years. Mr. Farrington said the City generally had the same level of involvement because much of the work the Alliance did was through City staff. He said they ran everything through committees made up of business stake holders, property owners and City staff. Councilmember Saxton said property values had increased and if there was any desire from property owners to lower assessment values, she would be interested. #7. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE NUMBER OF VOTING MEMBERS ON THE LAND USE APPEALS BOARD. View Attachment David Dobbins, Sylvia Jones, Doug Wheelwright and Janice Jardine briefed the Council from the attached handout. Councilmember Christensen asked if the board alternates attended each meeting. Mr. Dobbins said yes. He said currently the board had three members and one alternate. He said sometimes board members needed to recuse themselves and the alternates would sit in for them. Councilmember Christensen said currently board members were paid $75 per case to offset lost time. He said $75 per case seemed extreme. He asked if they were proposing to limit that amount to $75 per meeting instead of $75 per case. Mr. Dobbins said that was not covered in the proposal but felt board members would not be opposed. Councilmember Saxton said she was surprised to find out the board was paid. She said she wanted to review this board because she felt it needed to be consistent with other boards. Ms. Jardine said this issue could fall under the item listed "Matters at Issue - Best Practices". She said staff could get feedback on what was done in other cities. Councilmember Saxton asked about going from three to five board members. Mr. Dobbins said they had no trouble getting a quorum together. Councilmember Christensen said the alternate showed up but could not vote. Councilmember Saxton said the board could be structured so alternates would not attend unless they were needed. Councilmember Jergensen asked what the benefit was to have five members instead of three. Mr. Dobbins said the board' s concern was that one member chaired the meeting. He said that left two members to hold a discussion. He said when one member started to speak, people in the room got a sense of where that person was headed. He said as soon as the second member started to speak, people in the room knew whether the members were for or against the issue. He said members felt uncomfortable with that. He said with five members an issue could be raised and there would be other members to counter the issue. He said additional information could change an outcome. Councilmember Love proposed that two alternates be allowed to vote in addition to the three voting members. She said she did not know if the Council should change the $75 per case to per meeting or ask staff to come back with a recommendation. Councilmember Jergensen said he wanted to see what "Best Practices" were in other cities. He said if this board was unique then he agreed that there were many people who spent hours on City committees and did not receive compensation. #8. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A REQUEST BY SANDY CITY TO ANNEX 5. 65 ACRES. (SALT LAKE CITY APPROVAL IS REQUIRED UNDER THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT THAT ALLOWED SANDY CITY TO JOIN THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT. ) View Attachment Gary Mumford and LeRoy Hooton briefed the Council from the attached handout. Mr. 03 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2003 Hooton said the request was consistent with the City' s annexation policy declaration map prepared in 1979. He said the annexation corrected a discrepancy between the City's 1990 boundary agreement with Sandy City and Salt Lake City' s annexation policy. Councilmember Christensen asked who served water to the proposed area. Mr. Hooton said there were little islands within Sandy that were currently being served by the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District. He said the islands would be turned over to Sandy City in the future. The meeting adjourned at 6:42 p.m. bj 03 - 4 Updated Information on General Obligation Bond Resolution • Amendment The Administration is proposing that the words"and providing related facilities"be added to City Proposition Number 2(the Leonardo at Library Square).This proposed addition is to confirm that exterior building renovations,possible restorative landscape expenditures and sprinkler upgrade expenses are included in the renovation expenses of the old main library building.Bond Counsel indicated that the language as written sufficed but that since the Council would be amending the resolution anyway,it would be best to include this language that would address these concerns. The Council may wish to consider this a housekeeping measure but the Administration will be prepared to respond during the briefing on the 7th if requested. Chapman and Cutler LLP Draft of 10/02/03 • RESOLUTION NO. OF 2003 A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE SPECIAL BOND ELECTION RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY,SALT LAKE COUNTY,UTAH ON SEPTEMBER 9,2003 TO REVISE THE PROCEDURE FOR CANVASSING THE OFFICIAL RESULTS OF THE SPECIAL BOND ELECTION TO BE HELD IN THE CITY ON NOVEMBER 4,2003,EXPANDING THE USE FOR WHICH THE PROCEEDS OF BONDS UNDER CITY PROPOSITION NUMBER 2 MAY BE USED,AMENDING THE LIST OF POLLING PLACES,AND PROVIDING FOR RELATED MATTERS. WHEREAS,on September 9,2003,the Municipal Council(the "Council")of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah (the "City") adopted a certain resolution (the "Election Resolution")providing that a special bond election be called and held in the City at the same time as the municipal general election on Tuesday, November 4, 2003 (the "Special Bond Election"),for the purpose of submitting to the qualified electors thereof the question of the • issuance of$47,600,000 general obligation bonds of the City to raise money for the purpose of paying the costs of various facilities and improvements described therein for the benefit of the City and its inhabitants;and WHEREAS, Section 14 of the Election Resolution and the Notice of Special Bond Election,attached as Exhibit 1 thereto(the "Notice of Special Bond Election"),provide that the Council shall meet as a Board of Canvassers at 5:00 p.m.on Monday,November 10,2003,to canvass the returns of the Special Bond Election(the`Official Canvass");and WHEREAS,subsequent to the adoption of the Election Resolution,the time of the Official Canvass was rescheduled and the Council desires to amend the Election Resolution to revise the Official Canvass procedure for the Special Bond Election;and • 1571885.01.04 868117/RJS/jd Amendatory Election Resolution WHEREAS, the Council wishes to clarify in City Proposition Number 2 that the bond • proceeds can be expended for improvements to the real property and other related facilities; and WHEREAS, the Notice of Special Bond Election designated certain polling place locations that have, since the time of adoption of the Election Resolution, become unavailable as polling place locations; and WHEREAS, the Council at this time deems it necessary to amend the list of polling place locations identified in the Notice of Special Bond Election; Now, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Municipal Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, as follows: Section 1. Official Canvass. (a) Section 14 of the Election Resolution is hereby amended to read as follows: • Section 14. The Municipal Council shall meet as a Board of Canvassers (the "Board of Canvassers") within ten (10) days after the date of the Special Bond Election on Monday, November 10, 2003, during the Municipal Council meeting that begins at the hour of 12:15 p.m., in the Council Chambers, located in Room 315, at 451 South State Street, in Salt Lake City, Utah. The Board of Canvassers shall review the absentee ballots presented by the City Recorder as provided by law and determine which absentee ballots are valid. The Board of Canvassers will then adjourn. The valid absentee ballots, together with the valid provisional ballots, will be delivered to the County Clerk to be counted by automatic tabulating equipment at the counting center. The Board of Canvassers will reconvene on Monday, November 10, 2003 at the hour of 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, located in Room 315, at 451 South State Street, in Salt Lake City, Utah and if the majority of the votes cast at the Special Bond Election are in favor of such propositions submitted, then the Municipal Council shall cause an entry of that fact to be made upon its minutes, and thereupon the City shall be authorized and directed to issue such bonds. • -2- Amendatory Election Resolution i (b) The Official Canvass procedure designated in the form of Notice of Special Bond Election is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit A hereto. Section 2. City Proposition Number 2. City Proposition Number 2 is hereby amended to read as follows: CITY PROPOSITION NUMBER 2 (The Leonardo at Library Square) Shall Salt Lake City,Utah,be authorized to issue and sell general obligation bonds of the City in an amount not to exceed Ten Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollars($10,200,000)and to be due and payable in not to exceed twenty(20)years from the date or dates of the bonds for the purpose of paying the costs of • renovating,improving and preserving the old main library building and providing related facilities located at approximately 5th South Street and 2nd East Street to establish a science,culture and art education center currently known as The Leonardo at Library • Square? Section 3. Polling Places. The list of polling place locations designated in the Notice of Special Bond Election is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit A hereto,subject to such further changes in polling places as shall be established by Salt Lake County,Utah. Section 4. Notice of Special Bond Election. The publication of the Notice of Special Bond Election as set forth in Exhibit A hereto as so amended is hereby ratified,approved and confirmed. Section S. Recording and Effective Date. Immediately after its adoption, this Resolution shall be presented to and approved and signed by the Mayor,approved as to form and signed by the Assistant City Attorney,signed by the Chair of the Municipal Council and attested • -3- Amendatory Election Resolution by the Deputy City Recorder, shall be recorded in a book kept for that purpose and shall take • immediate effect. ADOPTED AND APPROVED this day, October 7, 2003. SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH By Chair, Municipal Council of Salt Lake City, [SEAL] Salt Lake County, Utah ATTEST: By Deputy City Recorder, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah APPROVED: • Mayor, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah APPROVED AS TO FORM: Assistant City Attorney, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah 110 -4- Amendatory Election Resolution • EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF SPECIAL BOND ELECTION SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a special bond election will be held in Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, State of Utah (the "City"), at the same time as the municipal general election, on Tuesday, November 4, 2003, at which special bond election there shall be submitted to the qualified,registered voters residing within the City the following questions: CITY PROPOSITION NUMBER 1 (Hogle Zoo) Shall Salt Lake City, Utah, be authorized to issue and sell general obligation bonds of the City in an amount not to exceed Ten Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($10,200,000) and to be due and payable in not to exceed twenty (20) years from the date or dates of the bonds for the purpose of paying the costs of acquiring, improving and renovating facilities for Hogle Zoo located at approximately 2600 East Sunnyside Avenue? • CITY PROPOSITION NUMBER 2 (The Leonardo at Library Square) Shall Salt Lake City, Utah, be authorized to issue and sell general obligation bonds of the City in an amount not to exceed Ten Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($10,200,000) and to be due and payable in not to exceed twenty (20) years from the date or dates of the bonds for the purpose of paying the costs of renovating, improving and preserving the old main library building and providing related facilities located at approximately 5th South Street and 2nd East Street to establish a science, culture and art education center currently known as The Leonardo at Library Square? • Exhibit A - 1 Amendatory Election Resolution CITY PROPOSITION NUMBER 3 10 (Library Facilities) Shall Salt Lake City, Utah, be authorized to issue and sell general obligation bonds of the City in an amount not to exceed Five Million Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($5,400,000) and to be due and payable in not to exceed twenty (20) years from the date or dates of the bonds for the purpose of paying the costs of acquiring, constructing and improving two new branch library facilities, parking facilities and related improvements and facilities, one to be located in the Glendale area and one to be located in the Capitol Hill area? CITY PROPOSITION NUMBER 4 (Open Space,Park and Recreational Lands) Shall Salt Lake City, Utah, be authorized to issue and sell general obligation bonds of the City in an amount not to exceed Five Million Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($5,400,000) and to be due and payable in not to exceed twenty (20) years from the date or dates of the bonds for the purpose of paying the costs of acquiring and preserving open space, park and recreational lands and amenities? CITY PROPOSITION NUMBER 5 (Regional Sports, Recreation and Education Complex) Shall Salt Lake City, Utah, be authorized to issue and sell general obligation bonds of the City in an amount not to exceed Fifteen Million Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($15,300,000) and to be due and payable in not to exceed twenty (20) years from the date or dates of the bonds for the purpose of paying the costs of acquiring, constructing, furnishing and equipping a multi-purpose regional sports, recreation and education complex and related roads,parking and improvements? • Exhibit A - 2 Amendatory Election Resolution • CITY PROPOSITION NUMBER 6 (Tracy Aviary) Shall Salt Lake City,Utah,be authorized to issue and sell general obligation bonds of the City in an amount not to exceed One Million One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,100,000) and to be due and payable in not to exceed twenty(20)years from the date or dates of the bonds for the purpose of paying the costs of improving and renovating Tracy Aviary located at approximately 589 East Street and 1300 South Street? The special bond election shall be held at the consolidated voting precincts of Salt Lake County,at the following polling places within such voting precincts,and the election officials to serve at each polling place shall be those who have been otherwise appointed under the provisions of general law to conduct the municipal general election. Voters are advised to vote at the special bond election at the polling place for the consolidated voting precinct in which they reside. The polling places are as follows: CONSOLI- DATED REGULAR VOTING VOTING PRECINCT PRECINCT POLLING PLACE LOCATION • NO. NO. (SALT LAKE CITY) S001 2030 Backman Elementary 1500 W 601 N S002 2003 Day-Riverside Library 1575 W 1000 N S003 2010,2014 ]lead Start(Matheson School) 1240 N American Beauty Dr.(1030 W) S004 2056 Jackson Elementary 750 W 200 N S005 2049,2050 Meadowlark Elementary 497 N Morton Dr.(1890 W) S006 2008 Newman School 1269 N Colorado St.(1340 W) S007 2002 North Star Elementary School 1545 N Morton Dr.(1965 W) S008 2001,2006 North Star Elementary School 1545 N Morton Dr.(1965 W) S009 2004 Northwest Intermediate School 1400 W Goodwin Ave.(1135 N) S010 2052 Northwest Multi-Purpose Center 1300 W 300 N S011 2034,2036 Rose Park Elementary 1105 W 1000 N S012 2053 Backman Elementary 1500 W 601 N S013 2204,2214 Franklin Elementary 1115 W 300 S S014 2252,2254 Glendale Junior High 1430 W Andrew Ave.(1504 S) S015 2038 Lexington Square Apts. 780 N 900 W(Clubhouse) S016 2222 Mountain View Elementary 1415 W California Ave.(1330 S) S017 2005,2242 Mountain View Elementary 1415 W California Ave.(1330 S) S018 2226 Neighborhood House 1050 W 500 S S019 2224,2246 Parkview Elementary 970 S Emery St.(1170 W) S020 2255,2256 Riley Elementary 1410 S 800 W S021 2206,2216 Rite Aid Drug Store(SLC) 150 N 900 W S022 2122,2126 Avenues Sweet Library 455'F'St.(525 E) S023 2144,2174 Brighton Gardens By Marriott 76 S 500 E • S024 2154 Canyon Road Towers 123 E Second Ave.(100 N) S025 2102,2103 Ensign Elementary 775 E Twelfth Ave.(600 N) Exhibit A-3 Amendatory Election Resolution CONSOLI- DATED REGULAR • VOTING VOTING PRECINCT PRECINCT POLLING PLACE LOCATION NO. NO. (SALT LAKE CITY) S026 2128 Ensign Elementary 775 E Twelfth Ave.(600 N) S027 2152 Beacon Heights Elementary 134 'D' St. (415 E) S028 2178,2179 Beacon Heights Elementary 134 'D' St. (415 E) S029 2182 Ronald McDonald House 935 E South Temple St. (0 N/S) S030 2017,2064 SLC Fire Station#2 270 W 300 N S031 2136,2166 Shriners Hospital Intermountain Fairfax Rd.(356 N)at Virginia St. (1345 E) S032 2020,2142 Washington Elementary 420 N 200 W S033 2158,2164 SLC Fire Station#4 830 E Eleventh Ave. (550 N) S034 2167,2184 21st Ward Meeting House 680 E Second Ave. (100 N) S035 2068,2074 Washington Elementary 420 N 200 W S036 2016,2018 West High School 241 N 300 W S037 2306 Brighton Gardens By Marriott 76 S 500 E S038 2330,2332 Bryant Junior High 40 S 800 E S039 2378 Calvary Tower 516 E 700 S S040 2362 Central City Comm.Center 615 S 300 E • S041 2230 Disabled American Veterans— Utah 273 E 800 S Admin. Office S042 2380 First&Valley Ward Chapel 760 E 700 S S043 2366 Friendship Manor 1320 E 500 S S044 2388,2389 Judge Memorial High School 650 S 1100 E S045 2370 Liberty Senior Center 251 E 700 S • S046 2348,2350 M.Lynn Bennion Elementary 429 S 800 E S047 2354 M. Lynn Bennion Elementary 429 S 800 E S048 2312,2318 Mt.Tabor Lutheran Church ELCA 175 S 700 E S049 2220,2223 Multi-Ethnic Seniors Hi-Rise 120 S 200 W S050 2320 Tenth East Seniors Center 237 S 1000 E S051 2352,2364 Our Lady of Lourdes School 1065 E 700 S S052 2374 Romney Plaza 475 E 900 S S053 2384 Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School 843 S Lincoln St. (945 E)Upper School S054 2308 Salt Lake School Dist.Administration 440 E 100 S (Front Lobby) S055 2314,2334 Tenth East Seniors Center 237 S 1000 E S056 2514 Emerson Elementary 1017 E Harrison Ave.(1370 S) S057 2532,2540 Emerson Elementary 1017 E Harrison Ave. (1370 S) S058 2506 First Baptist Church 777 S 1300 E S059 2437,2450 Hawthorne Elementary 1675 S 600 E S060 2422 Lincoln Elementary(SLC Dist.) 1090 S Roberta St. (240 E) S061 2406,2502 Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School 843 S Lincoln St. (945 E)Upper School S062 2466 Salt Lake County Govt. Cntr. (S.Bldg. 2001 S State Street(100 E) Atrium) S063 2442,2444 SL Comm.College South City Campus 1575 S State St(100 E) S064 2231,2260 SLC Fire Station#8 1300 S Main Street(0 E/W) S065 2462 St.Joseph Villa 451 E Bishop Federal Lane(1930 S) S066 2264 Terrace Apartments 1810 S Main St. (0 E/W) S067 2404,2436 The River Foursquare Church 662 E 1300 S S068 2438 The River Foursquare Church 662 E 1300 S S069 2516,2536 Uintah Elementary 1571 E 1300 S 0 S070 2474,2475 Whittier School(SL Dist.) 1600 S 300 E Exhibit A - 4 Amendatory Election Resolution • CONSOLI- DATED REGULAR VOTING VOTING PRECINCT PRECINCT POLLING PLACE LOCATION NO. NO. (SALT LAKE CITY) S071 2632,2634 All Saints Episcopal Church 1710 S Foothill Dr. (2460 E) S072 2606 Anderson/Foothill Library 1135 S 2100 E S073 2646 Bally Fitness Center 2505 E Parleys Way(2250 S) S074 2510,2524 Bonneville Elementary 1145 S 1900 E S075 2507,2604 Bonneville Elementary 1145 S 1900 E S076 2608 Canyon Crest Condos (Lobby) 875 S Donner Way(2985 E) S077 2358,2360 Chase N.Peterson Heritage Center 151 S Connor St.(2040 E) S078 2546,2548 Clayton Junior High 1471 S 1800 E S079 2630 Clayton Junior High 1471 S 1800 E S080 2572,2652 Highland High School 2166 S 1700 E S081 2556 Garfield Elementary 1838 S 1500 E S082 2561,2570 Garfield Elementary 1838 S 1500 E S083 2640,2654 Hillside Junior High 2375 E Garfield Ave.(1865 S) S084 2626,2628 Indian Hills Elementary 2496 E St.Marys Dr. (1420 S) S085 2602,2614 SLC Fire Station#10 785 S Arapeen Dr. (2235 E) S086 2523,2534 Uintah Elementary 1571 E 1300 S S087 2394 University Village(East) 714 S Arapeen Dr. (2235 E) S088 2392 University Village(West) 1945 E Sunnyside Ave. (850 S) S089 2544 Highland High School 2166 S 1700 E S090 2660,2664 First Church of the Nazarene 2018 E 2100 S • S091 2670,2671 First Congregational Church 2150 S Foothill Dr.(2755 E) S092 2552 Garfield Elementary 1838 S 1500 E S093 2482 Granite Furniture Company 1050 E 2100 S S094 2588,2594 Graystone Condos 1170 E 2700 S (Mgt. Office) S095 2476 Hawthorne Elementary 1675 S 600 E S096 2584 Highland Park Elementary 1738 E 2700 S S097 2566,2696 Highland Park Elementary 1738 E 2700 S S098 2493 Nibley Park Elementary 2785 S 800 E S099 2494,2586 Nibley Park Elementary 2785 S 800 E S 100 2480 Plaza 7-21 675E 2100 S S101 2694,2684 Preston Place 2673 S Preston St. (1930 E) S102 2668,2686 Rite Aid 2332E 2100 S S103 2674 Kmart 2705 Parleys Way(2450 S) S104 2590,2596 Specialty Furniture 2892 S Highland Dr. (1295 E) S105 2580,2582 Fairmont Aquatic Center 1044 E Sugarmont Dr.(2225 S) S106 2550 Sterling Furniture 2051 S 1100 E The voting at the special bond election shall be by ballots used in connection with an electronic voting system. The ballots will be furnished by the City Recorder to the judges of election, to be by them furnished to the qualified electors of the City. The polls at each polling place shall be opened at the hour of 7:00 a.m. and will be kept open until and will be closed at the hour of 8:00 p.m. • There is to be no special registration of voters for the special bond election and the official register of voters last made or revised shall constitute the register for the special bond Exhibit A - 5 Amendatory Election Resolution election, except that all persons who reside within the City and are registered to vote in the • municipal general election to be held on Tuesday, November 4, 2003, shall be considered registered to vote in the special bond election. The County Clerk of Salt Lake County (the "County Clerk") will make registration lists or copies of such lists available at each of the above-described polling places for use by registered electors entitled to use such voting place. Absentee ballots may be obtained by any person otherwise eligible to vote at the special bond election but who (a) is physically, emotionally, or mentally impaired; (b) will be serving as an election judge or who has election duties in another voting precinct; (c) is detained or incarcerated in a jail or prison as a penalty for committing a misdemeanor; (d) has a legal disability; (e) is prevented from voting in a particular location because of religious tenets or other strongly-held personal values; (f) is called for jury duty in state or federal court; or (g) otherwise expects to be absent from the voting precinct in which the eligible voter resides during the hours the polls are open in Salt Lake County on the day of the special bond election, by making application in the manner and within the time provided by law, either by mail or in person, at the office of the City Recorder, 451 South State Street, Room 415, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111. Any eligible voter who is hospitalized or otherwise confined to a medical or long-term care institution after the deadline for filing an application for an absentee ballot in the manner and within the time provided by law may obtain an absentee ballot by sending another person to obtain the absentee ballot on his or her behalf at the office of the City Recorder, 451 South State Street,Room 415, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that on Friday, October 31, 2003, at 10:00 a.m., in Room • S-1007 of the County Government Center, 2001 South State Street, in Salt Lake City, Utah, there will be conducted a test of the automatic tabulating equipment to be used to tabulate the results of the November 4, 2003 special bond election to be held in the City on the issuance and sale of $47,600,000 bonds of the City. This test is open to public observation in accordance with the provisions of Section 20A-4-104, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended. PUBLIC NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that on Monday, November 10, 2003, that being a day not later than ten days after the special bond election, the Municipal Council of Salt Lake City will meet in the Council Chambers, Room 315, 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah, at 12:15 p.m. and shall review the absentee ballots presented by the City Recorder as provided by law and determine which absentee ballots are valid. The Municipal Council will then adjourn its meeting. The valid absentee ballots, together with the valid provisional ballots, will be delivered to the County Clerk to be counted by automatic tabulating equipment at the counting center designated by the County Clerk. The Municipal Council will reconvene on Monday, November 10, 2003 at the hour of 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, located in Room 315, at 451 South State Street, in Salt Lake City, Utah and will canvass the returns and declare the results of the special bond election during such meeting. Pursuant to applicable provisions of the Utah Municipal Bond Act, the period allowed for any contest of the special bond election shall end forty (40) days after November 10, 2003 (the date on which the returns of the election are to be canvassed and the results thereof declared). • Exhibit A - 6 Amendatory Election Resolution No such contest shall be maintained unless a complaint is filed with the Clerk of the Third • Judicial District Court in and for Salt Lake County within the prescribed forty(40)day period. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the Municipal Council of Salt Lake City,Salt Lake County,State of Utah,has caused this notice to be given. DATED: October 7,2003. Deputy City Recorder Salt Lake City,Salt Lake County,Utah • Exhibit A-7 Amendatory Election Resolution • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: October 3,2003 • SUBJECT: Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund loan to Farquhar Properties,LLC for the Trenton Apartments AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: District 4 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 Farquhar Properties,LLC, for a$280,000 loan from the City's Housing Trust Fund.This action would facilitate the purchase and rehabilitation of the Trenton Apartment project located at 544 East 100 South.The • project will have 37 units,20 of which are studio apartments and 8 are one-bedroom units.The units will be rented to people at 35-45%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 Trenton Apartment project consists of 37 units in one 3-story building at 544 East 100 South. Twenty-nine of the units are studio apartments and 8 units have one bedroom. The project developer will set aside five units for developmentally disabled persons,three units for clients of Valley Mental Health,and five units for homeless individuals for a total of 13 units for special needs populations. The project will consist of all units being priced for renters with 35-45%of area median income.The project financing is based on area median income rents being between$341 and • $415 for the studio units and$461 for one-bedroom units. Page 1 The Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board reviewed this proposal on July 17,2003 and recommended approval of a$280,000 loan for 30 years at 2.5%. The Central City Neighborhood supports this project. • 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$280,000 at 2.5% interest for thirty (30)years.The Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund, Enterprise Social Investment Corporation (ESIC) and Utah Community Reinvestment Corporation (UCRC) are also providing funding for this project. The total cost of project will be$2,210,020. The current balance of the Housing Trust Fund if this loan is approved will be approximately $2,362,922. cc: Rocky Fluhart,Cindy Gust-Jenson,David Nimkin,Alison Weyher, David Dobbins, LuAnn Clark,and Sandi Marler File location: Michael\Staff Reports\Housing Trust Fund • IIII Page 2 SEP 0 3 2033 glair dd ALISDN WEYHER MAT' A '4� y glai a t -''E 'R 1 • - - �� m�-- -$- ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR COUNCIL TRANrTy f � TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer ' DATE: August 25, 2003 FROM: Alison Weyher 4------ RE: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute a loan agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Farquhar Properties, LLC, to purchase and rehabilitate the Trenton Apartment project located at 544 East 100 South. STAFF CONTACT: LuAnn Clark DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution BUDGET IMPACT: A $280,000 loan will be made from the Housing Trust Fund. DISCUSSION: Farquhar Properties, LLC, is requesting a $280,000 loan for 30 years at 2% from the City's Housing Trust Fund to purchase and rehabilitate the Trenton Apartments. The Trenton 0 Apartments is a three-story masonry and frame building containing 29 studio apartments and 8 one- bedroom units. Rents will range from$341 to $415 for the studio units and rent for the one-bedroom units will be $461. These rents will serve residents between 35-45% of area median income. The developer has set aside three units for clients of Valley Mental Health; five units for developmentally disabled individuals; and five units for homeless individuals for a total of 13 units for special needs populations. The funds requested from the Housing Trust Fund will be leveraged with funds provided by the Utah Community Reinvestment Corporation (UCRC), the Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund, and Enterprise Social Investment Corporation (ESIC),which will be purchasing the Federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credits. It is anticipated the total cost of the project will be $2,210,020. The Trenton Apartments is one of the buildings that received Section 8 project-based rental assistance. The owner of the project elected not to renew the Section 8 contract on the building and to sell the building on the open market. All of the tenants who were living in the building at that time received a Section 8 voucher that could be used to remain in the building or relocate to another apartment building. Based on HUD regulations, the new property owner (Farquhar) cannot get the Section 8 project-based rental assistance reinstated. Farquhar Properties rent levels, however, are low enough to serve the very low-income residents. The developer plans to complete an extensive rehabilitation of the project and has estimated the cost of rehabilitation to be $962,853. The Central City Neighborhood Council supports this project. . On July 17, 2003, the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board reviewed this proposal and recommended approval of a $280,000 loan for 30 years at 2.5% interest. The applicant requested a 2% interest rate. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 4.04, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-6230 FAX: 801-535-6005 RecvcEc a>acw The Board reviewed the project and determined it could handle an increase of.5% on the interest rate. The Developer was agreeable to the increase. Attached please find a copy of the staff report and the • minutes of the Housing Trust Fund Board meeting. The current balance of the City's Housing Trust Fund is $2,792,922; approval of this loan request and the loan request for the Westgate II Apartment project would leave the fund balance at$2,362,922. • • • RESOLUTION NO. OF 2003 AUTHORIZING A LOAN FROM SALT LAKE CITY'S HOUSING TRUST FUND TO THE TRENTON APARTMENT 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, Farquhar Properties, LLC, has applied to the City for a $280,000 loan at 2.5% over thirty years to purchase and rehabilitate the Trenton Apartment project, a three-story masonry and frame building containing 29 studio apartments and 8 one-bedroom units for low- income residents between 35-45% of area median income located at 544 East 100 South 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 Farquhar Properties, LLC, for$280,000 at 2.5% over thirty years from Salt Lake City's Housing Trust Fund. 2. Farquhar Properties, LLC, will use the loan to purchase and rehabilitate the Trenton Apartment project located at 544 East 100 South, 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. RESOLUTION NO. OF 2003 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: CHAIR ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM SALT LAKE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE DATE: BY: �sr CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER EVALUATION • SALT LAKE CITY HOUSING TRUST FUND Name of Organization: Farquhar Properties, LLC Name of Project: Trenton Apartments Location of Project: 544 East 100 South Project Description: The project consists of a three-story masonry and frame building containing 29 studio apartments and 8 one-bedroom units. It was constructed in 1931 . Its heating system is a central gas-fired boiler with two-pipe steam radiation. The property is substandard in its present state. Intensive renovation during the first year is planned with the goal of a major renovation of the entire property. AMI Targets: Rents: 35% 6 studio units $341 35% 18 studio units $341 42% 5 studio units $415 45% 8 one-bedroom units $461 Three units will be set aside for clients of Valley Mental Health; 5 units will be set • aside for developmentally disabled individuals; and 5 units will be set aside for homeless invidividuals Amount and terms requested: $280,000 at 2% over 30 years Is the entire project eligible for Housing Trust Fund money? Yes Are the funds leveraged with non-government dollars? Yes Proposed Funding: Equity Richman Group $1,213,815 1st Mortgage UCRC 304,100 2�d Mortgage SLC 280,000 Other OWHTF 300,000 Def. Devel. fee 112,105 TOTAL: $2,210,020 Does the requesting agency have sufficient cash flow to repay the loan? Yes • 1 • Does the project have demonstrated community support? Community Council has approved this project but has not submitted letter of support. The applicant is working on this issue. Does the requesting agency have a track record of owning, operating and maintaining this type of housing project? Yes. An extensive list of completed projects is included in the application along with letters of support from tenants and other organizations who have worked closely with the applicant on projects in the past. Project Strengths: Project owner has successfully developed, owned and rehabilitated similar vintage historic buildings. Owner currently has two loans with Salt Lake City and has met all requirements, is current on the existing loans and provides required information in a timely manner. Owner has previously owned and managed tax credit properties. Project meets a priority goal of the Salt Lake Community Housing Plan increasing the number of historic multi-family units rehabilitated. Project will remain affordable for 99 years. Rehabilitation of the units will be substantial and not merely cosmetic in nature and will extend the lifespan of this older building. Market study indicates that there is a market that is adequate to absorb these affordable units. Market study was prepared by an entity approved by the Utah Housing Corporation (UHC). Project Weaknesses: No formal appraisal submitted. Capital replacement reserves are below the State of Utah Safe Harbor Schedule Board Options: Approve applicant's loan as requested, subject to appraisal and letter of support from community council. Deny applicant's loan request. 1110 07/17i20013 13:57 8014844776 LA PORTE PAGE 02 .,_ 07/17/2063 13;52 E014144776 LA PORTE PAGE tie Central City Neighborhood Council co 204 Herbert Ave. SLC.UT 84111 July 17,2003 Lu Ann Clark Director of 14.ANT SLC Corporation 451 South State Street,Room 0406 SLC,UT 84111. Dear Ms.Clark: please be advised that Central City Neighborhood Council(CCNC)is • supportive of Ben.Logue,and La Porte Construction,Inc.receiving assistance from the city housing fund to renovate the Trenton Apartments. It lies always been CCNC's position to preserve the existing housing in the central city&ea. If you have any questions,please contact me. 355-7095 Sincerely, C Ana Archuleta Chairperson CC: Ben Logue La Porte Construction . T 'd 560LSS£T06 XH8 east n �Ap Z£:£T £0. LT'inr HOUSING TRUST FUND ADVISORY BOARD • Meeting of July 17, 2003 The following board members were in attendance: Curtis Anderson, Karen Cahoon, John Francis, Daniel Greenwood, Cara Lingstuyl, Peter Morgan, 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 Cara Lingstuyl called the meeting to order at 12:07p.m. New HTF Board member, Daniel Greenwood, was introduced. Consider a request from BC Development Group, LLC, to purchase property located at 1520 West 300 South in order to construct the Westgate II Apartment project that will consist of 32 affordable units for families between 35-45% of area median income and 4 market rate units. Mr. David Baus of BC Development Group was present to provide details and answer questions - pertaining to the project. Mr. Baus is requesting a $150,000 ban at 2.5% interest to be amortized over thirty years. Mr. Baus stated that a year ago, the HTF approved approximately $270,000 for BC Development to acquire and renovate Westgate I. Mr. Baus said Westgate I has been a success with currently no vacancies. Mr. Baus explained that Westgate II is a mix of two bedroom and three bedroom units with underground parking. Mr. Baus said that the City has required two parking stalls for two and three bedroom units and that they were able to meet the requirements. Mr. Baus provided construction drawings and details to the Board. Mr. Baus said 4111 that they purchased two adjacent homes with the intent that one of the homes will be the managers unit as well as a resident community business center. Mr. Baus said that there will be some families that will move from Westgate I to Westgate II into the larger units with rent being comparable to Westgate I. The Board asked if the manager's office would manage both complexes and Mr. Baus replied yes and will be managed from Westgate II. Mr. Baus apologized for not obtaining a letter of support from the Popular Grove Community Council but confirmed the project will be reviewed at the July 23rd meeting. Mr. Baus stated that in regard to income, the project is targeting low-income with average median income of 39%, and construction will consist of two bedroom units ranging from $409 to $547 and three bedroom units from $468 to $547, with four market rate units. Mr. Baus indicated that there has been no response from the agreement Westgate made with the Division of Mental Health and the Long Range Planning in providing clients for their housing units but will continue providing them with vacancy notices. Richard Tyler motioned to approve the loan request subject to receiving the letter of support from the Community Council. Peter Morgan seconded the motion. All voted "Aye." The motion passed. Consider a request from Farquhar Properties, LLC, to purchase and rehabilitate the Trenton Apartments consisting of 29 studio apartments and 8 one-bedroom units located • at 544 East 100 South. Ms. LuAnn Clark stated that Mr. Ben Logue of Farquhar Properties is out of town due to a death in the family and that she will be answering any questions pertaining to the project. Ms. Clark gave a brief account of the history of the Trenton Apartments and the applicant's previous experience in purchasing older apartment properties. Ms. Clark said that Mr. Logue application states that he is applying for HOME funds but funding will come from HTF. Ms. Clark said that the project has the support of the Central City Community Council and letter was provided by from the Chair. Ms. Clark said that Mr. Logue has agreed to meet with the Trenton tenants upon loan approval and that renovation will be completed one unit at a time. Ms. Clark said the safe harbor for capital replacements for rehabilitation is a minimum $300 per unit but Mr. Logue feels that the $250 per unit will be adequate because of the extensive renovation they are doing on the project. Ms. Clark said copies of the agreements with TURN, The Road Home and Valley Mental Health will be provided before the loan is presented to City Council. Ms. Clark explained that in Mr. Logue's application, regarding "use of funds", presented as Attachment A, (itemized tax credit expense description) had not been provided but would be available for the Board's review. Ms. Clark said that the level of affordability range average is 35% to 45%, 24 studio units at 35%, 5 studio units at 42% and 8 one-bedroom units at 45%. Peter Morgan motioned to approve the loan request for $280,000 at 2.5% interest for 30 years. John Francis seconded the motion. All voted "Aye." The motion passed. Discuss RDA Funding Ms. LuAnn Clark advised the Board that the RDA had recently approved a $1,102,268 allocation to the Housing Trust Fund and had requested the Board wait until January 2004 for the funds to be transferred. Ms. Clark added that the RDA had requested the Board consider providing all or part of the new allocation to the Providence Place project. This project, located on the Fetzer property on West Temple, will come before the Board m in the near future. When asked if the Board would have to approve funding for this project because of the RDA allocation, Ms. Clark • said the Board should give fair consideration for funding of the project as they do all projects. Ms. Clark indicated that approximately $708,000 of RDA funds is still available which will be used for one of the loans just approved. Discuss Housing Trust Fund Ordinance Amendment Ms. Clark stated that the HTF Ordinance passed with one change to the HTF recommendation and that change was in the term of affordability and that is, if the term is less than five years, it will require the first home owner to meet the federal income standards established by HUD. If the HTF monies are kept longer than 5 years, then the term of affordability would have to be 15 years. Ms. Clark said the City Council approved the amendment to allow the Board to meet quarterly, rather than monthly, with additional meetings as needed to conduct business of the HTF.. Ms. Clark said a September meeting is scheduled and there will be a meeting in January that will involve reviewing allocations for HOME and HOPWA. Ms. Clark said a calendar will be prepared and will be included in the September packet for review and discussion. • 2 11 • MEMORANDUM DATE: October 3,2003 TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks RE: Resolution:Notice of Intent to Create Central Business Improvement District No.DA-CBID-03 CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson,Rocky Fluhart,David Nimkin,Alison Weyher,David Dobbins,Alison McFarlane,Gary Mumford,Michael Sears This memorandum is intended to address issues in an October 7 City Council briefing and action on a notice of intent to create Central Business Improvement District No.DA-CBID-03. KEY PoI rs • The proposed resolution is the first step toward creating a source of revenue—through property assessments—for economic promotion activities for what is known as the Central Business Improvement District. • • According to the Administration,the expected three-year assessment for the proposed district would generate about$2.15 million.The proposed assessment rate for properties in the proposed district is .001425,the same rate as the City Council adopted for the year 2000.The proposed district's boundaries also are the same as for the year 2000.According to Alliance estimates,about 2,500 businesses and property owners are located within the current district's boundaries. • The proposed resolution is a de facto renewal of an economic improvement district that has existed in one form or another since 1991.The City Council renewed the district in 1994, 1997,and 2000. • The current assessment district is scheduled to expire on December 31,2003. If the proposed schedule for creating a new district holds,the City Council would consider the final step of the six- step process on or about February 23,2004,according to the Administration transmittal. • Under state law,properties cannot be added to the district if they were not included in the notice of intent resolution.However,the City Council can delete properties at its discretion. • Earlier this year,the Administration issued a request for proposals to manage the district. The district's current manager is The Downtown Alliance.After reviewing two proposals submitted,the Administration recommends that The Downtown Alliance be awarded a contract to continue to manage the district.A City Council subcommittee made up of Chair Carlton Christensen,Vice Chair Jill Love and Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors Vice-Chair Eric Jergensen concurs with the recommendation. • • In July the Downtown Alliance Board of Trustees adopted a motion to merge the Alliance with the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce.According to the Alliance's newsletter for October,the Alliance 1 t.I and the Chamber have begun"integrating staff and services from both organizations."The integration includes moving five of the seven Alliance staff members to the Salt Lake Chamber offices from the Alliance's office on Main Street. POTENTIAL OPTIONS • Adopt the resolution declaring the City Council's notice of intent to create the district. • Do not adopt the resolution and let the current district expire on December 31. POTENTIAL MOTIONS • I move that the City Council adopt the resolution declaring the City Council's notice of intent to create Salt Lake City Central Business Improvement District No.DA-CBID-03 to continue to promote business activity in an area of central downtown Salt Lake City. • I move that the City Council not adopt the resolution. BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS There should be no effect on Salt Lake City's general fund budget.Utah law 17A-3-301 titled the Utah Municipal Improvement District Act authorizes"the governing body of any municipality"to levy assessments on property within a district that is benefited by municipal improvements."Economic promotion activities"are included as improvements under 17A-3-303. Creating the district would earmark assessments levied within the proposed district for a specific purpose.The assessments would be passed through to the organization or group that manages the district. • • Issues/Questions for Consideration • Given that The Downtown Alliance officially merged with the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce on August 1,it may be too early to gauge how effectively the larger organization will function. • When the City Council created the current improvement district it required the Alliance to emphasize economic development in its programs.Is economic development still a City Council goal for the Alliance?If so,how will the Alliance be measured and monitored? • In July before voting to merge with the Salt Lake Chamber,Alliance trustees and staff noted that about 2,500 businesses and property owners fell within the boundaries of the current Central Business Improvement District,but about 10 percent of those businesses and property owners were Salt Lake Chamber members. Trustees also raised concerns about keeping"an intensity of focus"on the downtown within the merged organizations.How have the Chamber and Alliance addressed those concerns,or how do they plan to address them? Discussion As indicated earlier in this memorandum,the proposal to create Salt Lake City Central Business Improvement District No.DA-CBID-03 is essentially a proposal to renew an improvement district that has existed in one form or another since 1991. The proposed resolution would be the first of six steps to create the district. If the City Council adopts the proposed resolution,the other five steps would be: • ..f • • Approve a contractor to manage the district. • Hold a protest hearing. • Authorize creating the improvement district. • Create a board of equalization • Create the district and start levying assessments. PROTEST HEARING Of the steps above,the protest hearing probably will determine the proposed district's future. State law 17A-3-307 reads in part: 17A-3-307. Protests by property owners—Hearing—Alteration of proposal by resolution— Conditions for adding property to district—Deletion of protesters'property from district— Recording requirements—Waiver of objections. (1)(a)Any person who is the owner of property to be assessed in the special improvement district described in the notice of intention may,within the time designated in the notice,file,in writing,a protest to the creation of the special improvement district or make any other objections relating to it. (b)The protest shall describe or otherwise identify the property owned by the person making the protest. (2)(a)On the date and at the time and place specified in the notice of intention,the governing body shall,in open and public session,consider all protests filed and hear all objections relating to the proposed special improvement district. ... (c)After the hearing has been concluded and after all persons desiring to be heard have been heard,the governing body shall consider the arguments and the protests made. (d)The governing body may: (i)make deletions and changes in the proposed improvements;and (ii)make deletions and changes in the area to be included in the special improvement district as desirable or necessary to assure adequate benefits to the property in the district. (e)The governing body may not provide for the making of any improvements that are not stated in the notice of intention nor for adding to the district any property not included within the boundaries of the district unless a new notice of intention is given and a new hearing held. (3)(a)(i)After this consideration and determination,the governing body shall adopt a resolution either abandoning the district or creating the district either as described in the notice of intention or with deletions and changes made as authorized in this section. (ii)The governing body shall abandon the district and not create it if the necessary number of protests as provided in Subsection(3)(b)have been filed on or before the time specified in,the notice of intention for the filing of protests after eliminating from the filed protests: (A)protests relating to property or relating to a type of improvement that has been deleted from the district;and (B)protests that have been withdrawn in writing before the conclusion of the hearing. (b)For purposes of this section,the necessary number of protests means the aggregate of the following: (iii)protests representing 1/2 of the taxable value of the property to be assessed where an assessment is proposed to be made according to taxable value; (c)If less than the necessary number of protests are filed by the owners of the property to be assessed,the governing body may create the special improvement district and begin making improvements. It should be noted that the proposed district's revenue would be based on the taxable value of properties within the district. • 3 PROPOSED DISTRICT BORDERS • According to the Administration,the proposed district's borders are: • North Temple from State Street to 500 West Street. • 500 West Street from North Temple to 400 South Street. • 400 South Street from 500 West Street to 200 East Street. • 200 East Street from 400 South Street to 100 South Street. • 100 South Street from 200 East Street to State Street. • State Street from 100 South Street to North Temple. • 200 South Street from 200 East Street to 300 East Street. Properties on the south side of 400 South Street,the north side of North Temple,and the west side of 500 West street are not included within the proposed district's boundaries.It should be noted that the borders are the same borders as those adopted in the district for the year 2000.The last time the City Council created the improvement district the district was expanded to include properties along 500 West Street from North Temple to 400 South Street.(A map of the proposed district's boundaries is included in the Administration's briefing transmittal dated July 30.) PROPOSED ASSESSMENT LEVY As mentioned earlier in this memorandum,the Administration has proposed an assessment levy of .001425,the same rate as the City Council adopted in 2000.The levy is expected to generate about$2.15 million.The figure is about$200,000 more than the$1.95 million in revenue generated over the life of the present district.The reason for the projected revenue increase is the taxable value of property within the • district has increased from about$1.37 billion in the year 2000 to about$1.5 billion in the current year. When the district originally was created in 1991 the assessment rate was.0017842.In 1994 the assessment rate was.0017031.The assessment rate in 1997 was .0016. DOWNTOWN ALLIANCE MERGER WITH THE SALT LAKE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE In July the Downtown Alliance Board of Trustees adopted a motion to merge with the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce after several months of negotiations.The motion included conditions that were to be worked out before the merger.The vote resulted in a revised letter of understanding between the Alliance and the Chamber.(A copy of the letter of understanding and a City Council staff memorandum about the vote to merge the two groups is attached to this memorandum.) Key points in the letter of understanding include: • Both organizations retain separate legal status as 501(c)(6)non-profit entities.The Alliance will function as a separate organization beneath the Chamber umbrella. • The current chairs of the Chamber and the Alliance remain as co-chairs through June 30,2004. After that,there will be a single Board Chair for both organizations. • Chamber President and CEO R.Lane Beattie serves as president and CEO of the Alliance and administers Chamber and Alliance programs. • Former Alliance Executive Director Robert Farrington serves as executive vice president of the Chamber and is responsible for Alliance programs. • Chamber Executive Vice President and COO Craig Peterson retains his post and is responsible for Chamber programs and all central services. 4 • • The Alliance Board of Trustees was reduced from about 30 members to six.According to the letter of understanding,"The Alliance Board of Directors will consist of six(6)individuals. Five(5)are to be tenants or property owners or business owners within the Central Business Improvement District (and)shall be elected by the(Chamber)Board of Governors and also serve on the Chamber Executive Committee and the Chamber Board of Governors.The sixth(0h)shall be the President/CEO of the Chamber.The meetings of the Board shall be held concurrently with the Executive Committee and the Board of Governors." • According to the letter of understanding,the current Alliance Board members are:Prescott Muir, David Jensen,Gary Porter,John Gates,Tom Guinney,and R. Lane Beattie. BACKGROUND The Downtown Alliance is one of about 400 similar organizations in the United States.The Alliance was formed in 1988 by property owners and businesses and through the work of the late John Schumann of Schumann Capital Management.At the time,Mr. Schumann was chair of the Salt Lake City Planning Commission and was concerned about the variety of groups that claimed to represent the downtown when they appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Schumann and others,including attorney John Gates,sought to establish a broad-based organization to address downtown issues and"to strengthen our Downtown area by promoting growth, fostering development,encouraging activities,and improving the general environment of the downtown area through open communication between property owners,business owners,tenants,residents,and governmental agencies involved in the downtown district." The"1988 Regional/Urban Design Assistance Team study noted that an"unfortunate combination of factors"in years previous to 1988 had"discouraged"the construction of new office and mixed use buildings in the city's core.One of the factors the study listed was,"The lack of an organized constituency that promotes continuous and serious renewal in the downtown in a determined and unrelenting way." When The Downtown Alliance was created it was patterned after national models and sought to consolidate the efforts of several organizations that represented downtown business interests.The organizations included the Central Business Improvement District,the Downtown Retail Merchants Association,the Capital City Committee,and to some extent the Salt Lake Area Chamber of Commerce.The Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Retail Merchants Association did not relinquish their perceived roles to the Alliance.However,the chair of the Retail Merchants Association,and the president and CEO of the Chamber of Commerce were made voting trustees of the Alliance,as was the Mayor of Salt Lake City. The Capital City Committee,which was formed to build consensus to develop the Gallivan Center Block, disbanded in favor of the Alliance.The same thing happened with the Central Business Improvement District whose eight board members were appointed by the Mayor. The latter organization was a non-profit that performed several functions that were undertaken by the Alliance.Unlike the Alliance,the CBID was funded voluntarily by downtown businesses and raised about$125,000 a year.When the CBID disbanded businesses discontinued donations. Because the existing district is a special service district created by City Council action,the dynamic of the Alliance's relationship with the City may have changed from the original relationship before the Legislature passed amendments to the law governing municipal improvement districts in 1990.To receive the annual assessment,the Alliance must sign a contract with the City. In turn,the City has a responsibility to see that assessment funds are well-managed. One could argue that because of the contract,the Alliance is in some • respects a creature of the City instead of a truly independent organization.However,in the past the Alliance has taken positions on key issues and has been a sounding board for opinions of downtown property owners 5 6 and businesses. Council Members may recall that the Alliance worked to reach a compromise solution among proponents of a light-rail line on Main Street and proponents of a light-rail loop that avoided Main Street. In addition,the Alliance has worked to promote the downtown as a regional shopping and entertainment area.It also developed and manages events such as First Night,the Farmer's Market.It also was a partner in the year 2000 with the City in commissioning the Thomas Consultant's study of ways to improve retail business in the downtown. • 6 • MEMORANDUM DATE: July 15, 2003 TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks RE: Downtown Alliance Board:Merger and Other Items CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson,Gary Mumford,Janice Jardine, Michael Sears With one abstention,the Downtown Alliance Board of Directors voted Tuesday morning to approve the organization's merger with the Salt Lake Chamber. However,the board's motion made the merger conditional on the working out of several items Alliance Board members said should be reviewed or reconsidered.The Alliance Board will meet again August 1 to review an agreement presented by Chamber Board of Governors Chair Scott Anderson. Board Member Tom Guinney of Gastronomy made a motion to approve merging with the Salt Lake Chamber. Board Member Devon Glenn, The Boyer Company's vice president of asset • management,seconded the motion.On the advice of John Gates,a former Alliance Board chair, who helped broker talks between the Alliance and Chamber, Mr.Guinney and Mr. Glenn accepted friendly amendments to make the Alliance Board's approval conditional on reviewing and reconsidering several issues raised by other Board Members. Mr. Gates said the issues should be raised before final Alliance Board approval. Otherwise,he said,the Board's vote Tuesday would have meant the Alliance Board would be dissolved and could not address outstanding concerns. Board Chair Prescott Muir said the Board would meet again August 1 for a final vote. Roughly half to two-thirds of the 30-member Alliance Board was present to vote at the meeting. Several of those absent are ex officio members. Ed McCartney of Fidelity Investments said he would abstain from the vote. Bill Martin of Colliers Commerce CRG apparently had another appointment and left the meeting before the vote. Issues raised by Board members included: • Keeping the Alliance separate from the Chamber as a brand name. • Having the Alliance's finances audited separately from the Chamber's finances. • Clarification of the role of committees at the Chamber. • Clarification of the following two statements dealing with the organizational purpose of the merged organizations: 1. "To avoid duplication of effort or even competition,going forward as both organizations will find themselves working with the same governmental entities and the same primary group of business interests." 2. "To provide new or enhanced services, representation and promotion in or for • specific areas of importance to the combined constituencies that are not now being adequately addressed." 1 One issue raised that may or may not be on the list of conditions involved how the • Alliance Board would be selected. The agreement presented Tuesday calls for the two boards to merge into a 55-member group. A 15-member Executive Committee would then be formed. Six executive committee members also would be the Downtown Alliance Board of Directors. One of the six members of the new Alliance Board would be Chamber President Lane Beattie.The Chamber Board of Governors would appoint the members of the Alliance Board. John Gates said that he and former Alliance Board Chair David Jensen had proposed that the Alliance Board members be elected from the Alliance membership to serve on the Chamber Executive Committee, but the Chamber's negotiators rejected the idea.Alliance Board Member Bill Martin said the Alliance Board would be better off"forcing the issue"of who chooses members to represent the Alliance before approving the merger. Otherwise,he said,"We can't even have our own newsletter."Tony Weller of Sam Weller's Bookstore said he was concerned about Alliance Board members making up only one-third of the Chamber's Executive Committee. Mr. Martin's and Mr. Weller's comments were part of a strong undercurrent of concern about the merger. Speakers outlined several overarching concerns about the merger.Mr.Gates said the basic issue involving the merger was whether the Alliance should be more independent within the organization of the Chamber. Saying he did not want to"make it sound more negative than it is,"Mr.Gates told the Alliance Board, "There is really no such thing as a merger. There are only takeovers."He said that approval of the agreement meant that the Chamber's Board of Governors would operate both organizations.Mr.Jensen and Board Member Gary Porter said another key issue is how the Chamber—which traditionally has had a broad focus on issues— could"keep the intensity of focus"on the downtown. While noting that those involved in negotiating the merger have the downtown's interest at heart,Mr.Jensen nevertheless asked, "What happens if the next generation of leaders don't share the(current)focus on the downtown."Kent Gibson of Zions Securities Corporation said an inherent tension in the merger is the Alliance's assessment-based revenue source and the Chamber's dues-based revenue source. Alliance Executive Director Bob Farrington noted that the Alliance's current economic development assessment district contains about 2,500 businesses and property owners.Of that 240 are members of the Salt Lake Chamber. Before leaving the meeting for another appointment,Chamber Board Chair Mr. Anderson responded to some of the concerns raised.First, he said Alliance revenue would be kept entirely separate from Chamber revenue. Both organizations plan to retain their 501-(c)6 non-profit status, and had to remain separate to meet legal requirements. Second,the major property owners within the Alliance also are major stakeholders within the Chamber.Third,the Chamber and even other cities have become increasingly aware that a vital downtown Salt Lake City is crucial to the region and Utah. Fourth,by combining the organizations and their efforts the two groups will have a greater chance of strengthening Salt Lake City's position to attract development and avoid losing business opportunities to other cities.He said that if the Alliance was concerned about "losing focus,direction and voice,"then perhaps the Alliance and the Chamber should not merge. Mr. Porter said the reason he had raised the issues was because they were the issues raised by others in discussions about the merger. Mr.Guinney of Gastronomy echoed Mr. Porter's questions. He said people he had spoken to were concerned about the Alliance losing its voice in a larger organization and asking why they were being charged twice—once by the Alliance assessment and once by the Chamber. Mr.Guinney said if the merger is approved,the • 2 • Alliance and the Chamber have to develop a marketing plan quickly because"we should have been out front on this a month ago." Mr.Gates and others acknowledged Mr. Anderson's point that major property holders within the Alliance assessment district also were major stakeholders in the Chamber.They also noted that the larger corporations in the past had been generous to the Alliance in donating money and volunteers for Alliance projects and events such as First Night. Turning down the merger might adversely affect the Alliance's future,they said.Mr.Porter said organizational structure may be less a key than leadership from downtown stakeholders on issues affecting the downtown. Delaying a final vote until August 1 also will give the Alliance time to do two things: 1. File an addendum to its proposal to administer revenue from the assessment district.The Alliance has prepared a proposal to administer the revenue if the City Council votes to renew the assessment district later this year.The proposal is due on Wednesday.Although the proposal acknowledges that the Alliance and the Chamber may merge, it was written with the assumption that the existing Alliance Board would oversee the administration of funds. 2.Revise and vote on the Alliance's by-laws to reflect the merger agreement. Market Survey A representative of Satisfaction Development Systems also discussed the results of a survey it conducted for the Alliance about perceptions of the downtown.The Alliance commissioned the survey to help prepare its proposal to administer funds raised if the economic development assessment district is renewed.(The survey will be scanned and e-mailed to City • Council Members.) M The survey was conducted mid-April to early May. The survey firm mailed 2,000 people selected by.the Alliance staff.Two hundred ten survey forms were returned—roughly a 10 percent,response. According to the executive summary,of the 210 who responded to the survey 37 percent were downtown property owners, 63 percent were not. Of the respondents 83 percent owned or managed businesses downtown, 17 percent did not. According to the executive summary: Slightly more than 20 percent of respondents evaluated the overall economic health of downtown as positive—down from 71 percent in 1997 and 35 percent in the year 2000. About half the respondents indicated that economic conditions downtown were worse than they were three years ago(versus 25 percent in 2000); about 25 percent indicated that economic conditions were better(versus 41 percent in 2000);and about 25 percent indicated that conditions were about the same(versus 34 percent in 2000.) Three things respondents liked most about downtown:cleanliness, appearance and atmosphere, and the light-rail system. Things that frustrated respondents about downtown:parking,panhandling, empty buildings/lack of business,traffic. Advantage of locating downtown: location/convenience. 3 Greatest disadvantages:parking,traffic. . Three major priorities to address in the downtown: 1.)Improved parking. 2.) Revitalization/Rejuvenation/Filling Vacant Spaces. 3.)Traffic and Panhandling. i 4 07/18/2003 • LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING CONCERNING THE MERGER OF SALT LAKE AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,INC. AND THE DOWNTOWN ALLIANCE OF SALT LAKE CITY, INC. PREFACE Statement of Purpose. The Downtown Alliance of Salt Lake City, Inc. ("Alliance") and the Salt Lake Area Chamber of Commerce ("Chamber")believe that a strong singular voice is needed to advocate public policy issues important to the business community and to shape the kind of community in which area businesses can succeed. The Alliance and the Chamber recognize that without a vibrant central city, a vital and prosperous region would not exist. The Alliance and the Chamber propose a merger to combine the strength and presence of the 100-year-old Chamber with the downtown marketing and development expertise of the • Alliance. As Utah's business leader, the Chamber stands as the voice of business and champions community prosperity. Strategic objectives focus on government advocacy, business retention and development, member services, building a better community, and building a vibrant Capitol City. The Alliance promotes, plans, and develops downtown Salt Lake City as the regional center of the Intermountain West for commerce, culture, entertainment, and investment. Strategic objectives focus on advocacy for downtown business, development of the downtown economy, and enhancement of the Downtown lifestyle. The Chamber and the Alliance support a united voice regarding downtown and related business issues. Because public funds are an integral part of the funding of the Alliance, the funds must be accounted for separately recognizing the difference between public and private funding, however, together we can provide bold, clear, and engaged leadership and programs that stimulate business growth and vitality. Maintaining and improving transportation, retail, housing, human services, entertainment, arts, and tourism in the heart of the community is critical to business success. Increased economic development initiatives are needed. Need of Coordination. Possible savings realized from eliminating duplicative delivery systems, programming, and administrative overhead should be evaluated, and new and • reinvigorated services and programs should be explored. 1 07/18/2003 • Organizational Purposes. The proposed merger between these two long-standing and visible business-based organizations is being sought for the following reasons: 1. To consciously link the many complimentary activities, efforts and undertakings of the two separate entities to create a stronger, singular and well-funded voice for Salt Lake business interest when communicating or working with local, regional and state governments. 2. To better leverage the fmancial resources now available to the two separate organizations in order to create more impact and more success for the programs and initiatives undertaken. 3. To avoid duplication of effort or even competition, going forward as both organizations will find themselves working with the same governmental entities and the same primary group of business interests. 4. To provide new or enhanced services, representation and promotion in or for specific areas of importance to the combined constituencies that are not now being adequately addressed. Fundamental focuses for any combined entity will include: 1. a commitment to ensure the continued livability and vitality of Salt Lake City's center city; 2. a focus on visible and result-oriented advocacy for the needs, concerns and • positions of the combined constituencies; 3. a commitment to provide assistance and programming to support and encourage small businesses; and 4. an assumption of the leadership role in the region on issues of importance to the business community. ENTITIES. Both the Chamber and the Alliance are private sector not-for-profit 501(c)(6) membership organizations organized under the laws of the State of Utah. The Utah Job Opportunities Foundation, a Utah non profit 501(c)(3) corporation ("Foundation")is an affiliated organization of the Chamber, and First Night Salt Lake City, Inc. is a Utah non profit 501(c)(3) corporation ("First Night") affiliated with the Alliance. All four (4) entities and their names, market brands, trademarks, etc., will be retained and upon approval of the Board or Executive Committee,may be shared in joint projects and fund raising. The Alliance and the Chamber would remain as separate legal entities, administered by the same Board of Governors and Executive Committee of the Board of Governors. An Alliance Board of Directors would be retained to review Alliance programs and to manage the Central Business Improvement District. Programs, festivals and events funded by the Central Business Improvement District important to members of the District would be maintained. The Alliance is funded primarily through an operating agreement with Salt Lake City to provide services and economic development strategies in downtown Salt Lake City for the Central Business • Improvement District. 2 07/18/2003 • MEMBERSHIP Alliance. Legal membership is the members of the Alliance Board of Directors representing property owners, tenants and business owners within the Central Business Improvement District. Chamber. Voluntary Membership and fees. OFFICERS Scott Anderson, the current Chair of the Chamber and Prescott Muir, current Chair of the Alliance,will be Co-Chairs of the Board and Executive Committee through June 30,2004. STAFF • R. Lane Beattie will serve as President and CEO of the Chamber and the Alliance, administering both the Chamber and the Alliance programs. Robert Farrington will serve as Executive Vice-President of the Chamber,responsible for Alliance programs. Craig Peterson will serve as Executive Vice-President and Chief Operating Officer of the Chamber,responsible for Chamber programs and all central services. OFFICE SPACE COMMITMENTS The Alliance and the Chamber agree to pursue relocation to one office in the downtown area. The Main Street location for the Alliance has been very successful and the Alliance considers a comparable street level location within the District as an important part of its services. PRIMARY REVENUE SOURCES • 3 07/18/2003 • Alliance. The primary revenue source is through a contract with the City funded by tax revenue collected from assessed property owners in the Central Business Improvement District. In addition, there is substantial sponsorship income including First Night. Chamber. The Chamber revenue comes from membership dues, events, program income, sponsorship income,publications, grants and miscellaneous income. ORGANIZATION (See attached organizational Chart, Page 16) Board of Governors. A newly constituted Chamber Board of Governors, consisting of the Boards of the Alliance and the Chamber, would manage the Chamber. The Chamber Board of Governors will initially consist of no more than fifty-five (55) individuals consisting of the combined existing Boards of the Chamber and the Alliance (see attached list of Board Members). The Board will be gradually reduced in size through attrition to a size as determined by the Chair and as recommended by the Executive Committee. Members serve three (3) year staggered terms. The initial Co-Chairs of the Board will be Scott Anderson and Prescott Muir during the first year. Following the first year there will be a single Chair of the Board. The President and CEO of the Chamber and the Executive Vice-Presidents of the Chamber shall be ex officio members of the Board. Members of the Board of Governors may serve two terms. • (See attached list of Board Members, Page 14). Executive Committee. The Executive Committee will consist of no more than fifteen (15) Board members as elected by the Board of Governors. Five (5) members of the Executive Committee will be the Alliance Board of Directors. The Executive Committee and Board shall have Co-Chairs during the first year, Scott Anderson and Prescott Muir. (See attached list of Executive Committee Members, Page 15). The Board of Governors and the Executive Committee will coordinate and review program development and have authority to appoint the Chair and the President/CEO of the Chamber and review other officers of the Chamber. Alliance Board of Directors. The Alliance Board of Directors will consist of six (6) individuals. Five (5) are to be tenants or property owners or business owners within the Central Business Improvement District shall be elected by the Board of Governors and also serve on the Chamber Executive Committee and the Chamber Board of Governors. The sixth (6th) shall be the President/CEO of the Chamber. The initial Chair of the Alliance for the first year will be Prescott Muir. The Executive Vice-President of the Chamber responsible for Alliance programs shall be an ex officio member of the Alliance Committee. (See attached list of Alliance Board Members, Page 15). The meetings of the Board shall be held concurrently with the Executive Committee and the Board of Governors, as the case may be. The initial Board of the Alliance shall serve for three (3) year terms and may serve two (2) consecutive terms. • 4 07/18/2003 • President/CEO. The President and Chief Executive Officer of the Chamber will serve at the pleasure of and report to the Chamber Board of Governors. He will administer the programs of the Chamber and the Alliance. (See attached job description,Page 7). This same President and CEO will also be the President and CEO of the Alliance. Executive Vice-President and COO. The Chief Operating Officer of the Chamber will serve at the pleasure of the President and CEO,and will function as the secretary to the Board of Governors and Executive Committee. The Executive Vice President and COO is responsible for Chamber programs. As the secretary of the Board,the Chief Operating Officer would determine agenda items and draft policy positions, in consultation with the Executive Vice President responsible for Alliance programs and the President of the Chamber. The Chief Operating Officer would function as a staff position that would provide human resource, accounting, auditing,government affairs,legal,communication,planning,and other support services for both the Chamber and the Alliance. Newsletters and other public relations materials would be,to some degree, consolidated recognizing importance of program identification through distinct branding and that the Alliance may have need for a separate newsletter focusing on the Central Business Improvement District and that the Chamber may have need for separate communication with their members. (See attached job description,Page 12). • Executive Vice-President for Alliance Programs. The Executive Vice President for Alliance programs of the Chamber would serve at the pleasure of the President/CEO,and would administer the programs of the Alliance,as determined by the three year work plan approved by Salt Lake City and under the direction of the President of the Chamber. (See attached job description,Page 10). EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS. All Alliance funds for implementation of desired services or outcome will/can only be spent for purposes outlined in The Management Services Agreement with Salt Lake City. All funds from assessments generated for the Alliance will only be spent for the purposes and in total amounts as the contract with the City for services with the District,so provides. Funds from the Chamber would be used to pay for the services of the Chief Operating Officer and related staff. When shared services meet the criteria of the three-year work plan as approved by Salt Lake City, funds will be paid by the Alliance for these specific activities. Functions might include reception,economic development,government affairs,communications, accounting,auditing and human services. The auditor(s)for the Chamber and the Alliance will be recommended by the Finance Committees and approved by the respective Board. BYLAWS. Attached are amended Bylaws of the Alliance and Chamber. • EFFECTIVE DATE OF MERGER. July 1,2003. 5 07/18/2003 . SALT LAKE AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, INC. Scott Anderson, Chair THE DOWNTOWN ALLIANCE OF SALT LAKE CITY, INC. Prescott Muir, Chair N:\I9825\Review Committee\Letter of Understanding CLEAN 7-17-03.doc 6 07/18/2003 • Exhibit"A" President-CEO Salt Lake Chamber Job Description: The President and CEO reports directly to the Board of Governors of the Salt Lake Chamber and serves at the will of that Board. Has responsibility for Economic Development programs initiated/supported by the Chamber and Alliance. For the fiscal year 2003, major Economic Development focus is on strengthening/revitalizing the Capital City (the Downtown portion of Salt Lake City). Has the direct responsibility to create positive/favorable working relationships with those who can influence the future direction of Economic Development Programs and/or the Capital City, including: the Governor, the Legislature and its Leadership, the Mayor of Salt Lake City, Business Leaders, Civic Leaders, Religious Leaders, EDCU, The University of Utah, Leadership of Charitable Organizations, the Utah Travel Council, The Salt Lake Convention and Visitor's Bureau, Land/Structure Developers,Property Owners and others as appropriate. Works with other Community Leadership to develop Economic Development and Capital City programs and initiatives for the recruitment of: Businesses (Corporation s & other office users); 1111 Retail, in particular upscale anchors; Residential Developers; Educational Facilities (e.g. U of U Downtown Campus).Presents the Community Programs of others(e.g.the Engineering Initiative of the College of Engineering at the U of U) to the Board of the Salt Lake Chamber, for their consideration and support. Works with Community Leadership to develop programs/initiatives for the successful Legislative passage of revenue-based bonding for achieving Economic Development and Capital City programs. Once such bonding authority is in place, works with Community Leadership to develop programs for the wise expenditure of such funds. Provides executive management oversight for all programs of the Chamber and Alliance. Specific Job Duties: 1. Provide the vision and leadership needed to ensure that the Chamber and Alliance anticipates the changing needs of society and respond quickly and effectively to those needs. 2. Work with a wide range of internal and external constituencies to develop and address priorities and strategic objectives, which build on the Chamber and Alliance's strengths and opportunities and are consistent with the mission,role, and scope of the Chamber and Alliance. 3. Meet with Community Leadership regarding the current status/condition/attractiveness of the Capital City and suggestions for improvement. Consolidate information gained into a • working document, in an interactive process with those Community Leaders. 7 07/18/2003 • 4. Meet with the Governor, Legislative Leadership, and the Mayor and City Council of Salt Lake City regarding their individual perspective on what they can do to support Chamber and Alliance Economic Development programs, including revitalization of the Capital City. Report the summarized results to the Salt Lake Chamber Board of Governors. 5. Meet with the Capital City Property Owners and Developers regarding their perspective on the future of the City and the roadblocks that frustrate achieving that future. Report the summarized results to the Salt Lake Chamber. 6. Serve as a member of and carries out such other general responsibilities as may be delegated by the Salt Lake Chamber Executive Committee and Board of Governors. Attends meetings of the Executive Committee and the Board of Governors. Keep the Executive Committee and Board of Governors fully informed on the conditions and operations of the organization. 7. Maintain a sound organizational structure. 8. Develop a working document, using the information gained from the above initiatives, which outlines meaningful/specific programs/actions for Economic Development, including the renewal of the Capital City, for one, two and five-year periods. After final approval by the Salt Lake Chamber,implement the approved programs. • 9. Build a coalition among Property Owners, Developers, the EDCU, Salt Lake Convention and Visitor's Bureau the Travel Council and appropriate others regarding contacting likely candidates as upscale anchor tenants in a rejuvenated Capital City. 10. Maintain effective relationships with other organizations,both public and private. 11. Coordinate with Community entities (e.g., the U OF U) regarding developing a greater presence in the Downtown. 12. Meet/coordinate with the Chamber leadership in other urban areas (e.g., Logan, Ogden, Provo, St. George, etc.), and Community Leadership and Legislators in the more rural counties to ascertain their perspective on economic development needs in their communities and the potential role of the Salt Lake Chamber in supporting and providing leadership to such programs. 13. Directly supervise the activities of immediate reports. Host a weekly Management Committee meeting. Provide management oversight for all activities of the Chamber and Alliance. Manage the processes of financial reporting for the Chamber and Alliance. 14. Establish such relationships as the Executive Committee may specify or as may be deemed advisable in the best interests of the organization but in conformity with • established policy. 8 07/18/2003 • Exhibit"B" Executive Vice-President of the Salt Lake Chamber (Alliance Programs) Job Description: The Executive Vice-President of the Salt Lake Chamber (Alliance Programs) reports to the President and CEO of the Salt Lake Chamber. Serves at the will of the President & CEO. Is responsible for managing any/all Alliance (contract) relationships with any municipality, including preparation of any RFP draft recommendations to such municipality. Manages the development of concepts that enhance the vitality of the district within Alliance boundaries. Coordinates with the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) regarding enhanced transportation services to and from Alliance boundaries, particularly at the time of special events. Develops recommendations regarding the boundaries of any Downtown Alliance and, after supervisory approval, shall present such to the Alliance Committee and the Salt Lake Chamber Board of Governors for their approval. Assists the President & CEO of the Salt Lake Chamber in the development of programs which enhance the vitality and economic status of the Capital City. Develops and recommends programs for an expanding economic repertoire of cultural, sports, • holiday, business and educational events within Alliance boundaries. Manages/directs the First Night celebration, focusing on the Salt Lake City Downtown. Coordinates with the Travel Council,the Salt Lake Convention and Visitor's Bureau,the EDCU and others, as appropriate, in the development of joint marketing programs that focus on growing economic vitality with the Alliance Boundaries providing a balanced approach which serves the needs of all Alliance Members. Specific Job Duties: 1. Develop a draft RFP for submittal to the Salt Lake City Council regarding boundaries, length of contract and program and assessment recommendations for the renewal of the Downtown Alliance contract with the City. After supervisory, Alliance Committee, and Salt Lake Chamber Board of Governors approval, submit same to the City Council and manage the ongoing process. 2. Develop a conceptual draft of additional cultural, sports,holiday, business and educational events the Alliance might support/sponsor along with estimates of the costs of each. Comment on the feasibility of including each such event in the next Alliance contract, possible sponsors and anticipated impact on the community. 3. Conduct a Farmer's Market. • 4. Prepare and conduct a First Night celebration. 9 07/18/2003 • 5. Consider and prepare discussion outlines for programs which might enhance the marketability of the Alliance area. 6. Provide articles and input for the Salt Lake Chamber Newsletter, and publishes the Alliance Newsletter. 7. Provide monthly updates regarding status of programs to the Chamber and Alliance Committee. 8. Provide management oversight for all activities of the Alliance and its programs. • • 10 07/18/2003 111 Exhibit"C" Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Salt Lake Chamber (Chamber Programs and Central Services) Job Description: The Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Salt Lake Chamber reports directly to the President and CEO of the Salt Lake Chamber. Serves at the will of the President & CEO, upon approval of the Salt Lake Chamber Executive Committee. Is responsible for managing any/all Chamber services, including programs and events, affiliated programs, government affairs, education and training services. Manages the process of maintaining membership records, and seeing that such information is correctly entered into the financial records of the Chamber and Alliance. In response to member input, develops member programs to advance business knowledge and training and provides networking opportunities. Manages public relations activities of the Salt Lake Chamber. Manages the business event programs sponsored/supported by the Salt Lake Chamber. Publishes a monthly newsletter, outlining the accomplishments and plans of the Chamber and Alliance. • Specific Job Duties: 1. Present public relations recommendation to the Chamber and Alliance 2. Maintain ongoing, current and accurate membership records of the Chamber and report to the Salt Lake Chamber Board. 3. Prepare for presentation to Salt Lake Chamber a recommendation regarding networking, business knowledge and training programs. 4. Prepare and publish a monthly Salt Lake Chamber newsletter that includes articles regarding both the Chamber and the Alliance. 5. Provide monthly updates regarding the status of programs to the Salt Lake Chamber. 6. Provide management oversight for all activities of the Chamber. 7. Direct and coordinates all approved Chamber programs, projects and major activities of the staff. 8. Recruit,train and motivate Chamber personnel. • 9. Obtain maximum utilization of staff by clearly defining their duties, establishing performance reviews and maintaining salary structure and benefits. 11 07/18/2003 • 10. Provide the necessary staff support to committee chairs and committees: See that committee recommendations are submitted to the Salt Lake Chamber Executive Committee and Board of Governors. 11. Execute contracts and commitments as may be authorized by the Executive Committee. 12. Promote active member participation in the Chamber's activities. 13. Develop, recommend, and upon approval, operate with a fiscally responsible annual budget. Insure that all funds, physical assets, and other property of the organization are appropriately safeguarded and administered. Execute bylaw provisions with respect to an annual CPA audit. 14. Oversee the planning, promotion and administration of all official meetings. RELATIONSHIPS: 1. Serve as staff liaison between certain assigned committees and the Board of Governors. 2. Visits members' offices when feasible and maintains personal contacts with membership to the greatest degree possible. • 3. Maintains such relationship with other associations, industry, government, public service organizations, and vendors as are in conformity with the overall objectives and policies of the organization. 4. Oversee shared services for the Chamber and Alliance, which include financial, communications and support services. • 12 07/18/2003 Exhibit"D" Board of Governors, Executive Committee and Alliance Board BOARD OF GOVERNORS 1. Gary M.Purk 34. Dell Loy Hansen 2. Jack Livingood 35. Deborah Bayle Nielsen 3. Kern Gardner 36. Dennis Haslam 4. David Burton 37. Mark Howell 5. Gary Porter 38. Dr. Michael Bassis 6. Bill Martin 39. Annette Herman 7. Paul G. Child 40. Scott Anderson 8. Robert Dibblee 41. Scott Beck 9. Andrea P. Wolcott 42. Bruce Bingham 10. Ed McCartney 43. Kevin Bischoff 11. Mary Kay Griffin 44. Dow Dameron • 12. Tom Guinney 45. Sheri Dew 13. Steve Lindberg 46. Clint Ensign 14. David Huntsman 47. James Jardine 15. Larry Walz 48. Karen McArthur 16. Clark Ivory 49. Jessica Norie 17. Fred Lampropolous 50. Bill.Nelson 18. Joe Zerbey 51. Kent Murdock 19. Randy Okland 52. Bruce Reese 20. Bill Landels 53. Rick Howa 21. Raymond Etcheverry 54. Paul Torres 22. Prescott Muir 23. John E. Gates 24. David Jensen 25. Keith Rattie 26. Robin Riggs 27. Tom D. Hori 28. Peggy Lander 29. Tony Weller 30. Scott Slaymaker 31. Jack Pelo 32. Thomas Kesteloot 33. James Wood or Bernie Machen • 13 07/18/2003 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 1. Gary Porter 2. Paul G. Child 3. Robert Dibblee 4. Tom Guinney 5. Prescott Muir 6. John E. Gates 7. Robin Riggs 8. Peggy Lander 9. Deborah Bayle Nielsen 10. Mark Howell 11. Scott Anderson 12. Kern Gardner 13. David Jensen 14. Kevin Bischoff 15. Paul Torres 16. Lane Beattie ALLIANCE BOARD OF DIRECTORS 1. Prescott Muir • 2. David Jensen 3. Gary Porter 4. John Gates 5. Tom Guinney 6. Lane Beattie 14 411 • 07/18/2003 • Chamber/Downtown Alliance Consolidation Revised Proposal March 5, 2003 Option B Prealdent Government Affairs Economic Affairs CMe1 Operating Officer Downtown Director Downtown Alliance Programs and Events Member Services Affiliated Programs Snared Services Contractual SOMces City) I_ Training and Seminars Member Retention Small Businessinstitute MSC) Finance- H Downtown Development 1 Chamber Events Endorsed Products Transportation Management Communications Assodstion Downtown Retail New Members Education and Job Programs Support Services First Night Utah Hispanic Chamber ( Downtown Events Vest Pocket Chamber PAC • 16 FP 3 0 2003 , • ALISON WEYHER S LP j> AE L`-l' YE o +'--.� { . �' II � �--- ' ROSS C. ' ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer ( 6 te: Sept. 25, 2003 FROM: Alison Weyher 1 RE: Notice of Intent to create Central Business Improvement District(DA-CBID-03) and to award a management contract of the district to the Downtown Alliance. STAFF CONTACT: David Dobbins DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution BUDGET IMPACT: Funding for the district will be provided by property owner assessments. The anticipated three-year assessment for the district is approximately$2.15 million. • DISCUSSION: The current Central Business Improvement District(DA-CBID-00) expires December 31, 2003. The Administration is proposing to create a new district. Assessment funds would be used for economic development activities in Salt Lake City's downtown area. The current boundaries of the district are: • North Temple, from State Street to 500 West • 500 West, from North Temple to 400 South • 400 South, from 500 West to 200 East • 200 East, from 400 South to 100 South • 100 South, from 200 East to State Street • State Street, from 100 South to North Temple • 200 South, east 200 East to 300 East Parcels on the south side of 400 South, the north side of North Temple and the west side of 500 West are not included. A map of the district is included. The taxable value of the district in 2000 was approximately$1.37 billion. The City Council approved an assessment rate of.001425 which resulted in revenue of$1.95 million. The 2003 taxable value of the district is approximately$1.5 billion. Assuming the same assessment rate, revenue of$2,150,000 would be generated. 111 By state law, properties cannot be added to the district which were not included in the initial Notice of Intent. However, properties can be deleted from the district at the Council's discretion. The rate may be adjusted higher or lower from what was in the Notice of Intent. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET. ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-523❑ FAX: 801-535-6005 Recvceo P«eR District Management: The Administration issued an RFP for the management of the new • district in June 2003. Two responses were received and each one was rated against a set of criteria by a selection committee comprised of City staff. The Downtown Alliance received the highest rating and the Administration is recommending that they be awarded the contract, contingent upon final creation of the district by the Council. • • • Salt Lake City, Utah October 7, 2003 A regular meeting of the City Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah was held on Tuesday, October 7, 2003, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., at the offices of the City Council at 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah, at which meeting there were present and answering roll call the following members who constituted a quorum: Carlton Christensen Chair Jill Remington Love Vice Chair Nancy Saxton Councilmember Van Blair Turner Councilmember K. Eric Jergensen Councilmember David L. Buhler Councilmember Dale Lambert Councilmember Also present: 4110 Ross C. Anderson Mayor Edwin P. Rutan,II City Attorney Deputy City Recorder Absent: Thereupon the following proceedings, among others, were duly had and taken: The following resolution was introduced in writing, was read by title and Councilmember moved its adoption: 111 UT_DOCS_A#1138510 v1 1 9/25/2003 RESOLUTION NO. • A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE INTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH (THE "CITY") TO CREATE SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH CENTRAL BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. DA-CBID-03 (THE "DISTRICT") TO CONTINUE TO PROMOTE BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN AN AREA OF CENTRAL DOWNTOWN SALT LAKE CITY, BY ASSESSING BENEFITED PROPERTIES WITHIN THE DISTRICT FOR THE COSTS OF SUCH ECONOMIC PROMOTION ACTIVITIES FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS (THE "ASSESSMENTS"); TO NEGOTIATE A CONTRACT WITH THE DOWNTOWN ALLIANCE TO MANAGE THE DISTRICT; AND TO FIX A TIME AND PLACE FOR PROTESTS AGAINST THE DISTRICT AND ITS ASSESSMENTS, AND RELATED MATTERS. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah: Section 1. The City Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah (the "City"), hereby determines that it will be in the best interest of the City to continue to promote business, economic and community activities development in the central business area of downtown Salt Lake City. The proposed activities are more specifically described hereafter, but generally will include, but will not be limited to, advertising, banners, special events and festivals, newsletters and publications, Christmas lighting and special projects (the "Economic Promotion Activities") in the downtown area as described hereafter and more specifically identified on maps and plans on file in the Office of the City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Utah. In order to accomplish the Economic Promotion Activities, the City proposes to create Salt Lake City, Utah Central Business Improvement District No. DA-CBID-03 (the "District"), the areas of which are more particularly described in the Notice of Intention set out hereafter. Section 2. A portion of the cost of the Economic Promotion Activities shall be paid by a special assessment (the "Assessment") to be levied against properties situated within the District which are specially benefited by the Economic Promotion Activities. The Assessment may be paid when assessed or, at the option of the property owner, in three (3) annual installments with interest on any delinquent installment until paid. Section 3. Written protests against the proposed assessments may be presented and filed in the Office of the City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Utah, on or before November 10, 2003, at the hour of 5:00 p.m. Thereafter, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on Tuesday, November 18, 2003, at the City Council Chambers at 451 South State Street in Salt Lake City, Utah, any protests or other comments shall be heard and considered by the City Council. The City Recorder is hereby directed to give notice of intention (the "Notice of Intention" or "Notice") to • UT DOCS A#1138510 v1 2 9/25/2003 • create the District to finance and support the Economic Promotion Activities. The Notice of Intention shall also specify the time within which protests against the proposed assessments may be filed and the date when protests and other comments will be heard and considered. Notice shall be given by publishing a Notice of Intention in the Deseret Morning News, a newspaper of general circulation in the City, said Notice to be published four times, once during each week for four consecutive weeks, the last publication to be not less than five (5) nor more than twenty (20) days prior to the time fixed in the Notice as the last day for the filing of protests. In addition, the City Recorder shall mail a copy of the Notice by United States Mail, postage prepaid, to each owner of land to be assessed within the District at the last known address of such owner, using for such purpose the names and addresses of said owners appearing on the last completed real property assessment rolls of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, and, in addition, a copy of the Notice shall be mailed, postage prepaid, addressed to "Owner" at the street number of each piece of improved property to be affected by the assessment, said Notices to be so mailed not later than ten (10) days after the first publication of the Notice of Intention. If a street number has not been so assigned, then the post office box, rural route number, or any other mailing address of the improved property shall be used for the mailing of the Notice. Said Notice of Intention shall be in substantially the following form: • 1 UT_DOCS_A#1138510 v1 3 9/25/2003 NOTICE OF INTENTION PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on the October 7, 2003, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, adopted a resolution (the "Resolution") declaring its intention to create Salt Lake City, Utah Central Business Improvement District No. DA- CBID-03 (the "District") to finance a portion of the cost of economic promotion and community development, which are more specifically described hereafter (the "Economic Promotion Activities") in the area of downtown Salt Lake City within the District and to levy a special assessment (the "Assessment" or "Assessments") for a period of three years as provided in Title 17A, Chapter 3, Part 3, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, on real property situated within the District, for the benefit of which such assessments are to be expended in the management and costs of the Economic Promotion Activities. DESCRIPTION OF DISTRICT The District area is described by reference to the following streets (the "Reference Streets"): A- North Temple, from State Street to 500 West; B - 500 West, from North Temple to 400 South; C - 400 South, from 500 West to 200 East: D - 200 East, from 400 South to 100 South; • E- 100 South, from 200 East to State Street; F - State Street, from 100 South to North Temple, and G- 200 South, east from 200 East to 300 East. The area of the District shall include all property bounded by Reference Streets A through F, inclusive, plus Reference Street G, described above. In addition it shall include parcels of property, subject to the exceptions set out hereafter, (the "Peripheral Parcels") which abut the Reference Streets plus all corner parcels which have a corner touching any of the Reference Streets. However, the Peripheral Parcels on the south side of 400 South, the north side of North Temple and the west side of 500 West shall not be included within the District. The Resolution, maps and other information about the District are available for examination in the offices of the Salt Lake City Recorder, 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah. ACTIVITIES AND MANAGEMENT OF THE DISTRICT The Economic Promotion activities shall include advertising, marketing, special events, festivals, transportation, newsletters, publications, banners, Christmas lighting, security, special projects, housing, town meetings, government policy, cultural promotion, reports, surveys and other promotional activities within the District. i UT DOCS A#1138510 v1 4 9/25/2003 • Since 1992 the Downtown Alliance has managed promotional activities for Central Business Improvement Districts Numbers DA-8690-A, DA-8690-B,DA-8690-97 and DA-CBID-00. The City has selected the Downtown Alliance (the "Manager") for management of the District through December 31, 2006, subject to creation of the District. The Manager has submitted a proposed budget estimating the costs (the "Estimated Costs") of Economic Promotion Activities within the District. Information from the proposed budget is included in the following section. • UT DOCS_A#1138510 v1 5 9/25/2003 ASSESSMENT RATE, FINANCIAL PLAN AND • SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS Funding from Assessments provides only a portion of the total budget for the District's programs and activities. The Manager will secure funds from other sources such as grants, foundations, earned income and sponsorships. The funding from the District is directly leveraged on almost a 1 to 1 basis. In addition, sponsors and contributors will pay directly to third party providers a portion of the costs of some Economic Promotion Activities. These supplemental third party payments are not reflected in the projected budget of the District. Most, if not all, of these other sources of funds would not be available without the funding from the Assessments or the Economic Promotion Activities of the District. Source of Funds Total 2003 taxable value of the District $1,513,455,438 Proposed assessment rate(equates to .00053 of 2003 .001425 (of 2003 taxable taxable value per year) value for three year period) Gross funds generated over three years $2,150,000 Less 5%uncollectible 0 Net funds available over three years 2,150,000 Available from assessments per fiscal year 716,000_ Uses of Funds (annualized basis) Economic Development 263,000 Economic Development/Lifestyle 263,000 General and Administration 180,000 Reserve 10,000 Total 716,000 Other Supplemental District Revenue Generated Directly by Downtown Alliance* (Grants,foundations, sponsorships, earned income, contributions, etc.) First Night 65,000 Farmers Market 20,000 Banners/Kiosks 20,000 Other 130,200 Total Non-assessment Revenues projected for three 705,600 years Available Non-assessment Revenues per fiscal year 235,200 * includes subsidiary corporations • UT DOGS A#1138510 v1 6 9/25/2003 • PROPERTIES EXCLUDED FROM DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS Residential, ecclesiastical and civic properties shall be excluded from Assessments. The determination of qualification for exclusion for ecclesiastical and civic property shall be based upon exemptions from ad valorem real property taxes for properties used by churches for non commercial purposes and for properties owned and operated by governmental agencies. BASIS FOR ASSESSMENT It is proposed to levy a one-time assessment for a three year period on property in the District to pay all or a portion of the estimated costs of Economic Promotion Activities. The assessment shall not exceed the benefits derived by the properties within the District. The assessment shall be based on the 2003 taxable property values. In addition to revenues from the assessment, the Manager of the District will utilize other funding resources, including revenues from grants, promotions, contributions and sponsorships. PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS Assessments shall be payable in cash or in three (3) annual installments (the "Assessment Installment" or "Installments"), commencing with the effective date of the • Assessment Ordinance, which is currently estimated to be approximately February 23, 2004. The next two Installments will fall due on the first and second annual anniversary dates of the Assessment Ordinance effective date. Interest on any delinquent Assessment Installment shall accrue at the same rate as will be applied to delinquent real estate taxes in the year of delinquency. The whole or any part of the Assessment may be paid without interest within 15 days (the "Cash Payment Period") after the ordinance levying the Assessment becomes effective, but the first Assessment Installment sha 11 be due and payable during the Cash Payment Period. TIME FOR FILING PROTESTS To be counted against the creation of the District, protests or objections MUST BE IN WRITING, signed by the owners of the property proposed to be assessed. The written protest must describe or otherwise identify said property. If the aggregate taxable value of property which is the subject of timely filed written protests exceeds the aggregate taxable value of properties which are not the subject of a written protest, the City Council will not create the District. Protests withdrawn prior to the creation of the District and protests from areas deleted from the District will not be counted against the creation of the District. WRITTEN NOTICE OF PROTESTS MUST BE FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SALT LAKE CITY RECORDER, ROOM 415, CITY & COUNTY BUILDING, ON OR BEFORE 5:00 o'clock p.m. on November 10, 2003. Thereafter, at 7:00 p.m., on November 18, 2003, the City Council will meet at the City Council Chambers in the City 110 UT DOCS_A#1138510 v1 7 9/25/2003 • & County Building to hear and consider any such protests and objections to the assessments. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH /s/ Deputy City Recorder • • UT DOCS A#1138510 v1 8 9/25/2003 • Councilmember seconded the motion to adopt the foregoing resolution. The motion and resolution were unanimously adopted on the following recorded vote: Those voting AYE: Those voting NAY: • 1 UT_DOCS_A#1138510 v1 9 9/25/2003 After the conduct of other business not pertinent to the above, the meeting was, on • motion duly made and seconded, adjourned. Chair ATTEST: Deputy City Recorder (SEAL) • • UT_DOCS_A#1138510 v1 10 9/25/2003 0 PRESENTATION TO THE MAYOR The foregoing resolution was presented to the Mayor for his approval or disapproval on , 2003. Chair MAYOR'S APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this , 2003. • Mayor r UT_DOCS_A#1138510 v1 11 9/25/2003 STATE OF UTAH ) : ss. COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) I, , the duly chosen, qualified and acting Deputy City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, do hereby certify as follows: (a) That the foregoing typewritten pages constitute a full, true and correct copy of the record of proceedings of the City Council at a regular meeting thereof held in Salt Lake City on October 7, 2003, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., insofar as said proceedings relate to the consideration and adoption of a resolution declaring the intention of the City Council to create Salt Lake City, Utah Central Business Improvement District No. DA-CBID-03 to provide economic promotion activities therein described as the same appears of record in my office; that I personally attended said meeting, and that the proceedings were in fact held as in said minutes specified. (b) That due, legal and timely mtice of said meeting was served upon all members as required by law and the rules and ordinances of Salt Lake City. (c) That the above resolution was deposited in my office on October 7, 2003, has been recorded by me, and is a part of the permanent records of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my official signature and • affixed the seal of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, this October 7, 2003. Deputy City Recorder ( SEAL) I UT DOCS A#1138510 v1 12 9/25/2003 • STATE OF UTAH ) AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING :ss. NOTICE OF INTENTION COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) I, , the duly chosen, qualified and acting Deputy City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, do hereby certify that the attached Notice of Intention was approved and adopted in the proceedings of the City Council held on Tuesday, October 7, 2003. I further certify that on , 2003, (a date not later than ten (10) days after the first publication of the Notice of Intention) I mailed a true copy of the Notice of Intention to create Salt Lake City, Utah Central Business Improvement District No. DA-CBID-03 by United States Mail, postage prepaid to each owner of land to be assessed within the proposed Special Improvement District at the last known address of - such owner, using for such purpose the names and addresses appearing on the last completed real property assessment rolls of Salt Lake County, and in addition I mailed on the same date a copy of said Notice of Intention addressed to "Owner" addressed to the street number, post office box, rural route number, or other mailing address of each piece of improved property to be affected by the assessment. I further certify that a certified copy of said Notice of Intention, together with profiles of the improvements and a map of the proposed District, was on file in my office • for inspection by any interested parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the corporate seal of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, this , 2003. • Deputy City Recorder ( SEAL) UT_DOCS_A#1138510 v1 13 9/25/2003 (Affidavit of proof of publication of the Notice of Intention to continue Salt Lake 0 City, Utah Central Business Improvement District No. DA-CBID-00 with a new numbered designation of DA-CBID-03 for a three year period.) III S UT DOCS A#1138510 v1 14 9/25/2003 • CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH OPEN MEETING LAW I, the undersigned Deputy City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County (the "City Recorder"), do hereby certify, according to the records of the City Council in my official possession, and upon my own knowledge and belief, that in accordance with the requirements of Section 52-4-6(2), Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, I gave not less than twenty-four (24) hours public notice of the agenda, date, time and place of the October 7,2003, public meeting held by the City Council as follows: (a) By causing a Notice in the form attached hereto as Schedule "A", to be posted at the offices of the Salt Lake City Council on , 2003, at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the convening of the meeting, said Notice having continuously remained so posted and available for public inspection until the completion of the meeting; and (b) By causing a copy of such Notice, in the form attached hereto as Schedule "A", to be delivered to the Deseret Morning News on 2003, at least twenty-four(24) hours prior to the convening of the meeting. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my official signature this , 2003. S Deputy City Recorder ( SEAL) 10 UT_DOCS_A#1138510 v1 15 9/25/2003 • OPINION REVIEWED BY ANOTHER ATTORNEY BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL, LLP - SALT LAKE OFFICE Document Information Form PLEASE KEEP THIS SHEET WITH YOUR DOCUMENT. DOCUMENT DATA DOCUMENT NO.: 1138510 ATTORNEY NAME: Carlton • PROFILE INFORMATION TITLE Notice of Intention AUTHOR Blaine L. Carlton FILE# 418547(Temporary) CLIENT/MATTER Salt Lake City CBID-03 D&R 1056545 DATE 9/25/2003 NOTES: 10 UT_DOCS_A#1138510 v1 17 9/25/2003 JUL 3 0 2003 OLISON WEYHER seer' A\ (3. aDir IURP `174.Y 4 0141}y1 's` �ra«'-,# ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTQR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYQR ' COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer Date: July 30, 2003 FROM: David Dobbins f-', „/ '' RE: Briefing on upcoming process for creating a new Central Business Improvement District. STAFF CONTACT: David Dobbins DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing BUDGET IMPACT: None. This is only a briefing. However, if a new district is approved, a budget will need to be created that matches the revenue generated from the assessment. DISCUSSION: The current Central Business Improvement District(DA-CBID- 00) ( 0) expires December 31, 2003. The Administration is proposing to create a new district. Special improvement districts (SID) for economic development purposes are allowed under the state statute that governs SID's, and is therefore subject to a specific approval process. This briefing will outline that process and the decisions that need to be made. Step 1 —Approve a Notice of Intent: The first step in the approval process is to issue a Notice of Intent that will be used to notify all property owners in the proposed district that the Council is considering approval of an economic development improvement district. The notice needs to state the proposed district boundaries, assessment rate, use of the funds, and the scheduled protest hearing date. • Boundaries: The current district boundaries: • North Temple, from State Street to 500 West • 500 West, from North Temple to 400 South • 400 South, from 500 West to 200 East • 200 East, from 400 South to 100 South • 100 South, from 200 East to State Street • State Street, from 100 South to North Temple • 200 South, east from 200 East to 300 East 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 8O 1-535.623❑ FAX: S01•535-6005 Parcels on the south side of 400 South, the north side of North Temple and the west side of 500 S West are not included. A map of the district is included. According to the state statute,properties cannot be added to the district if they were not included in the initial Notice of Intent. However, properties can be deleted from the district at the Council's discretion. The Administration is recommending that the boundaries of the new district match the current boundaries. The Downtown Alliance is recommending that the easterly boundary be extended to 300 East from 400 South to 100 South. Rate: The Notice of Intent must include a proposed rate that will be assessed against the properties in the district(the assessment is against the value of the property). The 2000 district assessment rate was set at .001425. The taxable value of the district in 2000 was approximately $1.37 billion, so about$1.95 million in revenue was generated. The 2002 taxable value of the district is approximately$1.5 billion. Assuming the same assessment rate, revenue of $2,150,000 would be generated. The proposed rate can be changed(increased or decreased)by the Council when it finalizes the district's creation. Use of Funds: The general use of the funds generated from the district will be the following: • Advising the City regarding the effects of long-range and short-term planning issues in the downtown area. • • Promoting and marketing the downtown area as a place to work, shop, do business, and live. • Advising the City on planning efforts to improve parking and transportation within the downtown district. • Assisting businesses currently operating downtown and bringing other businesses downtown. • Increasing public awareness of the vitality and attractiveness of downtown through the use of advertising. • Acquiring,placing and maintaining banners. • Hosting and sponsoring special events and festivals. • Editing and publishing newsletters. • Maintaining and installing Christmas lighting. • Generally promoting the area within the boundaries of the District. Protest Hearing Date: The notice must include the date that a public hearing will be held to consider all protests filed and hear all objections relating to the proposed special improvement district. The Administration is recommending a hearing date of November 10, 2003. Step 2 —Approve a Contractor for Managing the District: By state statute, the City Council has the authority to choose a contractor for improvements that are made in an SID. Typically, the awarding of such a contract is made to the "lowest responsible bidder." In this particular case, 111 • however, because the improvements that are being made are professional services, the awarding of the contract should be based on experience and expertise, not on cost. The Administration issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) in July 2003. Two proposals were received; one from the Downtown Alliance and one from an organization called The Economic Development Team. A selection committee comprised of city staff reviewed the two proposals and is ready to issue a recommendation to the Council. Another option would be for the Council itself to review both proposals, and then award the contract. It has been suggested by the Downtown Alliance that the contractor be selected prior to issuing the Notice of Intent so the property owners in the district will know who will be managing the funds. Step 3—Hold a protest hearing: State statute requires the City Council to hold a public hearing to receive comments regarding the creation of the district. The hearing date will be part of the Notice of Intent and will state that at the hearing, the Council will consider all protests filed and hear all objections relating to the proposed special improvement district. Property owners wishing to protest the district need not attend the hearing, but they must at least file a written protest prior to the hearing date to have their protest included in the overall protest rate. According to state statute, if owners representing 50% of the property value in the proposed • district protest its creation, then the City Council must abandon the district. If less than 50%of the property value protests the district's creation, then the Council may proceed with the process. Step 4—Create Special Improvement District Step 5—Create a Board of Equalization: State statute also requires a board of equalization to be appointed to hear arguments from any person who believes himself to be aggrieved, including arguments relating to the benefits accruing to any tract, block, lot, or parcel of property in the district or relating to the amount of the proposed assessment against that tract,block, lot,or parcel. The Council may appoint three of its members to act as the board, or it has the option of appointing the following City staff(or their designee): City Recorder, City Engineer or Public Works Director, and the City Attorney. The fmdings of the board will then be given to the full Council. Step 6—Create District: Once the findings of the board are approved,then the Council may proceed with the levying of assessments. I Central Business Improvement District ________ _____________•_____ _ .. , _________-r --- •--- ; -.. • • I PI.-''•F -....' 1 !' " - .- T,.."1.-". I 1 ' I I. . HU ; I • ILI I If I i" r I•11 1_, ) --• ; , „.,:. ,•, ' ! ., I 1 , , r •; ; •I•',•; , '1 ! •••-------..! • ; i il•-f 1 ,•• li I ; ; 1;;• • .• - •,n, ; , ; 1 ; 1 , , • ; ,: ; • ). . ! t 1 , F•-•••••- 1; i•'.- ..; • 1 '3RD AVE a. .1:47.1 I !.7.4...,, 1.--. -i . . .•• . • • .• , , .i . ! 1 Viil, ,'..r•-••••••' •i i .. ' .; .i t : 1!! I I I ......•-.1 I 1 ; . ;1 ; i , • .. ; m••,,,,,,,,I :, ; , • ; ; , . ; . • . ' I.-- 1! I I ,, - ', lc. -, ;, ; : , ; : , 1 . • — -. . 1 I r , I , Hi ---- 1 I • 1 I .1 i ;,. ,..,; , I I. 1 1 1 I ! I I i 1 ' r"' !--!SIORTH11-TIVIPLEIST I ! I 1 i • 1 ; 14?..e • . ; ! . • . , • , , • - . • „poor , 2ND AVE N ... ... ----- I' 11111 , ,......4.1- I • ; ; i- -i II — ;1 lir I 1 1 I. f-i E-, ; • ' F-• • •.t •;;;' i •;; i; i , c,n, c4, , , v.) •,! . 1 -;`•-1 1 1 I ' -7-3111111 ;: • ' ' i i-.....-..-.1:......,)7/ . r I -- r'' 211 ' I ' I .1. ...I , •V; .. : 1 . .r< 41! ! i i U I ; • r 4 -1 — ' • ,ii, '' 'II' i 'i 1 • , „ , • " I i Hi Ill i i i 1 l'1•1 , 1 1 : i • • 1 1::_.::. , „•• r I 1. . ; ) - _ Li 1,.:: ., i , : • t ' " 1 / .----- SOUTH TEMPLE ST 0 \ li_,.. 1 - — • I i- n-.1 - i 'if! •,J , . . 1 0 I f i i 0 = ' II;. ri • . ,! 0 0 ''''............ I [... • .. 0 0 0 0 I--- — ID ; • , 7 -"I ""•I • ' . :' i '; : ; ; ! • ; ! ; I ! ; • 1 •_.::.-1 ''.. .. I DOD ,.. .,._ ! LI ., - ' o O 0 CI 11. I ! . : I !-.1 . ..: ,.,• . .. . . . , i:, • , , : • 1 1 1 E. ? I I 1 L ! !''. : • i, • , loos . c.) loos i I • l•• •p•-n--• i - 0 0 I, r— W__:1 iiiiiiiimmi min mug - , 1, • ; , ; : . ; • : . . „ , ; ,i . _•.1 o o , ito :; , • ; . : ; „ , ..wilii N17.:_.--=. Ewa sulicaj u ii ..__ , • ,, • . ,.::::„-••• , , 0 _ sio ,_ ..._- ....__ _ .! :,..C)r- • i• - •!, 1• •I 1 "• f Ii I I c.,_ 1 'CS 0 11111111.1.1111 1--.114 EL LEA . .: 1 i I ; 1 o D c> o o W —•-1111pm =!... paw — II -- • •••"••• . • ,, i -.fr., 0 „I. .... , ,n,_____r c.4 goilim-r-_,Ami m.....v, = ; ! o II ilIII 1 I o rn Ellitite -ati 1 um II. L i _1,4 : . 200 S cia cz -i r• r;;TI-;• —; —•• minitim mNiiiimm I LI I ,----F- 111,411 — - ,i• ,• cip , • ,.. • '''': ;' , , , • ,, -',.- v) ill Nil II ..-..morm. P1E1PONT ._Z.-...._ tn lir11111111w mi___rail.....---=== • : ! : = mil_rum w 111111111111megpimMti;=. 1 .i .< fiii/IMiimilig, Num . i I W E".1'...........nrag' MIMI CP - ; • ' i4 r— Ls. 1.1.1 ,H—T---4-vt-- :IN — .<c=11- i. I. =,--i .. .,! • ; : 11111. . • ; ' 1. CI'• rh • Z .- --.'- iiii Il 1 !=. E-, i i ;1 , • , . : , i, • . • ;-t•• I 1 1•; , ... 1 .tt 111111 v) _ 300 S I-- ' — • ' 1 • I • . ,i 1 0 . 1 1 1 1 '..,Ir.,i •-.-001 4N1 I .Ce, 6,-wil NIXPIk ill—cT, iiitimillil 11.1-1 _ ;; ; • • , • i ; •• : ; . di I i i 1 IIMMIUM IN = ' --Li_ ..T.,i. -•1 , — --,1 , Hi' I i kil I I 4100 Si IT imp m IIIII - .1 1 a : '1 ,. . , :,•, miiii Mimi . ..... •. . . . , .„ .. . . . . ....., ;; 1,1 IT,. ip 1 r--; IT 1-1-n.;;;• .1 i r-r --1-1 ;;:.1 [1Tr•!'•'Fr-1 1- •---'-r• ---.--- • • "111111i1111 ! I it 1 . , 1 II 11111 , 1 1 rLi.._.. ....__.....____;.........i 1 e; -I :; •;.; • . 1, : • '-.1 ; . ; 1 "Ii 1 I II 1 LL-1 '---11._1......i..L. ' I • • , - 1 i.-.72.1--;••••--••., [•••••i ;_,_.. , . • .• . , • APV ; 1 , 1 1.•_... ; _. . , I f• it ', I I-1,' 1 ' ; I „ 1 t .•, i ,1 I1... •,,' ; I . ' . 11 1 I ; I H-1" ;'-.-1 I-, ,,' . ,...s., 1---• i I I . , ;II —I I r I II ,; I I" -- 1 II; I iI 1, . ; ; _j.... 1 j 500 S 1--- ----r---1. I . . , • . ; i . . ,! , I - ______ _..._._._ .. ... _4._______ .. _ _ 0 • ... • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: October 3,2003 SUBJECT: Petition No.400-00-14—Request for a zoning text amendment to Section 21A.06.080(C)governing Decision-Making Bodies and Officials, specifically amending the number of voting members on the Land Use Appeals Board AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: If the ordinance is adopted,the amendment will be applicable citywide. STAFF REPORT BY: Sylvia Jones,Policy Analyst and Janice Jardine,Land Use Policy Analyst ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Community and Economic Development—Planning Division AND CONTACT PERSON: Janice Lew,Associate Planner KEY ELEMENTS: 1. On June 2, 1998,the City Council approved a Legislative Action item initiated by former Council Member Tom Rogan requesting that the Administration amend the Land Use Appeals Board(LUAB) Ordinance, 411 specifically,the standard of review used by the Board,and the number of voting members serving on the Board. The Planning Commission's recommendation addresses the portion of the Legislative Action item relating to the number of voting members. As part of their motion,the Planning Commission also directed staff to re-evaluate the zoning ordinance as it relates to the"standard of review"for the Land Use Appeals Board. 2. Currently,the Board is composed of three members and two alternates. Over the last two years,the number of appeals has increased significantly such that Board averages one case per month, as compared to averaging one case per year when the Board was first created. Increasing the number of voting members will allow the board more flexibility when attempting to convene a quorum. A. The Legislative Action item is attached for the Council's review. In summary,the Standard of Review for Land Use Appeals Board Policies and Procedures states that LUAB review is limited to the record of the Planning Commission(PC) or the Historic Landmarks Commission(HLC),including the application or petition,staff report and other documents or evidence such as photos,tape recordings of the hearing, or minutes of the HLC or PC. LUAB will not consider other evidence unless the evidence was improperly excluded by the HLC or PC. The LUAB will presume the decision of the HLC or PC is valid. However,decisions made by the HLC and PC may be rebutted if the LUAB determines that the decision was illegal,arbitrary or capricious or not supported by substantial evidence. (The Legislative Action item defines the terms illegal, arbitrary, capricious and substantial evidence in further detail. See attached.) 111 Page 1 3. Public process: A. The City Council adopted a Legislative Action Item June 2, 1998 which asked the Administration to • amend the current Land Use Appeals Board ordinance regarding the standard of review and the number of voting members serving on the Board. B. Community Council Chairs were notified of the proposed zoning ordinance amendments in a letter dated May 22, 2002. The Planning Division did not receive feedback from Community Councils. C. On October 3,2002,the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council increase the number of voting members serving on the Land Use Appeals Board. The Planning Commission's motion directed staff to reevaluate the zoning ordinance regarding the portion relating to the"standard of review"for LUAB. The following issues were discussed at the Planning Commission's public hearing: i. The need to change the number of voting members from three to five since the Board meets more frequently. ii. The purpose of a review or appeals board in terms of reviewing evidence versus questioning whether a particular board followed procedure. iii. Whether the petition was properly advertised and who has the authority to file a petition. iv. Proposed text revisions to the standard of review are difficult to understand and may need to be clarified by the Attorney's Office. MATTERS AT ISSUE/POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION: 1. The Council may wish to request an update from the Administration as to the timeframe and scope of the issues being considered relating to the standard of review portion of the Legislative Action item. 2. The Council may wish to consider whether the Planning Commission should be recommending changes to the appeals process for its own decisions. The Land Use Appeals Board ordinance currently appears in the 40 portion of the City Code relating to planning and zoning and, as such,requires Planning Commission review for ordinance changes. Might this be construed as a conflict of interest? 3. The Council may wish to consider removing the LUAB section from the Zoning Ordinance and including it as a separate chapter of the City Code. (For example,the Transportation Advisory Board(TAB),the Business Advisory Board(BAB),and the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board(HAAB)are listed in a separate chapter of the City Code that creates each board and the criteria governing it.) 4. The Council may wish to discuss the possibility of mandatory training for new members of the Board of Adjustment,Planning Commission and Historic Landmarks Commission. As discussed earlier,the number of appeals has increased. Training may reduce the number of appeals,which would support Council policies relating to efficient government. LUAB is one of the few paid City boards. Board members currently receive$75.00 per case, so if three cases are heard in one meeting,the board members receive $225.00. As the number of appeals increase,the direct costs as well as indirect costs to City government will also increase. Attached is a spreadsheet itemizing the LUAB appeals over the last six years. 5. The Council may wish to ask the Administration"for a review of"best practices" as used by other cities in their appeals process. 6. The Council may wish to solicit feedback from citizens regarding their experience with the LUAB appeals process. 7. The Council may wish to inquire as to whether the members of the LUAB have had an opportunity to review the Planning Staff's recommendations for the ordinance changes and provide feedback as to whether these recommendations satisfy LUAB's intentions. • Page 2 CHRONOLOGY: The Administration's transmittal provides a chronology of events relatingthe proposed to p p ose d Zoning Ordinance text amendment. Key dates are listed below. Please refer to the Administration's chronology for details. • April 1998 Legislative Action Item adopted by the City Council. • May 2002 Community Council Chairs received a letter notifying them of the proposed Ordinance changes • October 3, 2002 Planning Commission hearing cc: Dave Nimkin,Rocky Fluhart,Ed Rutan,Lynn Pace,Alison Weyher,David Dobbins,Louis Zunguze,Brent Wilde, Doug Wheelwright,Janice Jardine,Cheri Coffey,Elizabeth Giraud,and Janice Lew File Location: Community and Economic Development Dept.,Planning Division,Zoning Text Amendment, Land Use Appeals Board • Page 3 MEMO Oro: Council Members CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson,Janice Jardine DATE: May 14, 1998 • FROM: Council Member Tom Rogan District Three RE: Amendment to the Land Use Appeals Board Ordinance This is a request to the Administration to amend the current Land Use Appeals Board Ordinance,specifically (1 the Standard of Review and 2)the number of true voting members serving on the Board. The board has adopted a"substantial evidence"standard in their policies and procedures to review decisions of the Historic Landmarks Commission and the Planning Commission. It would be in the best interests of the City if the ordinance and the policies and procedures reflected the same standard of review. As the Council is aware,the current ordinance is rather narrow. This would clarify the standards and eliminate the current differing interpretations. It is the general feeling of the board that these changes would help them perform their duties and serve the City in a more effective manner. 1) The Standard of Review in the Land Use Appeals Board Policies and Procedures is as follows: a) The review of the Land Use Appeals Board will be limited to the record before the Historic Landmarks Commission(HLC)or the Planning Commission(PC). The record includes the application or petition to the • HLC or PC,the staff report,any other documents or evidence,including photographs,submitted to or considered by the HLC or PC,the tape recording of the hearing before the HLC or PC and the minutes of the HLC or PC. The Land Use Appeals Board will not accept or consider any evidence not presorted to the HLC or PC,unless the evidence was improperly excluded by the HLC or PC. b) The Land Use Appeals Board will presume that the decision of the Historic Landmarks Commission or the Planning Commission is valid. c) The presumption in favor of the deciding body's decision may be rebutted,however,if the Land Use Appeals Board concludes that the decision was illegal,arbitrary or capricious or not supported by substantial evidence. d) Illegal means failure to follow proper procedures,such as failure to notify all persons as required by the applicable ordinance,or;erroneous interpretation or application of the law,unless the error is harmless,that is, unless the error would affect the outcome of the case and is prejudicial to the appellant. The Land Use Appeals Board will defer to the HLC's or PC's interpretation of the law where the ordinance or statute expressly or impliedly grants discretion to the deciding body. e) The term `arbitrary and capricious'includes "not supported by substantial evidence." fl `Substantial evidence'means that the record contains evidence supporting the findings. The Land Use Appeals Board may not reweigh the evidence,but there must be more than a mere scintilla of evidence supporting the lower body's findings. If the evidence is conflicting or if inconsistent inferences may be drawn from the same evidence,the Land Use Appeals Board must defer to the judgment of the HLC or PC. 2) In addition to the revised Standard of Review,the board would like to make the two alternate members true voting members,thus raising the number of board members from three to five. 10 • • 9/24/2003 LAND USE APPEALS BOARD CASE LOG 1 LUAB Case Appellant Name Board Description of Appeal Hearing Date LUAB Decision 00318-97 Todd Holloway HLC Appealing denial for request to build a twin home 9/24/97 Upheld at 439 North Main Street. 018-96 Art Brothers HLC Appealing contributory designation of house at 9/8/97 Overturned 39 North"Q"Street. 01-001 Overland Development HLC Appealing denial of demolition request for the 6/28/01 Overturned Frederick Fail House at 558 East 300 South. 01-002 Nextel Communications WITHDRAWN 01-003 24th Ward WITHDRAWN 01-004 Andrew Chase,et al PC Appealing approval for a flag lot at 1750 East 1700 8/23/01 Upheld 01-005 The Boyer Company HLC Appealing denial of request to place three names 8/23/01 Overturned on a monument sign at 420 East South Temple 01-006 Prosperity Enterprises HLC Appealing denial of demolition request for the 8/23/01 Upheld duplex at 613-615 East 500 South and the former Bill&Nada's Café at 479 South 600 East 01-007 Marc Moskowitz HLC Appealing approval of sign request with the 10/11/01 Upheld modifications imposed by the Landmark Comm. 01-008 Russ Schmit HLC Appealing approval for request to remove vinyl 11/14/01 Dismissed siding and apply stucco to building at 523 East No jurisdiction 800 South over request 01-009 Prosperity Enterprises HLC Appealing contributory designation of duplex at 11/14/01 Upheld 613-615 East 500 South 01-010 Cannon Stake-LDS Church PC Appealing denial of parking lot expansion request 11/14/01 Overturned 9/24/2003 LAND USE APPEALS BOARD CASE LOG 2 for church at 934 West Fremont Avenue 02-001 Qwest Wireless PC Appealing denial of request for 30-foot extension 1/24/02 Upheld of 30-foot monopole at 1411 South Redwood Rd. 02-002 East Central Community PC Appealing approval of conditional use for a 1/24/02 Upheld Council community recreation center at Cancer Wellness House at 57& 59 South 1100 East. 02-003 Colonial Flag PC Appealing denial of conditional use request to 4/22/02 Upheld construct a 120-foot flag pole at 777 S. W. Temple 02-004 Lynette Robison, et al PC Appealing approval of conditional use approval 3/25/02 Upheld for Madison Estates Phase Ill subdivision street width reduction and 27 lots at 1650 W. California Ave. 02-005 Overland Development HLC Appealing the review of the Economic Review Panel's 4/22/02 Remanded to HLC findings of fact regarding an economic hardship request for the Juel Apartments at 340 South 600 East. 02-006 Charles M. England HLC Appealing denial of request to legalize aluminum inter- 6/13/02 Upheld locking shingle roofing system installed without a permit at 12 West 500 North in the Capitol Hill Historic District. 02-007 Voicestream Wireless PC Appealing denial of request for 13-foot extension to an 6/13/02 Overturned existing 75-foot wireless telecommunications tower at 810 North 2200 West. 02-008 Doner Way&Oakcrest PC Appealing a conditional use approval for a six-unit 8/26/02 Upheld Owners Association residential planned development in an RMF-45 zoning district consisting of multiple buildings on the site and less than the required frontage on the dedicated street located at 910 South Donner Way. 02-009 Redevelopment Agency HLC Appealing denial of of application to demolish the 8/26/02 Overturned Arctic Court structures located at 519 &521 North Arctic Court, and 548 and 554-556 North 300 West. 02-011 Lori Lewis& Lane Hansen HLC Appealing denial of request for legalization of a six-foot 12/17/02 Overturned 0 • 9/24/2003 LAND USE APPEALS BOARD CASE LOG 3 vinyl fence that was constructed without a building permit. 03-001 Overland Development HLC Appealing the HLC denial for economic hardship status 2/3/03 Overturned for the Juel Apartments at 340 South 600 East. 03-002 Tamara Wharton PC Appealing approval of a conditional use for a private club 2/3/03 Upheld to be located at 1492 South State Street in a CC Commercial Corridor zoning district. 03-003 Neil Rasmussen PC Appealing approval of a conditional use for a private club 2/3/03 Upheld to be located at 1492 South State Street in a CC Commercial Corridor zoning district. 03-004 SpectraSite*Communication PC Appealing denial of conditional use for additional wireless 3/10/03 Upheld telecommunications equipment pad and height extension of monopole from 60 feet to 80 feet at 1505 S Redwood Rd. 03-005 Sarah Carlson, et al PC Appealing approval of conditional use for the construction 3/10/03 Upheld of two utility buildings that will contain water fluoridation equipment to be located at 1285 East 2700 South and at 1907 East 2700 South. 03-006 Dona Desario, et al PC Appealing approval of preliminary subdivision approval of a 3/31/03 Upheld .35-acre lot at 1085 E. North Bonneville Drive in a Foothill Residential FR-3 zoning district. 03-007 Smith's Food and Drug PC Appealing denial of conditional use for redevelopment of 5/5/03 Upheld Centers, Inc. the site at 2135 South 900 East in a CB zone. Proposal also entails demolition of existing structure&development of new buildings and related retail space. 03-008 Rich Bennett PC Appealing approval of amendment to View City Plat A by 6/2/03 Remanded the Highland Park Condominium Assoc.to modify property to PC lines of Lots 8, 9 &10 at 1955& 1977 South 1300 East in order to increase size of parking lot. 03-009 Neighborhood Residents PC Appealing approval of conditional use to allow demolition of 6/2/03 Upheld a residential structure at 1037 East 900 South to allow addition to structure at 1043 East 900 South for the opera- tion of a restaurant in an RB zone. • JUL 2 3 2003 S.4£#`iM CRY GORPO ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON • COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer D E: July 15, 2003 FROM: Alison Weyher RE: Petition No. 400-0 -14: Zoning text amendment to Section 21A.06.080(C) that governs Decision-Making Bodies and Officials, specifically amending the number of voting members on the Land Use Appeals Board. STAFF CONTACT: Janice Lew 535-7625 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: The Board averages about 1 case per month and each voting member receives $75 per case. This means an additional $1800 (approximately)per year will be paid out, which will be covered by the depailnient's existing budget. DISCUSSION: The Salt Lake City Council originally initiated a request to amend the Land Use Appeals Board Ordinance in 1998 (Petition 400-98-49). Two actions were requested by the Council. The first was to increase the number of voting members serving on the Land Use Appeals Board (LUAB). The second request was to amend the zoning ordinance as it relates to the standard of review. That year the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal, and decided to table them, and directed staff to better clarify the ordinance. More specifically, the Planning Commission directed staff to modify the definition of`substantial evidence' to make it more consistent with the definition used for court of appeals cases. No further action was taken on this petition. In 2002, at the request of the LUAB administrative staff, the Planning Commission initiated a new petition to re-examine the proposed changes to the section of the zoning ordinance relating to the Appeals Board (Petition 400-02-14). The purpose of this transmittal is to move forward with the approval process for the portion of the petition regarding changes to the composition of the LUAB. The proposed text amendment includes language to increase the size of the Board to five (5)members and eliminate the alternate members. Currently, the Board has three (3) members and two (2) alternates. Analysis: Beginning in 2001, the LUAB saw a significant increase in the number of appeals. The Board is now averaging one case per month, compared to averaging one case per year 411 during the first three years of its existence. Due to the increase in the number of appeals, the 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: B01-535-6230 FAX: B01-535-6005 ®accvcco anrew Board members felt the need to change the number of voting members to five to more adequately deal with the issues before them. The Planning Commission reviewed the request on October 3, 2002, and passed a motion to transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council on the proposed changes to the composition of the Board. The Planning Commission,however, expressed concerns about the intent of the"standard of review" issue because of the potential to undermine the authority of the Planning Commission. As such, the Planning Commission directed staff to re-evaluate the proposed revisions to the standard of review. Since the Planning Division continues to work through the scope of review issues, the LUAB administrative staff has recently requested that staff move forward with the Planning Commission's recommendation to change the composition of the Board alone. Master Plan: The proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance will facilitate the administration of the Land Use Appeals Board which is necessary to oversee the appeals process provided for in the zoning ordinance, and needed to implement the City's master plans. Public Process: The Community Council Chairpersons were notified of the proposed zoning ordinance amendments in a letter dated May 22, 2002. The Planning Division received no comments regarding the proposed text amendments to the ordinance. The Planning Commission reviewed the request on October 3, 2002, and passed a motion to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to increase the number of voting members serving on the Land Use Appeals Board. Part of the Planning Commission's motion �! directed staff to re-evaluate the zoning ordinance, as it relates to the "standard of review" for the Land Use Appeals Board. Relevant Ordinances: Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance are authorized under Section 21A.50 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, as detailed in Section 21A.50.050. "A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council and is not controlled by any one standard." It does, however, list five factors, which should be analyzed prior to amending the text(Section 21A.50.050 A-E). Based on this analysis, the Planning Commission recommended the text be amended (see Planning Commission staff report and minutes of the October 3, 2002 meeting for details). TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. CHRONOLOGY 2. ORDINANCE 3. CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE 4. MAILING LIST 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Notice and Postmark b) Staff Reports c) Agenda/Minutes 6. ORIGINAL PETITION Petition 400-02-14 0 1. CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • April 4,2002. Planning Commission initiated petition. • May 3,2002. Petition delivered to the Planning Division. • May 8,2002. Petition assigned to Janice Lew. • May 22,2002. Sent letter to the Community Council Chairpersons informing them of the proposed text amendments and requesting comments. • September 18,2002. Sent notice to Community Council Chairpersons of October 3,2002 Planning Commission public hearing. • October 3,2002. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and passed a favorable recommendation to support the text amendment to increase the size of the Land Use Appeals Board. • November,2002. The Community and Economic Development administration agreed to hold the amendment recommendation on the composition of the Land Use Appeals Board until staff developed revisions to the"standard of review" 110 language. • June 23,2003. The Community and Economic Development administration staff requested that the Planning Commission recommendation on the composition of the board be forwarded to the City Council immediately. • June 23,2003. Began preparing transmittal. • June 24,2003. Sent request to the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance. • June 26,2003. Received ordinance from Attorney's Office. 2. ORDINANCE SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE • No. of 2003 (Amending the Salt Lake City Code concerning the Land Use Appeals Board) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE CONCERNING THE LAND USE APPEALS BOARD. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Zoning Code provides that certain appeals from decisions by the Planning Commission and by the Historic Landmark Commission are heard by the Land Use Appeals Board; and WHEREAS, after having processed a number of such appeals, the City has determined that it would be helpful to expand the membership of the Land Use Appeals Board; and 1' WHEREAS, after hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, the City Council has determined that the following 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.06.080.0 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 1 C. Membership: The Land Use Appeals Board shall consist of fivethree (3) members appointed by the Mayor with the advice and consent of the City Council from among qualified electors of the City in a manner that will provide balanced representation in terms of geographic,professional, neighborhood and community interests. In the selection of members, preference may be given to individuals with legal or land use experience. Members may serve a maximum of two (2)consecutive full terms of three (3) years each. The terms of all members shall be staggered so arranged that the term of at least one member will expire each year. Mayor, with the advice and consent of the City Council,may appoint two ill (2i-al-ternate-xK1embers F41. T d wise 1 D d ' t vote at any meeting of the Land Use Appeals Board at one time. The prior �u aJi xne ber of the d r r n„„eats � a t li t , Appointments to fill vacancies of members Or alternate members shall be only for the unexpired portion of the term. Appointments for partial terms to fill vacancies shall not be included in the determination of any person's eligibility to serve two (2) full consecutive terms. SECTION 2. Section 21A.06.080.G of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: G. Quorum And Vote: No business shall be conducted at a meeting of the Land Use Appeals Board without a quorum of three (3)members;_or-two A simple majority of the voting members present at a meeting at which a quorum is present shall be required for any action. Decisions of the Land Use Appeals Board shall become effective on the date that the vote is taken. SECTION 3. Section 21A.34.020.F.2.i of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and • hereby is amended to read as follows: i. Review By City Attorney: Following the filing of an appeal to the Cry CouncilLand Use Appeals Board of a decision of the Historic Landmark Commission to deny or defer a certificate of appropriateness for demolition, the Planning Director shall secure an opinion of the City Attorney evaluating whether the denial or deferral of a decision of the demolition would result in an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation under the Utah and United States constitutions or otherwise violate any applicable constitutional provision, law, ordinance or regulation. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. SECTION 5. Pending Appeals. The changes made by this ordinance shall be applied in any case which has not yet been heard by the Land Use Appeals Board. • 2 • Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah this day of ,2003. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. • MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2003. Published: G:\Ordinance 03\Amcnding Code rc appeals to the land Use Appeals Board-June 26,2003 doe 3 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE • No. of 2003 (Amending the Salt Lake City Code concerning the Land Use Appeals Board) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE CONCERNING THE LAND USE APPEALS BOARD. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Zoning Code provides that certain appeals from decisions by the Planning Commission and by the Historic Landmark Commission are heard by the Land Use Appeals Board; and WHEREAS, after having processed a number of such appeals, the City has determined that it would be helpful to expand the membership of the Land Use Appeals Board; and • WHEREAS, after hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, the City Council has determined that the following 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.06.080.0 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: C. Membership: The Land Use Appeals Board shall consist of five members appointed by the Mayor with the advice and consent of the City Council from among qualified electors of the City in a manner that will provide balanced representation in terms of geographic,professional, neighborhood and community interests. In the selection of members, preference may be given to individuals with legal or land use experience. Members may serve a maximum of two (2) consecutive full terms of three (3) years each. The terms of all members shall be staggered so that the term of at least one member will expire each year. Appointments to fill vacancies of members shall be only for the unexpired portion of the term. • Appointments for partial terms to fill vacancies shall not be included in the • determination of any person's eligibility to serve two (2) full consecutive terms. • SECTION 2. Section 21A.06.080.G of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: G. Quorum And Vote: No business shall be conducted at a meeting of the Land Use Appeals Board without a quorum of three (3)members. A simple majority of the voting members present at a meeting at which a quorum is present shall be required for any action. Decisions of the Land Use Appeals Board shall become effective on the date that the vote is taken. SECTION 3. Section 21A.34.020.F.2.i of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: i. Review By City Attorney: Following the filing of an appeal to the Land Use Appeals Board of a decision of the Historic Landmark Commission to deny or defer a certificate of appropriateness for demolition, the Planning Director shall secure an opinion of the City Attorney evaluating whether the denial or deferral of a decision of the demolition would result in an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation under the • Utah and United States constitutions or otherwise violate any applicable constitutional provision, law, ordinance or regulation. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. SECTION 5. Pending Appeals. The changes made by this ordinance shall be applied in any case which has not yet been heard by the Land Use Appeals Board. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of , 2003. CHAIRPERSON • 2 ATTEST: i CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER • (SEAL) 26-03 _ Bill No. of 2003. Published: G:\Ordinance 03\Amending Code re appeals to the Land Use Appeals Board-Clean-June 26,2003.doc • 3 3. CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE 410 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is currently reviewing Petition#400-02-14 initiated by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission.The petitioner is requesting to amend Section 21 A.06.080 and Section 21 A.34.020.F.2.i of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance,specifically amending the number of voting members on the Land Use Appeals Board. During this hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: PLACE: ROOM#315 City&County Building 451 South State Street • Salt Lake City, Utah If you have any questions relating to this proposal,or would like to review the file,please call Janice Lew at 535-7625. Assisted listening devices or interpreting services are available for all public meetings. Salt Lake City Corporation complies with the American Disabilities Act (ADA). For further information,contact the TDD number 535-6021. 11111 4. MAILING LABELS ,'w,,l1,XV.-,TYING r,l_,nr'.irs tV\I Ht<INE GARUNER,CHAIR ANA ARCHULETA,CHAIR GRTR.AVENUES COMM. COUNCIL CAPITOL HILL COMMUNITY COUNCIL CENTRAL CITY COMMUNITY COUNCIL 816 SIXTEENTH AVENUE 606 DESOTO STREET 204 E. HERBERT AVENUE SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111 ON WEST,CHAIR SAMANTHA FRANCIS, CHAIR CHRIS VIAVANT,CHAIR ERTY WELLS COMM.COUNCIL PEOPLES FREEWAY COMM. COUNCIL RIO GRANDE COMMUNITY COUNCIL 562 E.DOWNINGTON AVE. 70 W.VAN BUREN AVENUE 404 SOUTH 400 WEST SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84101-2201 BRUCE ALDER,CHAIR ELLEN REDDICK, CHAIR JIM BYRNE, CHAIR ARCADIA HEIGHTS/BENCHMARK BONNEVILLE HILLS FOOTHILUSUNNYSIDE COMMUNITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY COUNCIL 1835 SO.LAKELINE DRIVE 2177 ROOSEVELT AVE. 1966 EAST 900 SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84109 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84108 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84108-1367 SHAWN McMILLEN, CHAIR MIKE ZUHL,CHAIR PAUL TAYLER, CHAIR H ROCK COMMUNITY COUNCIL INDIAN HILLS COMMUNITY COUNCIL OAK HILLS COMMUNITY COUNCIL 1855 SOUTH 2600 EAST 2676 E. COMANCHE DRIVE 1165 SO. OAKHILLS WAY SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84108 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84108 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84108 DOUG FOXLEY,CHAIR JEFFREY MULLINS,CHAIR TIM DEE, CHAIR ST. MARY'S COMMUNITY COUNCIL SUNNYSIDE EAST ASSOCIATION SUNSET OAKS COMMUNITY COUNCIL 1449 DEVONSHIRE DRIVE 873 SO. WOODRUFF WAY 1575 DEVONSHIRE DRIVE SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84108 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84108 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84108 BETH BOWMAN, CHAIR LISETTE GIBSON,CHAIR DENNIS GUY-SELL,CHAIR WASATCH HOLLOW YALECREST COMMUNITY COUNCIL EAST CENTRAL COMMUNITY COUNCIL eyMUNITY COUNCIL 1764 E. HUBBARD AVE. 436 South 1200 East E. HARRISON AVENUE SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84108 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105 BORIS KURZ, CHAIR ANGIE VORHER, CHAIR JILENE WHITBY, CHAIR EAST LIBERTY PARK JORDAN MEADOWS COMM. COUNCIL STATE FAIRPARK COMM.COUNCIL COMMUNITY COUNCIL 1988 SIR JAMES DRIVE 846 WEST 400 NORTH 1203 SOUTH 900 EAST SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84116 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105 KENNETH L.NEAL,CHAIR KADEE NIELSON,CHAIR RAY PUGSLEY, CHAIR ROSE PARK COMMUNITY COUNCIL WEST POINTE COMM.COUNCIL SUGAR HOUSE COMM.COUNCIL 1071 NO.TOPAZ DR. 1410 NO. BARONESS PLACE 2171 HANNIBAL STREET SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106 MARK SMEDLEY, CHAIR RANDY SORENSEN,CHAIR POPLAR GROVE COMM.COUNCIL WEST S.L. COMMUNITY COUNCIL 1372 GILLESPIE AVENUE 1184 SO. REDWOOD DRIVE SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84104 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84104 • Revised 7/2/02 si Janice Lew Planning Division 451 S. State Street Rm. 406 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 • Catherine New, Chair Liberty Wells Comm. Council PO Box 521744 Salt Lake City, UT 84152-1744 Dr. Alan Condie, Chair W.O.L.F. Comm. Council 1375 Kristie Lane Salt Lake City, UT 84108 • • Denise Dragoo Snell & Wilmer 15 W. South Temple • Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Mary Woodhead 261 E. Broadway Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Mark Hafey 1030 E. Hollywood Ave. Salt Lake City, UT 84106 John Bogart 1830 S 300 E Salt Lake City, UT 84105 • • • 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Notice and Postmark October 3, 2002 • • STEPHEN A. GOLDSMITH SALT A:�t.1 i Y Gi p ���r�$�Ol;\i ROSS C. ANDERSON PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR • BRENT B. WILDE PLANNING DIVISION DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR DOUGLAS L. WHEELWRIGHT, A1CP DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION The Salt Lake City Planning Commission is considering Petition 400-02-14, initiated by the Planning Division, requesting to amend Sections 21A.06.080, 21 A34.020F2h and 21A.54.160 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, specifically amending the number of voting members on the Land Use Appeals Board and the standard of review. As part of their review, the Planning Commission has scheduled a public hearing and will consider input from all interested parties prior to marking its decision. Details of the Planning Commission meeting are as follows: DATE: THURSDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2002 TIME: 6:50 P.M. • PLACE: ROOM 126 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH Please contact Janice Lew at 535-7625 if you have any questions regarding this issue. The petition file is available for review in the Salt Lake City Planning Division Office located at 451 South State Street, Room 406. Copies of the staff report will be available the Friday before the public hearing. • 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 041 1 1 TELEPHONE_ B01-535-7757 FAX_ B01-535-6174 • NOTICE OF MEETING • Janice Lew Salt Lake City Planning Division 451 S.State Street Rm.406 Salt Lake City,UT 84111 •'\ 11 f - A n , : SEP I 9 2002 rt rtlinctir: • Janice Lew Planning Division • • 5. PLANNING COMMISSION b) Staff Report October 3, 2001 • SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION • STAFF REPORT Case 400-02-14 October 3, 2002 REQUEST Petition # 400-02-14, by the Salt Lake City Administration, requesting to amend Sections 2l A.06.080, 21A34.020F2 and 21 A.54.160 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, specifically amending the number of voting members on the Land Use Appeals Board (LUAB) and modifying the standard of review by the Appeals Board. COMMUNITY/NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL REVIEW These changes were requested in a memo sent from the Secretary of the Land Use • Appeals Board dated March 27, 2002. (See attached letter.) The Community Council Chairpersons were notified of the proposed zoning ordinance amendment in a letter dated May 22, 2002. As of September 26, 2002, the Planning Division has received no comments from the Community Council Chairpersons regarding the proposed text amendments to the ordinance. BACKGROUND Property Owner Name And Applicant: Salt Lake City Administration Purpose of proposal or Proposed amendment: Amend the Zoning Ordinance regarding several sections concerning the Land Use Appeals Board. Previous Case Files: N/A Existing Zoning and Overlay Districts: N/A • Staff Report,Case 400-02-1 4 1 October 3, 2002 By Salt Lake City Planning Division Existing Master Plan Land Use Designation: N/A Affected areas and parcel numbers: N/A IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF ISSUES The Salt Lake City Planning Division has prepared changes to the portion of the Zoning Ordinance relating to the Land Use Appeals Board. Attached is a draft of the proposed text amendments that would increase the number of board members and includes revisions to the standards of review. Experience since the adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance in 1995 has shown that the board meets more frequently now than in the past, and the ordinance currently requires only three members and two alternatives. At one point recently, the board had only two members and one alternate available, due to time lapses between resignations and new appointments. This made it difficult to convene a quorum if any one of those three people were unable to attend a hearing or had a conflict of interest. Additionally, the City staff has determined that it would be helpful to provide a clarification of the standards by which the Land Use Appeals Board operates under. The proposed text amendments include the following: • Language to increase the size of the board to five (5) members and eliminating the alternate members, • Language addressing the standard of review for appeals from decisions of the • Historic Landmark Commission and Planning Commission to the Land Use Appeals Board, and • A definition of"substantial evidence." CODE CRITERIA / DISCUSSION / FINDINGS OF FACT 21.50.050 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: This standard does not apply because the proposed amendments relate to a procedural process outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. However, the proposed amendments will clarify the standards by which the LUAB considers appeals of Planning Commission and Historic Landmark Commission decisions. Finding: The proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance will allow better administration of the Land Use Appeals Board which is necessary to administer the appeals process of the Zoning Ordinance whidi is necessary to implement the City's master plans. . Staff Report,Case 400-02-14 2 October 3,2002 By Salt Lake City Planning Division B. The proposed development is in harmony with the general purposes and • intent of this Title and is compatible with and implements the planning goals and objectives of the City, including applicable City master plans. Discussion/Finding: This standard is not applicable, being a proposed text change. C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties. Discussion/Finding: This standard is not applicable, being a proposed text change. D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts that may impose additional standards. Discussion/Finding: This standard is not applicable, being a proposed text change. 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/Finding: This standard is not applicable, being a proposed text change_ RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to amend Sections 21A.06.080, 21A34.020F2 and 21A.54.160 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, regarding the Land Use Appeals Board such that the number of voting members is changed from three (3) to five (5), the standard of review is modified to a decision being supported by "substantive evidence" in the record, and defining "substantive evidence," as outlined in the following ordinance_ Janice A. Lew Associate Planner • Staff Report,Case 400-02-14 3 October 3,2002 By Salt Lake City Plannine Division • • Exhibit 1 Memo from Land Use • Appeals Board Secretary SALT' r '1..`CITY(CORPORATIQI I• ROSS C.ANDE RSON COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Mnrow • DIVISION Or HOUS/NG ANU NE,Got,OH000O DEVELOPMENT TO: Doug Wheelwright FROM: Sandi Marler DATE: March 27,2002 RE: Planning Commission agenda • The Land Use Appeals Board ordinance needs to be revised to add two members to the board and to make a few minor revisions to the ordinance. Please schedule this matter for Planning Commission review and adoption. A copy of the proposed amendment is • attached. Please let me know if you need additional information. Thanks. • 95.1 SOUTH STATE STREET.ROOM 40E,SALT LAKE CITY,LOAN GOI 1 T PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE APPEALS BOARD ORDINANCE Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 83 of 1996 (Appeals from Decisions of the Historic Landmark Commission and Planning • Commission to Land Use Appeals Board) Section 2 (amending 21A.06.080, Creation of Land Use Appeals Board) C. Membership: The Land Use Appeals Board shall consist of five members appointed by the Mayor with the advice and consent of the City Council from among qualified electors of the City in a manner that will provide balanced representation in terms of geographic, professional, neighborhood and community interests. Section 4 (amending 21A.34.020 F.2.h, Appeal of Historic Landmark Commission Decision to Land Use Appeals Board) iv. The Land Use Appeals Board shall affirm the decision of the Historic Landmark Commission if it is supported by substantial evidence in the record, unless the decision is arbitrary, capricious, or illegal or that a prejudicial procedural error occurred. The Land Use Appeal Board may affirm, reverse, or remand the decision to the Historic Landmark Commission for further proceedings. • Section 6 (amending 21A_54.160, Appeal of Planning Commission decision) D. The Land Use Appeals Board shall affirm the decision of the Planning Commission if it is supported by substantial evidence in the record, unless the decision is arbitrary, capricious, or illegal or that a prejudicial procedural error occurred. The Land Use Appeal Board may affirm, reverse, or remand the decision to the Planning Commission for further proceedings. New paragraph (definition) "Substantial evidence" shall be defined to mean that the record contains evidence supporting the findings. The Land Use Appeals Board may not reweigh the evidence, but there must be more:than a mere scintilla of evidence supporting the lower body's findings. If the evidence is conflicting, or if inconsistent inferences may be drawn from the same evidence, the Land Use Appeals Board must defer to the judgment of the Historic Landmark Commission or the Planning Commiasion. • • • Exhibit 2 Proposed I rdinance • SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2002 • (Amending the Salt Lake City Code concerning appeals to the Land Use Appeals Board) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE CONCERNING APPEALS TO THE LAND USE APPEALS BOARD. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Zoning Code provides that certain appeals from decisions by the Planning Commission and by the Historic Landmark Commission are heard by the Land Use Appeals Board; and WHEREAS, after having processed a number of such appeals, the City has determined that it would be helpful to clarify the standards by which the Land Use Appeals Board hears and decides such cases; and WHEREAS, after hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, • the City Council has determined that the followingamendments 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.06.080.0 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: C. Membership: The Land Use Appeals Board shall consist of fivethfee-(3) members appointed by the Mayor with the advice and consent of the City Council from among qualified electors of the City in a manner that will provide balanced representation in terms of geographic,professional, neighborhood and community interests. In the selection of members, preference may be given to individuals with legal or land use experience. Members may serve a maximum of two(2)consecutive full terms of three (3) years each. The-terms of all members shall be staggered so arranged that the term of at least one member will expire each year. ►n, R dition---e uncil, may appoint two (2) e-Land-U ApEe-..l ReaRl for a term not-to • exceed three (3) years, to serve in the absence of a member or members of vote a term • • • from serving two (2) consecutive terms. Appointments to fill vacancies of members er--al-t-ernate members shall be only for the unexpired portion of the term. Appointments for partial terms to fill vacancies shall not be included in the determination of any person's eligibility to serve two (2) full consecutive terms. SECTION 2. Section 2IA.06.080.G of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: G. Quorum And Vote: No business shall be conducted at a meeting of the Land Use Appeals Board without a quorum of three (3)members;. er-two and one alternate member. A simple majority of the voting members present at a meeting at which a quorum is present shall be required for any action. Decisions of the Land Use Appeals Board shall become effective on the date that the vote is taken. SECTION 3. Section 2I A.34.020 F.2.h.iv of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: iv. The Land Use Appeals Board shall upheldaffirm the decision of the Historic Landmark Commission determines that • - . .1n-of-the Y based-open-the applica ppre- al,if it is supported by substantial evidence in the record, unless the decision is arbitrary, capricious, or illegal, or a prejudicial procedural error occurred. The Land Use Appeal Board may affirm,reverse or remand the decision to the Planning Commission for further proceedings. "Substantial evidence"shall mean that the record contains evidence supporting the findings. The Land Use Appeals Board may not re-weigh the evidence, but there must be more than a mere scintilla of evidence supporting the Historic Landmark Commission's findings. If the evidence is conflicting, or if inconsistent inferences may be drawn from the same evidence, the Land Use Appeals Board must defer to the judgment of the Historic Landmark Commission. • 2 SECTION 4. Section 21 A.34.020.F.2.i of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and • hereby is amended to read as follows: i. Review By City Attorney: Following the filing of an appeal to the City Counei!Land Use Appeals Board of a decision of the Historic Landmark Commission to deny or defer a certificate of appropriateness for demolition,the Planning Director shall secure an opinion of the City Attorney evaluating whether the denial or deferral of a decision of the demolition would result in an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation under the Utah and United States constitutions or otherwise violate any applicable constitutional provision,law,ordinance or regulation. SECTION 5. Section 21A.54.160.1)of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: D. The land use appeals board shall upholda'firm the decision of the planning commission-unless-the land-use-appeals-hoard-finds-that-a-prejudie al proe-edural-erforoecorred-or-that-the-decision of-the-planning 4f0111111ission was--not supported-by the findingsof-fzaet based-upoarthe-apphcable standards-of approvakif it is supported by substantial evidence in the record unless the decision is arbitrary capncio)is,or illegal or_a • preludici at-procedural error occurred. The Land Ilse Appeal Board may affirm icvcrse or remand the decision to the f]minmy_(omnlistiwn for thither proceeding s. ''Substantial evidence"shall mean that the record contains evidence supporting the findings. The Land Use Appeals Board may not re-weigh the evidence but there must be more than a mere scintilla of evidence supporting_the historic Landmark Commission's findings. If the evidence is conflictin or if inconsistent inferences may be drawn from the same evidence the Land Use Appeals Board must defer to iheiudgment of the Ifistoric Landmark Commission. SECTION 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. SECTION 7. Pending Appeals. The changes made by this ordinance shall be applied in any case which has not yet been heard by the band Use Appeals Board. S 3 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of 2002_ • CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. S MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2002. Published: G:\Ordinance 02\Amending Code re appeals to the Land Use Appeals Board-Aug 6,2002 doc 11111 • • 5. PLANNING COMMISSION c) Agendas/Minutes October 3, 2002 • NOTE: The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m. AGENDA FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 126 of the City& County Building at 451 South State Street • Thursday, October 3, 2002,at 5:45 p.m. The Planning Commission will be having dinner at 5:00 p.m., in Room 118. 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 Thursday, September 19, 2002 2. LONG RANGE PLANNING ISSUES 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS • a. PUBLIC HEARING at 5:50 p.m.- Petition No. 410-604, by Ken Garff Honda, for a conditional use to legalize a 90- foot tall flag pole located at 64 East 900 South, in a Downtown D-2 zoning district. (Staff—Doug Dansie at 535-6182) b. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:20 p.m.— Petition No. 400-00-21, by the Salt Lake City Department of Airports, requesting an amendment to the Zoning Text as it relates to landscaping requirements that affect the Salt Lake City International Airport. The proposal includes the creation of a new Airport Landscape Overlay District regulating landscaping on the properties generally located between 1-215 and the eastern boundary of the International Center and approximately between 2700 North and the Western Pacific railroad corridor south of 1-80. (Staff—Marilynn Lewis at 535-6409) c. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:50 p.m.—Petition No. 400-02-14, by the Salt Lake City Administration, requesting to amend Sections 21A.06.080, 21A34.020F2h and 21A.54.160 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, specifically amending the number of voting members on the Land Use Appeals Board and the standard of Land Use Appeals Board review (Staff—Janice Lew at 535-7625) d. PUBLIC HEARING at 7:20 p.m.—Petition No. 410-609, by the Salt Lake City Public Services Department, • requesting a Conditional Use to utilize City owned property at 1060 South 900 West for a Community Outreach Center- The site will be leased to the University of Utah and programming will be run by their University/ Neighborhood Partners group, and; Petition No. 400-02-31, by the Salt Lake City Community and Economic Development Department, for an amendment to the West Salt Lake Community Zoning Map and West Salt Lake Master Plan future land use map, for the property at 1060 south 900 west. The applicant is requesting a zoning change from an R 1/5000(single-family residential district)to OS(open space district). The purpose for the change is to zone all of the Jordan Park properties in the Muscatine subdivision, owned by the City and used in association with the park, as open space. (Staff—Marilynn Lewis at 535-6409) e. PUBLIC HEARING at 7:45 p.m_— Foss Subdivision amendment, by Mr. Jim Shaw of Shaw homes requesting approval of an amendment of a portion of the Irving Park Addition Subdivision Plat. The proposal is to amend five lots and a portion of the previously vacated Foss Street into three new single-family building lots, and a remnant parcel impacted by an adjacent railroad track (located at approximately 1551 West 200 South in a Residential"R-1- 5,000"zoning district). (Staff—Jackie Gasparik at 535-6354) 4. OTHER BUSINESS a. Planning Commission elections_ SaltLake 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 for airports. It is important to provide opportunities to increase surveillance of the • grounds. Certain types of plant material being used for screening easily shield nefarious activities. This amendment proposal will allow a great deal of flexibility in choosing plant species that would perform the functions of an aesthetic buffer while providing for visual observation. H. The DRT would like to make sure that the intent of Title 21A landscaping requirements are adhered to. This can be done by requiring Site Plan Review for development in the Airport Landscape Overlay District,with a listing of all appropriate exceptions made in the body of the text as follows: A landscape plan shall be required when landscaping or alteration of landscaping is required by the Title. Such landscape plans shall be drawn in conformance with the requirements specified in this Chapter. The Zoning Administrator,prior to the issuance of a building permit,must approve landscape plans. Landscape plans for planned developments,conditional uses,or other uses requiring site plan review approval shall also be reviewed and approved by the development review team. Ms.Arnold,Mr.Chambless,Mr.Diamond,Ms.Funk,Mr.Jonas,Ms.McDonough,Mr.Muir,and • Ms.Noda voted"Aye." Robert"Bip"Daniels,as chair,did not vote. The motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING-Petition No.400-02-14,by the Salt Lake City Administration, requesting to amend Sections 21A.06.080,21A34.020F2h and 21A.54.160 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance,specifically amending the number of voting members on the Land Use Appeals Board and the standard of Land Use Appeals Board review. Planner Janice Lew stated that the Planning Division has prepared changes to the portion of the zoning ordinance relating to the Land Use Appeals Board at the request of the Administration. After having processed a number of appeals from decisions of the Historic Landmarks Commission and the Planning Commission,the administration has found that it would be helpful to clarify the standard by which the Board hears and decides cases and to increase the number of voting members. Ms.Lew noted that the Board meets more frequently now,and the ordinance currently requires only three members and two alternates. At one point recently,the Board had only two members and one alternate available due to time lapses between resignations and appointing new members which made it difficult to convene a quorum if one of those three people were unable to attend or if there was a conflict of interest. The Staff • recommended that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Planning Commission Meeting 14 October 3,2002 Council to amend the zoning ordinance regarding the Land Use Appeals Board to change the number of voting members from three (3) to five (5) members, to modify the standard of review •to a decision being supported by "substantial evidence" in the record, and to include a definition of"substantial evidence" in the ordinance. This recommendation is based on the finding that the proposed changes to this ordinance will allow better administration of the Land Use Appeals Board which is necessary to administer the appeals process of the zoning ordinance and that is necessary to implement the City's master plans. Ms. Lew reported that she received a phone call from Cindy Cromer who indicated that she would like to see the scope of the Land Use Appeals Board broadened. Ms. Lew indicated a few errors in the ordinance contained in the staff report. References to the Historic Landmarks Commission on pages 2 and 3 should be changed to refer to the Planning Commission. Ms. McDonough read from page 3 of the ordinance, "Substantial evidence means that the record contains evidence supporting the findings," and asked if there was a need to define evidence. Ms. Lew replied that the language came from the City Attorney's Office. Mr. Jonas commented that the entire paragraph is hard to understand. The Commissioners concurred. After discussing language in the ordinance, the Planning Commissioners agreed that the language was vague and unclear. They agreed that the term "substantial evidence" needed to be clarified. Mr. Muir felt the document was inconsistent when referring to the Historic • Landmark Commission and the Planning Commission. David Dobbins, Deputy Director of the Community Economic Development Department, explained that this request was initiated by the City Council approximately four years ago. The City Council created the Land Use Appeals Board as a means of giving the Board appeals that they did not want to look at. He explained that the original ordinance was very restrictive and limited the Board's review. If there was evidence, the Board could not review the matter and simply had to support it. The Board felt that, if someone was going to appeal, the Board should have the authority to be more effective by looking at the evidence and determining whether the evidence supported the decision. Mr. Dobbins clarified that the Board does not want to take over the role of the Planning Commission or the Landmarks Commission. Mr. Muir asked if this would leave open the possibility of every decision being appealed and argued on the grounds of substantial evidence. Mr. Dobbins replied that, if Planning Commission decisions follow the ordinance, the Land Use Appeals Board has no evidence for overturning their decision. He agreed that it does open the door more than it is now. IIIPlanning Commission Meeting 15 October 3,2002 • Chair Daniels asked if Mr.Dobbins felt the re-write was clear. Mr.Dobbins replied that he did • not find it clear in terms of the language,but because he has been reviewing it for four years,he did understand the intent. He believed the intent was simply to say that there had to be more than just a scintilla(of evidence). He noted that the Board consists mostly of attorneys,and in their mind,this gives them the opportunity to look at the evidence and determine whether it meets the ordinance. Ms. Noda stated that she was unsure if that was what a reviewing body was supposed to do. Technically,an appeals court or review body looks at procedural error,but they are not supposed to look at the hard evidence. Mr.Dobbins explained that the City Council's intent is for people to have the right to say that they think the Planning Commission was wrong and that the evidence does not support the findings. It opens it up to looking at the evidence,and they do become more than just a review board. Mr.Muir asked if this request was emanating from the City Council and not the Appeals Board. Mr.Dobbins replied that was correct. He explained that this request has gone through several processes,and at one time there was talk about eliminating the Land Use Appeals Board because of the lack of appeals. In the last year,the Board has heard eight appeals,and now that the appeals have picked up,the City Council wants to look at it again. Mr.Dobbins offered to work with the City Attorney to draft clearer language. Ms.Noda felt that the ordinance needed to be re-written. • Mr. Dobbins asked if the Planning Commission agreed with the intent. The majority of the Commissioners indicated that they did not. Ms.Funk referred to the flag that was previously denied and overturned by the Appeals Board. One conversation that came up with regard to the flag was the assumption that it was advertising for the business,not an act of patriotism,and that was included as a finding of fact. She felt the assumption was subjective because no one knew for sure if they were advertising or if they were just flying the flag. She believed someone needs to evaluate that evidence,but there are no clear-cut lines or demarcations. Mr.Muir stated that he did not understand why the Planning Commission was rendering an opinion on this matter if it was authorized by the City Council and ultimately goes back to the City Council for a final vote. Ms.Coffey explained that a Planning Commission recommendation is required by the zoning ordinance. Chair Daniels opened the public hearing. Cindy Cromer expressed two concerns about the proposal. One dealt with how the filing was • presented,and the other dealt with the content of the proposal. She noted that the agenda Planning Commission Meeting 16 October 3,2002 reads that the petition is by the Salt Lake City Administration requesting to amend. They have heard this evening that the petition was initiated by the City Council, which is a legislative 11 branch that has nothing to do with administration. She stated that she was present at a previous meeting where Stephen Goldsmith asked the Planning Commission to initiate a petition to increase the number of Land Use Appeals Board members because they were having a hard time making a quorum. At that time he stated that the Mayor was asking them to do this, and she was puzzled because the Mayor has the authority to initiate the petition himself. Ms. Cromer read from Section 21A.50.030 which says that applications for amendments may be initiated by the Mayor, a City Council Member, a Planning Commissioner, or the owner of the property included in the application. She noted that the Mayor, all the City Council members, and the Planning Commissioners is a total of 20 people. She was concerned about being sloppy about who is initiating a petition. She felt this was important, because the person who files it takes responsibility for getting it through the process. She believed the Planning Commission properly initiated an expansion based on Stephen Goldsmith's request to expand the number of members. She did not believe the administration should be able to initiate a petition, because it would be chaotic if every department head could initiate a petition. She objected to the way this petition was filed and believed the confusion became evident in the comments made this evening. • Ms. Funk asked Ms. Cromer if she felt the petition was improperly advertised. Ms. Cromer felt that was a harsh way of saying what she just said, and it does not move them forward. She noted that the item regarding authority of the Land Use Appeals Board is listed as item 3 in her suggestions for fine tuning. She believed more people would have commented this evening if the people who have appealed to the Land Use Appeals Board had been notified. She favored an expanded review, because some of the issues the Planning Commission deals with are matters of judgement. There is only one hearing on a conditional use, and the Planning Commission is the decision making body. It is possible that the Planning Commission may not get it right on one hearing. She believed an expanded review was warranted. She understood why the Planning Commission was reluctant to go with the expanded review available under the proposal, but she would like to see broader discretion by the Land Use Appeals Board to address matters of judgement. She would also like the Board to include more planners and someone with historic preservation background. She felt it would be helpful to notify people who have previously appealed to the Land Use Appeals Board. Chair Daniels closed the public hearing. • Planning Commission Meeting 17 October 3,2002 Doug Wheelwright clarified that,after receiving a letter on March 27 from Sandi Marler requesting the change in the ordinance and the increase in board members,the matter was presented to the Planning Commission to initiate the petition. He felt it would be better if the language read"by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission at the request of the administration." He noted that this was only a technical difference and there was never a"bait and switch". Ms.Funk questioned whether this item should be re-advertised and asked if the petition included re-writing the ordinance in addition to increasing the number of people. Mr. Wheelwright replied that the petition included both issues. He did not believe the item was mis- advertised,but he was willing to do whatever the Planning Commission wished. Ms.Noda stated that she understood the petition was strictly for an increase in the number of Board members. She did not recall anyone saying that the Planning Commission would be asked to review changes to the ordinance. Mr.Muir stated that he could support Sections 1,2,and possibly 4,but he could not support the recommended changes to Sections 3 and 5. He did not believe word smithing would change his mind,because the intent undermines the authority of the Planning Commission and the • value of the time he dedicates. Ms. Noda concurred. She believed it would be a waste of time for the Planning Commission to defer to the Appeals Boards on findings of fact. Ms.Funk stated that she had attended Land Use Appeals Board meetings and recommended that everyone attend at least one meeting before making a decision. She believed the process was exactly as Mr.Dobbins described and that it is an inefficient procedure and a worthless board. Mr.Jonas felt it was unfair to the applicants to expand the authority of the Land Use Appeals Board because there will never be closure. Chair Daniels agreed that expanding the authority of the Land Use Appeals Board diminishes the authority of the Planning Commission. Motion for Petition No.400-02-14 • Planning Commission Meeting 18 October 3,2002 Prescott Muir moved to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council for the amendments in Section 21A.06.080.C, Section 21 A.06.080.G, and Section 21 A.34.020.F.2.i of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance regarding the Land Use Appeals Board such that the number of voting members is changed from 3 to 5. Jeff Jonas seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Diamond, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, and Ms. Noda voted "Aye." Ms. Funk voted "Nay." Robert "Bip" Daniels, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried. (The balance of the petition was remanded back to the Staff and City Attorney for revisions.) PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 410-609, by the Salt Lake City Public Services Department, requesting a Conditional Use to utilize City owned property at 1060 South 900 West for a Community Outreach Center. The site will be leased to the University of Utah, and programming will be run by their University/Neighborhood Partners Group, and; Petition No. 400-02-31, by the Salt Lake City Community and Economic Development Department, for an amendment to the West Salt Lake Community Zoning Map and West Salt Lake Master Plan future land use map, for the property at 1060 South 900 West. The applicant is requesting a zoning change from an R 1/5000 (single-family residential district) to OS (open space district). The purpose for the change is to zone all of the Jordan Park properties in the Muscatine subdivision, owned by the City and used in association with the park, as open space. Planner Marilynn Lewis presented petition 410-609 by the Salt Lake City Public Services Department as written in the staff report and reviewed the findings outlined in the staff report. The request is to utilize City-owned property at 1060 South 900 West for a community outreach center. The property will be leased to and operated by the University/Neighborhood Partners, an organization affiliated with the University of Utah. The center will provide a variety of activities and opportunities for the neighborhood. She clarified that this is not a halfway house or rehabilitation facility. In lieu of monthly rent, the University has agreed to enter into a 10-year lease and commit $60,000 toward renovating the property. Ms. Lewis noted that the site was previously used as a caretaker's house, and the building is now vacant. Vacant structures can become attractive nuisances and a target for vandalism in the neighborhood. Impacts may be experienced by neighbors due to the hours of operations, deliveries and programs. Ms. Lewis explained that a zoning change is also required to accommodate the project use. Not all park properties were zoned as open space during the 1995 zoningre-write project. It is necessary to consolidate and rezone all the park parcels to open space in order to remove all off-site parking • Planning Commission Meeting 19 October 3,2002 6. ORIGINAL PETITION • PETITION NO. >O - /L/ • PETITION CHECKLIST Date Initials Action Required Petition delivered to Planning 6A, J� Petition assigned to: ...�avl � L 601v2,-- 1- Planning Staff or Planning Commission Action Date Return Original Letter and Yellow Petition Cover bRb2, Chronology • Property Description (marked with a post it note) N Affected Sidwell Numbers Included • S12-11a J L- Mailing List for Petition, include appropriate Community Councils cif 04 1b2 0® Mailing Postmark Date Verification 43 L Planning Commission Minutes cilz.162 J L. Planning Staff Report to zslo 3 J l— Cover letter outlining what the request is and a brief description of what action the Planning Commission or Staff is recommending. 5310 Jtr Ordinance Prepared by the Attorney's Office 14 A Ordinance property description is checked, dated and initialed by the Planner. Ordinance is stamped by Attorney. jo''icia- LeAt1/41 Planner responsible for taking calls on the Petition • Date Set for City Council Action Petition filed with City Recorder's Office ^. . "` T FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Petition No. _.t � naln 6t _ Zoning Amendment Receipt No. - Amount$ �_m P r, .a; 1/ '�'^ii- min-�= Dale Received • 4,,,C ,r `l,. Reviewed by 1 ( p� /r Date 7r Z Name of Applicant 5ia.�A-1-04Cry �AatNu 1 -0-ss/b$hone 3,7—• �TJr Address of Applicant (f y I So• 5} e.-- PeY f , `1%6, 5LC (4/1- K4t)37— r. E-mail address of Applicant Cell/Fax Applicant's Interest in Subject Property tgli- o Name of Property Owner r�'(e+ Phone )"•'4 Address of Subject Property County Tax Parcel#(Sidwell#) Zoning of Property _Existing Use of Property r byamending 2//T, 06 0K0(C)m�, qo mend the text of the ZoningOrdinance Section: , ❑Amend the Zoning Map by reclassifying the following property: From a classification to a classification. Please include with the application: �zF 1.A statement of the text amendment or map amendment describing the purpose for the amendment and the exact language,boundaries and zoning district. 2.A complete description of the proposed use of the property where appropriate. ,;-Emei 3.Reasons why the present zoning is not proper for the area. _;_:, �,,;�= 4.The names and addresses of all property owners within three hundred(300)feet of the subject parcel- exclusive of streets and alleys. The name,address and Sidwell number of each property owner must be typed or clearly printed on gummed mailing labels. Please include yourself and the appropriate Community Council Chair. First class postage for each address is due at time of application. 5.Legal description of the property. 6.Six(6)copies of site plans drawn to scale(where applicable). 7.A signed statement that the petitioner has met with and explained the proposal to the appropriate Community Council. G' 7.Related materials or data supporting the application as may be determined by the Zoning Administrator. 8.Filing fee of$500.00 plus$100 for each acre over one acre,due at time of application. If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this petition,please contact a member of the Salt Lake City Planning staff(535-7757)prior to submitting the petition. l C. Sidwell maps and names of property owners are available at: Salt Lake County Recorder 2001 South State Street,Room N1600 Salt Lake City,UT 84190-1051 Telephone:(801)468-3391 File the complete application at: Salt Lake City Planning 451 South State Street,Room 406 Salt Lake City,UT 84111 Telephone:(801) . 7y1,76k4 c_4(1 tepc,6, P(m,n,;ijiSvi,ee,6e- . Signature leof Applicant --' - or authorized agent Tale of agent • come through a preliminary step. Ms. Noda believed it was incumbent on the Planning Commission to look at the petitions, study them as much as possible, and call Staff with any questions. She agreed with the two-step process. She wanted to have a clean process where the Planning Commission gets as much information as possible and works with the developers so everyone feels they are getting due process and input to the Staff and Commissioners. Chair Daniels questioned why the RDA was asking market price for their property. He believed they should be trying to build communities at the lowest price possible and maintain the highest quality possible. Mr. Muir suggested creating a better dialogue with the RDA. Mr. Goldsmith suggested that the head of RDA be invited to an upcoming meeting where RDA concerns could be addressed. Chair Daniels asked Mr. Goldsmith to make those arrangements. Ms. Funk commented that one of the driving forces is profitability, and it was her observation that some RDA projects are inappropriate for the area. She believed RDA needed someone with actual business experience in dealing with properties. She believed the City Council should look at who sits on the RDA advisory board so they would have people with some practical street smarts on developing their properties. Ms. Funk expressed concerns about some of the language in the draft. She suggested that the statement "but there is no assurance II that the Planning Commissioners will have time to read it" be reworded to state it in a less offensive way. She stated that the information about abstentions was not clear to her. With regard to hearing procedures, she noted that it may not always be a Community Council, but it could also be an organized opposition or proponent. She stated that the information regarding the makeup of the Planning Commission is clear in the Code as written, and she did not believe it needed to be reiterated in this document. Mr. Wilde offered to place the Policies and Procedures on a future agenda for a public hearing. Mr. Wheelwright reported that a request had been received from the administration for the Planning Commission to initiate a petition to make changes to the portion of the zoning ordinance relating to the appeals board. That board is having to meet more frequently than in the past, and the ordinance requires three members and two alternates. Currently they have only two members and one alternate, and it will be difficult to convene a quorum if any one of those three people are unable to meet. It is suggested that the board consist of five members and two alternates, with a quorum of three to allow a larger pool of people to meet. • Planning Commission Meeting 24 April 4,2002 i 0 Motion Kent Nelson made a motion to initiate a petition to amend the land use appeals board based on the recommendation of Staff. Prescott Muir seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Mr. Nelson, and Ms. Noda unanimously voted "Aye." Ms. Barrows and Mr. Chambless were not present. Mr. Daniels, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried. Mr. Wheelwright reported that two items were appealed to the land use appeals board two weeks ago. The appeals board upheld the Planning Commission's decision on the Iverson Madison Estates#3. The applicant for the Colonial Flag denial did not attend, and there may have been some confusion on his part as to when the meeting was scheduled, so that hearing was postponed. Mr. Wheelwright stated that Staff objects to the comments made in the public hearing this evening about the adequacy of the traffic information. He suggested that what was presented was adequate. It may have been a different methodology than some would choose, but he • believed that methodology made more sense than just looking at the number of people who live in the area. He noted that they had an actual current traffic count and then projected the additional traffic which would be generated by the unoccupied and proposed projects. He stated that he was personally offended by the comment made in the public hearing. Ms. Arnold responded that, as a Commissioner, she has a right to ask the question. She stated that she was told that there had not been a count on some of the area on Kennedy. She believed the fact that no one could tell her what would happen to parking in the circle, when she could tell just by looking, was inadequate. She stated that she wanted an adequate count, and in her opinion she did not get it. She believed Staff could have provided the Commissioners with information about how many occupants are in the buildings. Mr. Jonas commented that he did not believe it mattered how many occupants there were if they had a traffic count. Mr. Wheelwright stated that, not only was it offensive, he believed Ms. Arnold's comment laid the basis for an appeal. He explained that such comments are not helpful. • Ms. Funk asked whether Ms. Arnold read the figures in the staff report prior to the meeting, Planning Commission Meeting 25 April 4,2002 Wheelwright, Doug From: Marler, Sandra411 Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 9:17 AM To: Wheelwright, Doug Subject: Ordinance Amendment We need to amend the Land Use Appeals Board Ordinance. The LUAB has made their recommendations and we now need to get it on the Planning Commission's agenda. Please let me know what we need to do to make this happen. Thanks, Sandi • Wheelwright, Doug 410 From: Marler, Sandra Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 3:43 PM To: Wheelwright, Doug Subject: LUAB ordinance David said let's just go with the five board members and the other changes. Thanks, Sandi • • TO: Doug Wheelwright FROM: Sandi Marler DATE: March 27, 2002 RE: Planning Commission agenda The Land Use Appeals Board ordinance needs to be revised to add two members to the board and to make a few minor revisions to the ordinance. Please schedule this matter for Planning Commission review and adoption. A copy of the proposed amendment is III attached. Please let me know if you need additional information. Thanks. 0 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE APPEALS BOARD ORDINANCE • Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 83 of 1996 (Appeals from Decisions of the Historic Landmark Commission and Planning Commission to Land Use Appeals Board) Section 2 (amending 21A.06.080, Creation of Land Use Appeals Board) C. Membership: The Land Use Appeals Board shall consist of five members appointed by the Mayor with the advice and consent of the City Council from among qualified electors of the City in a manner that will provide balanced representation in terms of geographic, professional, neighborhood and community interests. Section 4 (amending 21A.34.020 F.2.h, Appeal of Historic Landmark Commission Decision to Land Use Appeals Board) iv. The Land Use Appeals Board shall affirm the decision of the Historic Landmark Commission if it is supported by substantial evidence in the record, unless the decision is arbitrary, capricious, or illegal or that a • prejudicial procedural error occurred. The Land Use Appeal Board may affirm, reverse, or remand the decision to the Historic Landmark Commission for further proceedings. Section 6 (amending 21A.54.160, Appeal of Planning Commission decision) D. The Land Use Appeals Board shall affirm the decision of the Planning Commission if it is supported by substantial evidence in the record, unless the decision is arbitrary, capricious, or illegal or that a prejudicial procedural error occurred. The Land Use Appeal Board may affirm, reverse, or remand the decision to the Planning Commission for further proceedings. New paragraph (definition) "Substantial evidence" shall be defined to mean that the record contains evidence supporting the findings. The Land Use Appeals Board may not reweigh the evidence, but there must be more than a mere scintilla of evidence supporting the lower body's findings. If the evidence is conflicting, or if inconsistent inferences may be drawn from the same evidence, the Land Use Appeals Board must defer to the judgment of the • Historic Landmark Commission or the Planning Commission. •REMARKS petition- N S 400-02-14 By Planning .Commission Is requesting a Zoning Amendment to amend the portion of the Zoning Ordinance relating to the Land Use Appeals Board. i Date Filed Address SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: October 3,2003 SUBJECT•. REQUEST TO ALLOW SANDY CITY TO ANNEX 5.65 ACRES (Salt Lake City approval is required under the interlocal agreement that allowed Sandy City to join the Metropolitan Water District) AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: Citywide STAFF REPORT BY: Gary Mumford ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Department of Public Utilities AND CONTACT PERSON: LeRoy Hooton,Director KEY ELEMENTS: A developer is requesting annexation of 5.65 acres into Sandy City. The 1990 interlocal agreement that allowed Sandy City to join the Metropolitan Water District requires Salt Lake City approval before land north of Little Cottonwood Creek Road can be annexed into Sandy City. The boundary was defined by a legal land description,which in 1990 was the road. Since that time Creek Road was realigned at approximately 7400 South 1200 East. A developer purchased the old vacated right-of-way to the south of the present-day Creek Road and desires to have this property annexed into Sandy City. The Department of Public Utilities is not opposed to this annexation because the Department doesn't intend to provide water service to this area. In addition, the 5.65 acres is not included in Salt Lake City's 1979 Master Annexation Policy Declaration. MATTERS AT ISSUE: The purposes of the 1990 boundary agreement were(1)to efficiently deliver water service within eastern Salt Lake County, (2) to protect Salt Lake City's water service area consistent with the City's 1979 Master Plan Policy Declaration and (3)protect Salt Lake City's water rights related to exchange agreements with mutual irrigation companies bordering Sandy City and elsewhere within eastern Salt Lake County. Furthermore, Salt Lake City has invested in the infrastructure and obtained water rights to serve its customers located north of Creek Road and Little Cottonwood Creek. Sandy City's share of water from the Metropolitan Water District is 7,940 acre feet plus first rights to purchase surplus water not needed by Salt Lake City. The Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District is currently serving the subject property, and this annexation into Sandy City will not increase the water demand on the Metropolitan Water District's water supplies. BACKGROUND: • In 1935,the voters of Salt Lake City formed the Metropolitan Water District in order to enter into long-term agreements to build the Provo River Project including Deer Creek Reservoir. The Bureau of Reclamation built the project, and it was necessary to enter into repayment contracts to reimburse the federal government for the construction costs plus interest. The Metropolitan Water District is a 61.7% owner of the Provo River Project. The water rights for the Provo River Project consist of water diverted from the Duchesne and Weber Rivers conveyed through a tunnel and canal system from the two basins to the Provo River for use by the Metropolitan Water District and others. In order to reimburse the Federal Government for the cost of the Provo River Project and Deer Creek Reservoir, the residents of Salt Lake City have paid property taxes since 1935. In 1990,Sandy City became the second member of the District. Sandy City sought membership in the District to treat its approximately 34 percent water right in Little Cottonwood Creek. Sandy City's annexation in the District increased efficiencies by consolidating water supplies and delivery systems to most of eastern Salt Lake County. As part of the agreement,the District receives water purchase revenue and ad valorem tax revenue from Sandy City. Furthermore, as a part of the annexation Salt Lake City acquired additional water rights in Little Dell Reservoir and$4 million in water transmission mains installed on the City's west side. Also, the 1990 agreement admitting Sandy City established conjunctive water management practices among Salt Lake City, • Sandy City,Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District and the Metropolitan Water District. OPTIONS: 1. Forward the resolution to a future Council Meeting for consideration. 2. Request additional information relating to this request. 3. Schedule a future work session for a more detailed discussion of Sandy City and Salt Lake City's involvement in the Metropolitan Water District. cc: Rocky Fluhart,LeRoy Hooton,JD Baxter SEP ? 0 2003 LEROY W. HOOTON, JR. �`�%IY ".P Q II( LNf • ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES MAYOR WATER SUPPLY AND WATERWORKS WATER RECLAMATION AND STORMWATER Council Transmittal TO: Rocky J. Fluhart 04/(--7 Date: September 3, 2003 Chief Administrative O icer From: LeRoy W. Hooton, Jr. [,cIJ i Subject: Approval to allow Sandy 't to ex specified unincorporated territory under the provisions o e Interlocal Cooperative and Boundary Agreement between Sandy City and Salt Lake City dated February 7, 1990 Staff Contact: LeRoy W. Hooton, Jr. (483-6768) Document Type: Resolution Budget Impact: None Background/Discussion: As part of the annexation of Sandy City into the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy("MWDSLS"), Salt Lake City and Sandy City entered into a"Boundary Agreement,"on February 7, 1990, to establish a boundary across which neither party would annex or serve water without the consent of the other party. This boundary • agreement was a primary consideration for Salt Lake City allowing Sandy to annex into MWDSLS. This boundary generally coincides with Salt Lake City's 1979 Master Annexation Policy Declaration. Sandy City has received a petition for annexation involving 5.69 acres of property located on the southeast corner of Union Park Avenue and Creek Road(approximately 7400 South 1200 East) in unincorporated Salt Lake County. The property owners, Webco Inc. (Richard Webber President)purchased the old vacated Creek Road right-of-way from Sandy City and is interested in developing this additional acreage in conjunction with their existing development. (Attached is WEBCO, INC. ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION). The entire development is receiving its water service from the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District. The property is not included in Salt Lake City's 1979 Master Annexation Policy Declaration. However, it is included in the Boundary Agreement, and falls under Section 3 and 8 of the Boundary Agreement. Sandy City has formally requested Salt Lake City's consent, under the Boundary Agreement, to annex this property. The Department of Public Utilities does not oppose the annexation of the 5.69 acres into Sandy City. Salt Lake City does not currently serve water south of Creek Road, and does not have any plans or obligation to serve water in the subject area either under Special County Agreements or Exchange Agreement with the Richards Ditch Irrigation Company. • By allowing this annexation, it is acknowledged that this does not amend the Boundary Agreement. 1 530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 5 TELEPHONE:801-483-6900 FAX:801-483-681 8 ��ncercco nwncn • RESOLUTION NO. OF 2003 (Approving a proposed annexation by Sandy City) A RESOLUTION APPROVING A REQUEST BY SANDY CITY TO ANNEX TERRITORY INTO SANDY CITY, WHICH REQUEST IS MADE PURSUANT TO A BOUNDARY AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY AND SANDY CITY; AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECTION OF A DOCUMENT EVIDENCING SUCH APPROVAL. WHEREAS, Sandy City's annexation into the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy in 1989 was conditioned upon Sandy City entering into a boundary agreement with Salt Lake City Corporation relating to annexation and water service; and WHEREAS, in satisfaction of such condition, Sandy City entered into an • agreement with Salt Lake City Corporation entitled"Sandy and Salt Lake City Interlocal Cooperation and Boundary Agreement," dated February 7, 1990 (the "Boundary Agreement"); and WHEREAS, the Boundary Agreement provides at paragraph 3 that"Sandy agrees not to accept a petition for annexation of. . . territory lying to the north" of the accepted boundary line "without [Salt Lake City] approval; and WHEREAS, Sandy City has received such a petition, and desires to accept such petition and annex territory lying to the north of the boundary identified in the Boundary Agreement, and has requested Salt Lake City's approval of such annexation; and WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be annexed by Sandy City is described in Exhibit A attached hereto; and WHEREAS,the territory proposed to be annexed by Sandy City lies outside of Salt Lake City's historic water service area, and is currently receiving culinary water service from the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District; and WHEREAS, the territory sought to be annexed by Sandy City lies outside of • the area identified by Salt Lake City for potential annexation in Salt Lake City's 1979 Master Annexation Policy Declaration; and • WHEREAS, for the reasons expressed above, Salt Lake City not is opposed pp to the proposed annexation by Sandy City, NOW THEREFORE, be it and it is hereby resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: 1. Salt Lake City Corporation does hereby approve the annexation proposed by Sandy City, as described in Exhibit A attached hereto, and hereby authorizes the Mayor to execute, and the Chief Deputy City Recorder to attest and countersign, the "Annexation Approval by Salt Lake City"presented by Sandy City to this City Council. 2. The approval granted by this Resolution is based upon the unique circumstances presented to City Council in connection with the proposed annexation, and the City Council hereby reaffirms the boundary line established in the Boundary Agreement, and its intention to abide by, and enforce, the express terms of the Boundary Agreement. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of . , 2003. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: CHAIRPERSON Attest and countersign: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Approved as to form and legality: • ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY 2 • EXHIBIT A [Here attach description of territory proposed to be annexed by Sandy City.] • G:\RESOLUTI\Boundary Agreement.doc 3 • Aflj4L7Ig WEBCO,INC.ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION Beginning at a point on the centerline of Union Park Avenue which lies North 73°15'39"West 1445.319 feet and South 22°30'44"West 58.005 feet from the East Quarter Corner of Section 29, Township 2 South,Range 1 East,Salt Lake Base and Meridian;thence South 60°58'25"East 53.000 feet to the southeasterly line of said Union Park Avenue;thence along the southwesterly line of Little Cottonwood Creek Road the following seven courses: (1)South 76°40'00"East 6.220 feet; (2)Northeasterly 38.563 feet along the arc of a curve to the right whose center bears South 55°34'28" East 30.000 feet,has a central angle of 73°38'59" and a chord bearing and length of North 71°15'O1"East 35.962 feet;(3)South 72°02'22"East 43.330 feet; (4)Southeasterly 82.730 feet along the arc of a curve to the right whose center bears South 17°57'38" West 529.75 feet,has a central angle of 8°56'52"and a chord bearing and length of South 67°33'56"East 82.646 feet;(5)North 17°48'50"East 12.149 feet more or less to intersect the arc of a curve; (6) Southeasterly 598.472 feet along the arc of said curve,to the right,whose center bears South 26°42'19" West 541.750 feet,has a central angle of 63°17'41" and a chord bearing and length of South 31°38'51"East 568.502 feet; (7) South 16.710 feet more or less to the north line of Curtis Subdivision No.4 found as Entry No.2758149 in Book 75-11 of plats at Page 175 in the office of the Salt Lake County Recorder; thence along the north line of said Subdivision, South • 89°45'42" West 407.010 feet more or less to intersect the northeasterly line of the old Little Cottonwood Creek Road and the current Sandy City boundary(See annexation plat found as Entry No. 6357474 in Book 96-5P of plats at Page 170 in the office of the salt Lake County Recorder);thence along said northeasterly line the following five courses: (1)North 46°41'30" West 171.906 feet more or less; (2)Northwesterly 11.600 feet along the arc of a curve to the right whose center bears North 43°18'30" East 15.680 feet, has a central; angle of 42°23'14" and a chord bearing and length of North 25°29'53"West 11.337 feet;(3)Northwesterly 79.500 feet along the arc of a curve to the left whose center bears South 85°41'44" West 50.000 feet,has a central angle of 91°06'O1" and a chord bearing and length of North 49°51'17" West 71.386 feet; (4)North 46°41'30" West 12.180 feet; (5) South 89°46'05" West 65.022 feet more or less to intersect the centerline of Union Park Avenue;thence.along said centerline the following two courses: (1)Northeasterly 62.208 feet along the arc of a curve to the right whose center bears South 73°44'10"East 1054.690 feet,has a central angle of 3°22'46" and a chord bearing and length of North 17°57'13" East 62.198 feet; (2)Northeasterly 340.477 feet along the arc of a curve to the right whose center bears South 70°20'12" East 2083.480 feet,has a central angle of 9°21'47" and a chord bearing and length of North 24°20'41"East 340.098 feet to the point of beginning.The above described parcel contains approximately 5.69 acres in area. • • ANNEXATION APPROVAL BY SALT LAKE CITY • AFFECTED CITIES:This Approval affects the following municipal corporations of the State of Utah: SALT LAKE CITY,and SANDY CITY. PURPOSE: The purpose of this Approval is to allow Sandy City to annex specified unincorporated territory under the provisions of the Interlocal Cooperation and Boundary Agreement between Sandy City and Salt Lake City dated February 7, 1990.("Boundary Agreement"). EFFECTIVE DATE: This Approval takes effect upon the date of its execution by Salt Lake City. AUTHORITY: This Approval is authorized and encouraged by Sections 3 and 8 of the Boundary Agreement. SPECIFIC APPROVAL: Salt Lake City hereby irrevocably approves the following actions by Sandy City respecting the territory described in Appendix"A" ("Property")of this Agreement: • I. Acceptance of a petition for annexation; and 2. Adoption of a resolution or ordinance of annexation. BOUNDARY AGREEMENT:This Approval does not amend the Boundary Agreement. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION By MAYOR A 1ThST: • CITY RECORDER •