046 of 2002 - Confirming the modified and equalized assessment rolls and levying an assessment against certain pro a , 0 02-1
Q 00-2
ORDINANCE NO. 46 of 2002
AN ORDINANCE CONFIRMING THE MODIFIED AND EQUALIZED
ASSESSMENT ROLLS AND LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT AGAINST
CERTAIN PROPERTIES IN THE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
KNOWN AS SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT NO. 101011 (THE "DISTRICT"), FOR THE PURPOSE OF
PAYING THE COSTS TO CONSTRUCT IMPROVEMENTS ON
CERTAIN STREETS IN SAID CITY INCLUDING THE
REPLACEMENT OF ALL, OR PORTIONS OF DETERIORATED
DRIVEWAY APPROACHES, CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALKS;
THE INSTALLATION OF SOD, TOPSOIL, SIDEWALK RAMPS; THE
REMOVAL OF ILLEGAL DRIVEWAYS; AND THE INSTALLATION
OF NEW CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK STREET
IMPROVEMENTS WHERE NONE NOW EXIST; AND OTHER
MISCELLANEOUS WORK WHICH IS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE
THE ABOVE IMPROVEMENTS; REAFFIRMING THE
ESTABLISHMENT AND PROVIDING FOR THE FUNDING OF A
SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT GUARANTY FUND; ESTABLISHING
THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE; AND RELATED
MATTERS.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, SALT
LAKE COUNTY, UTAH:
Section 1. Determination of Costs. All costs and expenses for the
making of the Improvements (herein defined) within the District, together with related
costs, have been determined.
Section 2. Approval of Assessment List; Findings. The City Council
(the "Council") of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah (the "City") hereby accepts
and adopts the Findings and Recommendation of the Board of Equalization and Review,
attached hereto as Exhibit "B". The Council confirms and adopts the equalized and
modified assessment roll for the District, a copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by reference (the "Assessment List"). The Council
has deteiiiiined that the Assessment List, as adjusted and equalized, is just and equitable;
that each piece of property to be assessed within the District will be benefited in an
amount not less than the assessment to be levied against said property; and that no piece
of property listed in the assessment list will bear more than its proportionate share of the
cost of such Improvements.
Section 3. Levy of Assessments. The Council hereby levies an
assessment upon the real property identified in the Assessment List. The assessments
levied upon each parcel of property therein described shall be in the amount set forth in
the Assessment List.
UT_DOCS_A#1107964 v1 3
The assessments hereby levied are for the purpose of paying the costs of the
replacement of all, or portions of deteriorated driveway approaches, curb, gutter and
sidewalks; the installation of sod, topsoil, sidewalk ramps; the removal of illegal
driveways; and the installation of new curb, gutter and sidewalk street improvements
where none now exist; and other miscellaneous work which is necessary to complete the
above improvements (collectively the "Improvements") in a proper and workmanlike
manner. Said Improvements are more particularly described in the Assessment List.
The assessments are hereby levied and assessed upon each of the parcels of real
property described in the Assessment List according to the extent that they are specially
benefited by the Improvements acquired or constructed within the District. The
assessments are levied upon the parcels of land in the District at equal and uniform rates.
Section 4. Cost of Improvements; Amount of Total Assessments. The
total cost of the Improvements in the District is $944,670.00 including allowable related
expenses. Of this total cost, the City's portion is $722,232.16. The City's portion for the
District includes that part of the overhead costs for which an assessment cannot be levied,
if any, and the cost of making the Improvements for the benefit of property against which
an assessment may not be levied, if any. The amount to be assessed against property
affected or benefited by the Improvements in the District is $222,437.84. These amounts
do not exceed in the aggregate the sum of: (a) the total contract price or prices for the
Improvements under contract duly let to the lowest and best responsible bidder therefor
and a portion of the costs of engineering, designing and inspection; (b) the reasonable
cost of utility services, maintenance, labor, materials or equipment supplied by the City,
if any; (c) the property price, if any; (d) connection fees, if any; (e) the interest on any
interim warrants issued against the District, if any; and (f) overhead costs not to exceed
fifteen percent (15%) of the sum of(a), (b), (c) and(d).
Section 5. Method and Rate. The total assessment for the District is
levied in accordance with the method set out in the Notice of Intention pertaining to the
District. The applicable rate for each property was determined based on costs as set out
in the preceding Section.
Section 6. Payment of Assessments. The whole or any part of the
assessments for the District may be paid without interest within fifteen (15) days after
this Ordinance becomes effective. Any part of the assessment not paid within such
fifteen- (15) day period shall be payable over a period of five (5) years from the effective
date of this Ordinance in five (5) substantially equal annual principal and interest
installments. Interest on the unpaid balance of the assessment shall accrue at the rate of
seven percent (7%) per annum until and unless special assessment bonds (the "Bonds")
are issued for the District. After issuance of the Bonds the interest rate on unpaid
assessment balances (unless delinquent rates apply) shall be the same rate as the net
effective interest rate of the Bonds anticipated to be issued by the City. The first
assessment installment payment date shall be on or about November 1, 2002. The
remaining annual assessment installment payment dates shall be the anniversary dates of
the first assessment installment payment date. Interest shall accrue from the effective
date of this Ordinance. Each assessment installment shall include one year's interest.
UT_DOCS_A#1107964 v1 4
After the above-referenced fifteen- (15) day period, all unpaid installments of an
assessment levied against any piece of property may be paid prior to the dates on which
they become due, but any such prepayment must include an additional amount equal to
the interest which would accrue on the assessment to the next succeeding date on which
interest is payable on any special assessment bonds issued in anticipation of the
collection of the assessments plus such additional amount as, in the opinion of the City
Treasurer, is necessary to assure the availability of money to pay interest on the special
assessment bonds as interest becomes due and payable plus any premiums which may be
charged and become payable on redeemable bonds which may be called in order to utilize
the assessments paid in advance.
Section 7. Default in Payment. If a default occurs in the payment of
any installment of principal or interest, when due, the City may accelerate payment of the
total unpaid balance of the assessment and declare the whole of the unpaid principal and
interest then due to be immediately due and payable. Additional interest shall accrue and
be paid on all amounts declared to be delinquent or accelerated and immediately due and
payable at the same rate as is applied to delinquent real property taxes for the year in
which the assessment installment becomes delinquent (the "Delinquent Rate"). In
addition to interest charges at the Delinquent Rate, costs of collection, including attorneys
fees and court costs ("Collection Costs"), as determined by the City Treasurer or required
by law shall be charged and paid on all amounts declared to be delinquent or accelerated
and immediately due and payable. In lieu of accelerating the total assessment balance
when one or more assessment installments become delinquent, the City may elect to
bring an action to collect only the delinquent portion of the assessment plus interest at the
Delinquent Rate and Collection Costs.
Upon any default, the City Treasurer shall give notice, in writing, of the default to
the owner of the property in default, as shown by the last available equalized assessment
rolls. Notice shall be effective upon deposit of the notice in the U.S. Mail, postage
prepaid, and addressed to the owner as shown on the last equalized assessment rolls for
the City or on the official ownership records of the City. The notice shall provide for a
period of thirty (30) days in which the owner shall pay the installments then due and
owing together with accrued interest at the regular rate plus costs as determined by the
City Treasurer. If the City elects to use the enforcement remedy involving acceleration,
the Notice shall also declare that after the thirty (30) day period the City shall accelerate
the then unpaid balance of the principal of the assessment to be immediately due and
payable together with Collection Costs and interest on the entire unpaid balance to accrue
from the date of delinquency at the Delinquent Rate. Thereafter, the City may commence
foreclosure proceedings in the manner provided for actions to foreclose mortgage liens or
trust deeds. If the City elects to utilize the trust deed enforcement remedy, the City
Attorney shall designate a trust deed trustee for purposes of the enforcement action. If at
the sale no person or entity shall bid and pay the City the amount due on the assessment
plus interest and costs, the property shall be deemed sold to the City for these amounts.
The City shall be permitted to bid at the sale.
The remedies provided herein for the collection of assessments and the
enforcement of liens shall be deemed and construed to be cumulative and the use of any
UT_DOCS_A#1107964 v1 5
one method or means of collection or enforcement shall not deprive the City of the use
of any other method or means. The amounts of accrued interest and all costs of
collection shall be added to the amount of the assessment up to the date of foreclosure
sale.
Section 8. Remedy of Default. If prior to the final date payment may
be legally made under a final sale or foreclosure of property to collect delinquent
assessment installments, the property owner pays the full amount of all unpaid
installments which are past due and delinquent with interest at the Delinquent Rate, plus
all approved or required costs, the assessment of said owner shall be restored so that the
owner will have the right to make the payments in installments as if the default had not
occurred.
Section 9. Lien of Assessment. An assessment or any part or
installment of it, any interest accruing and the penalties and costs of collection shall
constitute a lien against the property upon which the assessment is levied on the effective
date of this Ordinance. Said lien shall be superior to the lien of any trust deed, mortgage,
mechanic's or materialman's lien or other encumbrance and shall be equal to and on a
parity with the lien for general property taxes. The lien shall continue until the
assessment and any interest, penalties and costs on it are paid, notwithstanding any sale
of the property for or on account of a delinquent general property tax, special tax or other
assessment or the issuance of a tax deed, an assignment of interest by the governing
entity or a sheriffs certificate of sale or deed.
Section 10. Special Improvement Guaranty Fund. The City does
hereby reaffirm the creation of a special improvement guaranty fund (the "Guaranty
Fund") and shall annually, so long as any special assessment bonds of the City remain
outstanding, transfer to said fund each year such amount as shall equal the amount that a
tax levy on all taxable property located within the City at the rate of.0002 will produce,
either through a levy of a tax of not to exceed .0002 in any one year or by the issuance of
general obligation bonds or by appropriation from other available sources. The Guaranty
Fund shall include an allocation of ten percent (10%) of the outstanding Bonds of this
District, but the entire available balance in the Guaranty Fund shall be for the purpose of
guaranteeing to the extent of such fund the payment of special assessment bonds and
interest thereon issued against local improvement districts for the payment of local
improvements therein, all in the manner and to the extent provided by the laws of the
State of Utah. When the Guaranty Fund has a balance equal to ten percent (10%) of the
Outstanding Bonds of this District plus an allocation as required by the assessment
ordinance for each of the other City special improvement districts with bonds
outstanding, the funding requirement will be deemed to have been met and future funding
or transfers will not be required unless the balance drops below the aggregate allocation
level.
Section 11. Contestability. No assessment shall be declared void or set
aside in whole or in part in consequence of any error or irregularity which does not go to
the equity or justice of the assessment or proceeding. Any party who has not waived his
objections to same as provided by statute may commence a civil action against the City
UT_DOCS_A#1107964 v1 6
to enjoin the levy or collection of the assessment or to set aside and declare unlawful this
Ordinance.
Such action must be commenced and summons must be served on the City not
later than 30 days after the effective date of this Ordinance. This action shall be the
exclusive remedy of any aggrieved party. No court shall entertain any complaint which
the party was authorized to make by statute but did not timely make or any complaint that
does not go to the equity or justice of the assessment or proceeding.
After the expiration of the 30-day period provided in this section:
(a) The special assessment bonds issued or to be issued against the
District and the assessments levied in the District shall become incontestable as to
all persons who have not commenced the action provided for in this section; and
(b) No suit to enjoin the issuance or payment of the bonds, the levy,
collection or enforcement of the assessment, or in any other manner attacking or
questioning the legality of the bonds or assessments may be instituted in this state,
and no court shall have authority to inquire into these matters.
Section 12. Notice to Property Owners. The City Treasurer is hereby
authorized and directed to give notice of assessment by mail to the property owners in the
District. Said notice shall, among other things, state the amount of the assessment and
the terms of payment. A copy of the form of notice of assessment is available for
examination upon request at the office of the City Recorder.
Section 13. All Necessary Action Approved. The officials of the City
are hereby authorized and directed to take all action necessary and appropriate to
effectuate the provisions of this Ordinance.
Section 14. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions. All ordinances or parts
thereof in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section 15. Publication of Ordinance. An emergency is hereby
declared, the preservation of peace, health and safety of the City and the inhabitants
thereof so requiring. Immediately after its adoption, this Ordinance shall be signed by the
Mayor and City Recorder and shall be recorded in the ordinance book kept for that
purpose. This Ordinance shall be published once in the Deseret News, a newspaper
published and having general circulation in the City, and shall take effect immediately
upon its passage and approval and publication as required by law.
UT_DOCS_A#1107964 v1 7
•
PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this 2nd
day of July, 2002.
Chair
ATTEST:
Deputy City ec irder
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorneys Office
Date 7- i o v YZ
�' 2 „i • 't;
By �,< ,. -A
UT_DOCS_A#1107964 v1 8
The City Treasurer was thereupon authorized to mail to the property owners in the
District the foregoing notice of special assessment as hereinbefore provided.
After the transaction of other business not pertinent to the foregoing matter, the
meeting was on motion duly made, seconded and carried, adjourned.
_c7..,.......j
Chair
ATTEST:
is 1 4
Depu CO Recorder
( SEA y`I4T� ;,•X
' Y .. 1
9-MEW As'
UT_DOCS A#1107964 v1 9
PRESENTATION TO THE MAYOR
The foregoing ordinance was presented to the Mayor for his approval or
disapproval on the 2nd day of July, 2002.
Chair
MAYOR'S APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL
The foregoing ordinance is hereby approved this 2nd day of July, 2002.
C
Ross C. Anderson
Mayor
UT_DOCS_A#1107964 v1 10
STATE OF UTAH )
. ss.
COUNTY OF SALT LAKE )
I, Beverly Jones, the duly appointed and qualified Deputy City Recorder of Salt
Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a
full, true and correct copy of the record of proceedings had by the City Council of Salt
Lake, Salt Lake County, Utah at its meeting held on the 2nd day of July, 2002, insofar as
the same relates to or concerns Salt Lake City, Utah Special Improvement District
No. 101011 as the same appears of record in my office.
I further certify that the Ordinance levying the special assessments was recorded
by me in the official records of Salt Lake City on the 2nd day of July, 2002.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the corporate
seal of Salt Lake City this 2nd day of July, 2002.
8e44 1. 0i.
r - pu / City Recorder
,!: q
/4,1kry E I)) 7.\''
K -,,,,.,,,,,,,, 1.„
ff: 4. .,rtitalacF -,- 0
UT_DOCS_A#1107964 v1 11
STATE OF UTAH ) AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
: ss. NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT
COUNTY OF SALT LAKE )
I, Daniel Mule, the duly appointed, qualified City Treasurer of Salt Lake City,
Salt Lake County, Utah, do hereby certify that on the 11 day of July, 2002, I
caused to be mailed a Notice of Assessment to each property owner in Salt Lake City,
Utah Special Improvement District No. 101011 by United States Mail, postage prepaid,
at the last known address of such owner.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the corporate
seal of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah this 1 7 day of July, 2002.
City Treasurer
vacs CST
*
UT_DOCS_A#1107964 v1 12
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
Attached to this page is the Proof of Publication, indicating by the affidavit of the
publisher that the said Ordinance levying the special assessments which was contained in
the Ordinance adopted by the City Council on the 2nd day of July, 2002, was published
one time in the Deseret News.
UT_DOCS_A#1107964 v1 13
EXHIBIT"A"
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH OPEN MEETING LAW
I, Beverly Jones, the undersigned Deputy City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Salt
Lake County, Utah (the "City"), do hereby certify, according to the records of the City in
my official possession, and upon my own knowledge and belief, that in accordance with
the requirements of Section 52-4-6(2), Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, I gave
not less than twenty-four (24) hours public notice of the agenda, date, time and place of
the July 2, 2002 public meeting held by the City as follows:
(a) By causing a Notice, in the form attached hereto as Schedule "A",
to be posted at the City's offices at 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah on
June 28, 2002, 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 News on June 28, 2002, at least
twenty-four(24) hours prior to the convening of the meeting.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my official signature this
2nd day of July, 2002.
61.11A14- 3411ejgt City Recorder
. 1. hi`•.}J;
:7
y. 9
T
UT DOCS A#1107964 v1 A-I
SCHEDULE "A"
Notice of Meeting
UT DOCS A#1107964 vi A-2
EXHIBIT"B"
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW
SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS
Job No. 101011
The Board of Equalization Hearings for Special Improvement District No. 101011
were held on April 23, 24, and 25, 2002 at 451 South State Street in room 315 and in
conformance with the ordinances governing special improvement districts. The Board
was comprised of the following members:
Max G. Peterson, City Engineer
Chris Meeker, Chief Deputy Recorder
Larry Spendlove, Assistant City Attorney
Garth Limburg, Special Assessment Coordinator
Assisting the Board were the following individuals:
John Naser, City Engineering
Karen Carruthers, City Engineering
Cheryl Slaymaker, City Engineering
Scott Crandall, Recorders Office
Beverly Jones, Recorders Office
Susan Finlayson, City Engineering
The following are the concerns of property owners regarding the Special
Improvement District assessments, and the responses and recommendations of the Board
of Equalization.
Tuesday,April 23,2002 - 3:00 to 4:00 P.M.
1. Young, Willard E.
762 East Yale Avenue
16-08-306-012-0000
Mr. Young said he should not be assessed for the improvement because the new
sidewalk was an extension of the road width. He said there was no curb & gutter
to separate the road from the sidewalk and Yale Street was very narrow so
everyone was parking on the new sidewalk.
Response:
The board will consider this issue and notify him of their recommendation.
UT DOGS A#1107964 v1 B-1
Recommendations of the Board:
The sidewalk and street paving are at the same elevation. Due to the narrow street
width, cars park on the sidewalk which limits the use of the sidewalk for
pedestrian use. Therefore the board recommends the sidewalk assessment be
waived except at any drive approaches.
This assessment will be adjusted as follows:
Current Assessment
4"Residential Sidewalk 143 square feet @ $3.09 = $441.87
6"Residential Sidewalk 44 square feet @ $3.71 = $163.24
Revised assessment
4"Residential Sidewalk 0 square feet @ $3.09 = $ 00.00
6" Residential Sidewalk 44 square feet @ $3.71 = $163.24
2. Zimmerer, Joel W.
1067 S. Lake Street
16-08-303-017-0000
Mr. Zimmerer said he should not be assessed for the new six-inch sidewalk that
was an extension of the road width because there was no curb & gutter to separate
the road from the sidewalk. The new sidewalk was being used for parking and did
not provide space for pedestrian walking. Mr. Zimmerer provided pictures of cars
parking on the sidewalk. Mr. Zimmerer said he also felt the City should change
the flat 75-foot corner lot exemption to a percentage amount for corner lots,
providing the same advantage to all corner property owners.
Response:
The board would consider these issues and notify him their of recommendation.
Recommendations of the Board:
The sidewalk and street paving are at the same elevation. Due to the narrow street
width, cars park on the sidewalk which limits the use of the sidewalk for
pedestrian use. Therefore the board recommends the sidewalk assessment be
waived except at any drive approaches. The board also recommends the
maximum 75-foot corner lot exemption policy remain as is and not be changed as
requested by Mr. Zimmerer.
This assessment will be adjusted as follows:
Current Assessment
4" Residential Sidewalk 175.6 square feet @ $3.09 = $ 542.60
6" Residential Sidewalk 302 square feet @ $3.71 = $1120.42
UT DOCS A#1107964 v1 B-2
Revised assessment
4"Residential Sidewalk 100 square feet @ $3.09 =$ 309.00
6" Residential Sidewalk 64 square feet @ $3.71 =$ 237.44
3. Sorensen, Lynne
1001 South 700 East
16-08-302-003-0000
Ms. Sorensen said she received a bill for $321.14, which was larger then the
estimated $75.00 she had received with the Notice of Intent letter. Ms. Sorensen
wanted to know why the bill increased.
Response:
Mr. Peterson explained that the Notice of Intent amount was an estimate and more
sidewalk replacement was necessary than had been estimated. Mr. Peterson
requested Ms. Slaymaker meet with Ms. Sorensen at her home and re-measure the
quantity of work needing to be done. He asked Ms. Slaymaker to check for
photographs taken prior to construction.
Recommendations of the Board:
The assessment be adjusted as determined by the re-measurement of the sidewalk.
This assessment will be adjusted as follows:
Current Assessment
4" Residential Sidewalk 87.6 square feet @ $3.09 = $270.68
6" Residential Sidewalk 13.6 square feet @$3.71 = $ 50.46
Revised assessment
4" Residential Sidewalk 24.27 square feet @ $ 3.09 = $74.99
6" Residential Sidewalk 13.6 square feet @ $3.71 =$ 50.46
4. Komlos, William A.
1076 South Lake Street
16-08-305-014-0000
Mr. Komlos said he should not be assessed for the new six-inch sidewalk because
the new sidewalk was an extension of the road width. He said there was no curb
& gutter to separate the road from the sidewalk. He said the new sidewalk was
being used for parking and provided no space for pedestrian walking. He provided
copies of E-mails he had sent the City concerning the issue.
UT DOCS A#1107964 v1 B-3
Response:
The board would consider this issue and notify him of their recommendation.
Recommendations of the Board:
The sidewalk and street paving are at the same elevation. Due the narrow street
width, cars park on the sidewalk which limits the use of the sidewalk for
pedestrian use. Therefore the board recommends the sidewalk assessment be
waived except at any drive approaches.
This assessment will be adjusted as follows:
Current Assessment
4" Residential Sidewalk 103.08 square feet @ $3.09 =$318.52
6" Residential Sidewalk 104 square feet @ $3.71 =$385.84
Revised assessment
4" Residential Sidewalk 100 square feet @$3.09 =$309.00
6" Residential Sidewalk 0 square feet @ $3.71 =$ 00.00
Wednesday, April 24, 2002 - 5:00 to 6:00 P.M.
1. Farmer, Pamela L.
1196 South 800 East
16-08-355-012-0000
Ms. Farmer said she had replaced her sidewalk several years ago and the City had
cracked it while replacing her neighbor's sidewalk. She said she was also
concerned with the quality of work and damage done to her driveway.
Response:,
Mr. Peterson requested Ms. Slaymaker meet with Ms. Farmer on May 9th, 2002 to
review the issue at her property location.
Recommendations of the Board:
The assessment be adjusted as determined by the re-measurement of the sidewalk.
This assessment will be adjusted as follows:
Current Assessment
4" Residential Sidewalk 49.06 square feet @ $3.09 =$153.26
UT DOCS A#1107964 v1 B-4
Revised assessment
4" Residential Sidewalk 20 square feet @ $3.09 = $61.80
2. Gordon,Amy
1163 South 900 East
16-08-379-002-0000
Ms. Gordon said that she was not notified of the sidewalk work and did not
authorize the work to be done. She said she was unhappy with the assessment.
She asked when the notice of intent had been mailed and what it said. Ms. Gordon
said her neighbor had not received notice. Ms. Gordon she did not think she
would have to pay for the replacement of the sidewalk. Ms. Gordon asked what
the payment options were.
Response:
Mr. Peterson informed Ms. Gordon of the process the City followed in creating an
S.I.D. Ms. Gordon was also informed on payment options.
Recommendations of the Board:
The board recommends that the assessment not be changed.
This assessment will be not adjusted and is as follows:
Current Assessment
4" Residential Sidewalk 108.4 square feet @ $3.09 = $334.96
6" Residential Sidewalk 43.6 square feet @ $3.71 =$161.76
Thursday, April 25, 2002 - 6:00 to 7:00 P.M.
1. Bryne,Barbara
1273 South Lake Street
16-08-355-008-0000
Ms. Byrne said she had received a bill for property that she did not own. Ms.
Bryne said she wanted to make sure she wasn't responsible for the bill.
Response:
The board would check the county records to see why the bill was mailed to her.
UT DOCS A#1107964 v1 B-5
Recommendations of the Board:
The board checked into county ownership records and found that Ms. Bryne was
not responsible for the property listed above.
2. Jensen, Farrell D.
1129 South Lake Street
16-08-306-011-0000
Mr. Jensen said the contractor had broken a corner of his sidewalk leading to his
house. He said the contractor told the people renting the property he would come
back and fix it. Mr. Jensen said it had not been fixed. He said the Contractor had
broken sprinklers but had repaired them.
Response:
Mr. Peterson requested Ms. Slaymaker meet with Mr. Jensen at his home and
have the sidewalk repaired.
Recommendations of the Board:
The board recommended the contractor repair the sidewalk tie in leading to his
house and the assessment be adjusted as determined by the re-measurement of the
sidewalk.
This assessment will be adjusted as follows:
Current Assessment
4" Residential Sidewalk 352.8 square feet @ $3.09 = $1090.15
6" Residential Sidewalk 80 square feet @ $3.71 = $296.80
Revised assessment
4"Residential Sidewalk 156 square feet @ $3.09 = $482.04
6"Residential Sidewalk 80 square feet @ $3.71 = $296.80
3. Klein, Dov
991 South 900 East
16-08-328-001-0000
Mr. Klein said the Contractor broke his sprinklers. He requested reimbursement
of $40.00, which he had paid to repair the sprinklers. Mr. Klein said he would
send a copy of the bill to Ms. Slaymaker. Mr. Klein said the contractor had broken
some of the sidewalk leading to his house.
UT DOCS A#1107964 v1 B-6
Response:
The board recommended Mr. Klein's assessment be reduced $40.00 upon receipt
of the bill. Mr. Peterson requested Ms. Slaymaker meet with Mr. Klein at the
property location and have the broken concrete repaired.
Recommendations of the Board:
The board recommended the contractor repair the tie in to the sidewalk leading to
Mr. Klein's home and the assessment be reduced by $40.00 to compensate his
repair of the sprinkler. The assessment is adjusted as follows.
This assessment will be adjusted as follows:
Current Assessment
4" Residential Sidewalk 156 square feet @ $3.09 = $482.04
Revised assessment
4" Residential Sidewalk 156 square feet @$ 3.09 = $482.04
Sprinkler Repair -$ 40.00
$442.04
UT DOCS A#1107964 v1 B-7
EXHIBIT"C"
ASSESSMENT LIST
[Available for review at the offices of the
City Recorder or City Engineer]
UT DOCS A#1107964 v1 B-8
r b
Salt Lake City, Utah
July 2, 2002
The City Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah met in regular session
on Tuesday, the 2nd day of July, 2002, at its regular meeting place. The following
members of the City Council were present:
David L. Buhler Chair
Carlton Christensen Vice Chair
Nancy Saxton Councilmember
Van Turner Councilmember
K. Eric Jergensen Councilmember
Jill Remington Love Councilmember
Dale Lambert Councilmember
Also present:
Ross C. Anderson Mayor
Steven Allred Deputy City Attorney
Beverly Jones Deputy City Recorder
Absent: None
After the meeting had been duly called to order and after other matters not
pertinent to this resolution had been discussed, the City Recorder presented to the City
Council a Certificate of Compliance With Open Meeting Law with respect to this July 2,
2002, meeting, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit"A".
The City Council has considered the Findings and Recommendation of the Board
of Equalization and Review for the special improvement district known as Salt Lake City,
Utah Special Improvement District No. 101011 (the "District") and has reviewed minutes
of the hearings of that Board and determined to approve the modified and equalized
assessment rolls as recommended by the Board of Equalization and Review and levy
assessments as set out therein.
The following assessment ordinance was then introduced in writing, was fully
discussed, and pursuant to motion duly made by Councilmember Buhler and seconded by
Councilmember Turner, adopted by the following vote:
UT_DOCS_A#1107964 v1 1
YEA: Councilmember Carlton Christensen
Councilmember Van Turner
Councilmember Eric Jergensen
Councilmember Nancy Saxton
Councilmember Jill Remington Love
Councilmember Dave Buhler
Councilmember Dale Lambert
NAY: None
The ordinance was then signed by the Chair, presented to and approved by the
Mayor and recorded by the City Recorder in the official records of Salt Lake City, Utah.
The ordinance is as follows:
UT_DOCS_A#1107964 v1 2