PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 1984
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 1984, AT 4:45 P.M. IN ROOM 211 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: RONALD J. WHITEHEAD EARL F. HARDWICK GRANT MABEY ALICE SHEARER SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER.
Councilmember Ione Davis was absent from the meeting.
Council Chairperson Ronald Whitehead presided at and conducted the meeting.
POLICY SESSION
1. Albert Haines and Roger Cutler briefed the Council on the proposed changes to the collective bargaining resolution. The changes include reflecting the Council-Mayor form of government, changing from a position to a category listing of exempted employees, and defining the four bargaining units. Councilmember Parker asked whether the Council needs to take formal action on the resolution since the Council has no formal role in the bargaining process. Councilmember Whitehead said that he is not comfortable with the amount of input the Council has in the process and he asked that in future years the Council take more time on the salary questions incorporated into the budget. Mr. Haines replied that the Council’s concerns had been addressed by the Administration in an Executive Order and that the Council had provided policy direction to the Administration. He said that the Executive Order has no meaning without the collective bargaining resolution. The proposed changes were discussed.
2. Louis Miller discussed the proposed changes to Title 2, Aeronautics. He said that the Airport Authority Board had endorsed the changes. He said that some individuals and organizations will be assessed fees under the new schedule who have not been assessed before, and that he had been meeting with these parties to answer their questions.
3. Michael Ortega, representing the Citizens Congress, addressed the Council concerning the request for $20,000 of 10th Year Community Development Block Grant Funds for a community organizer. Mr. Ortega said that the services the community organizer would provide include monitoring Urban Development Action Grants to make sure federal regulations are complied with, notifying people of city services, and working with low-income, elderly, and minority individuals.
Councilmember Shearer said that all of these services are currently provided by the city, and asked why an additional position was necessary. Mr. Ortega said that the current organization is not meeting the needs of low-income, elderly, and minority individuals. He said that the Community Action Program has been made ineffective by budget cuts and that most people do not know about other programs. Councilmember Mabey said that people can get involved if they want to and that many people do not want to get involved with city government. Councilmember Fonnesbeck added that when people have a specific problem they find out who can help them. Councilmember Whitehead said that the community organizer would duplicate services already provided by other city departments.
4. Ms. Leigh von der Esch briefed the Council on the agenda.
The policy session adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 1984, AT 6:00 P.M. IN ROOM 301 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: RONALD J. WHITEHEAD EARL F. HARDWICK GRANT MABEY ALICE SHEARER SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER.
Albert Haines, chief administrative officer, and Roger Cutler, city attorney, were present at the meeting.
Councilmember Ione Davis and Mayor Ted Wilson were absent from the meeting.
Council Chairperson Ronald Whitehead presided at and Councilmember Grant Mabey conducted the meeting.
Invocation was given by Police Chaplain Clifford Higbee.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes:
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Hardwick seconded to approve the minutes of the Salt Lake City Council for the regular meetings held Tuesday, April 3, 1984, and Thursday, April 5, 1984, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(M 84-1)
PETITIONS
Petition 400-159 of 1984 by Gus Papanikolas.
RE: The rezoning of property located at 709 South 700 East from a Residential “R-5A” classification to a Business “B-3” classification.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to schedule a public hearing for Tuesday, May 8, 1984, at 6:30 p.m. to discuss Petition 400-159 of 1984, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(P 84-29)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
#1. RE: Industrial Revenue Bond for J.J. BAKD for the acquisition of an existing KOA Kampground.
James Menlove, representing J.J. BAKO, felt that it would be beneficial to Salt Lake City to keep the KOA Kampground in the area. The Council agreed that this would be a benefit.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt an inducement resolution, Resolution 40 of 1984, subject to City Attorney’s review and Finance Department’s approval, for an Industrial Revenue Bond for J.J. BAKD, a limited partnership, in the amount of $3,000,000 on the acquisition of an existing KOA Kampground and related facilities at 1400 West North Temple, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(Q 84-7)
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
#1. RE: The Third Amended Collective Bargaining Resolution.
Councilmember Whitehead felt that the Council needs to be more involved in this aspect of the budget process so that there is agreement between the Council and Mayor about the outcome. He felt that the Council needs to consider what is realistic for the employees and not only consider availability of funds. Albert Haines said that if this resolution is approved the Council is maintaining a philosophical commitment to the establishment of structure and process by which the Administration should maintain its relationship with the employees in dealing with compensation and work-related issues. This amendment clarifies the ambiguity of representation.
Roger Cutler indicated that the proposed changes are measures to update the bargaining resolution. If the city is going to continue to bargain collectively then the suggested amendments should be approved. Or, if the Council does not like the collective bargaining process then the process should be rescinded and the Council may choose an alternative. Councilmember Parker felt that problems would be created if the Council rescinded the process. Mr. Cutler agreed because the labor organizations struggled to get this process. Mr. Haines felt that if the Council adopted the amendment it would communicate to the employees that the Council has an interest from a policy perspective in ensuring that there is a process that takes place. Councilmember Fonnesbeck felt that this document would formalize the rules. Councilmember Whitehead felt that the amendment could be approved and then monitored. If it does not work the way the Council feels it should, then the action could be rescinded. Councilmember Shearer felt that the entire collective-bargaining issue needed to be discussed.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Hardwick seconded to adopt Resolution 41 of 1984, the Third Amended Collective Bargaining Resolution, which motion carried, all members present voting aye except Councilmember Shearer who voted nay.
(R 84-5)
PUBLIC UTILITIES
#1. RE: A resolution declaring the intention of the City Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, to create a special improvement district to be known as Salt Lake City, Public Utilities, Project 50-1260, 8-inch main sewer pipeline, sometimes referred to as “the District”, to make improvements along 700 North within the District and to levy special taxes as provided in Chapter 16, Title 10, Utah Code Annotated, (1953), as amended, on the real estate lying within said District for the benefit of which such taxes are to be expended in the making of such improvements.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Hardwick seconded to deny the request to create the special improvement district, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(O 84-4)
#2. RE: An ordinance amending Sections 49-6-51 and 49-6-52 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to water meter rates and minimum charge of culinary water.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to schedule a public hearing for May 8, 1984, at 7:15 p.m. to consider the ordinance amendment, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(O 84-9)
PUBLIC WORKS
#1. RE: A resolution authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement with Utah Department of Transportation for repair or replacement of damaged guardrails on Salt Lake City streets.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Resolution 42 of 1984 authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City and Utah Department of Transportation for repair or replacement of damaged guardrails on Salt Lake City streets, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(C 84-82)
Petition 400-130 of 1983 by Salt Lake City Corporation.
RE: The closure of a portion of Learned Avenue between 11th and 12th West and closure of a 15 foot alley between Learned Avenue and North Temple in Salt Lake City, Utah.
A public hearing was held at 6:00 p.m. to discuss this petition. Mark Hafey, planning and zoning, outlined the area on a map. He said that the Planning Commission recommended the closure of the alley and Learned Avenue. Salt Lake City owns the property on both sides of the alley, however not all the property owners abutting Learned Avenue signed the petition. The Planning Commission also recommended that the recreational facility, White Ball Park, be replaced as soon as possible in a better location and with a larger facility. Mr. Hafey indicated that there were no improvements on the street and it is not currently being used. The abutting parcels do not require the street for access. Mr. Hafey said that closing the alley and street would allow for the sale of the total parcel. No one from the audience addressed this issue.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Ordinance 24 of 1984, closing a portion of Learned Avenue between 11th and 12th West and closing a 15 foot alley between Learned Avenue and North Temple in Salt Lake City, Utah, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(P 84-15)
Petition 400-137 of 1983 by Con Kostopulos for Elva Plumer.
RE: The vacation of a portion of a public alley located within the Arlington Heights Subdivision, said alley being 15 feet wide running south from 700 South Street between 1100 East and McClelland Streets in Salt Lake City.
A public hearing was held at 6:15 p.m. to discuss this petition. Mark Hafey, planning and zoning, outlined the area on a map and said that this is a dead-end alley. The petition requested that the portion of the alley abutting Ms. Plumer’s property be vacated. Her property abuts both sides of the alley except for 25 feet and if the alley is vacated as requested a step-like configuration will be created. It was recommended to vacate 62.5 feet of the alley which is entirely abutted on both sides by Ms. Plumer’s property. The Planning Commission recommended this alley vacation which will shorten the dead-end alley. Con Kostopulos, the petitioner, indicated that the property owner across from Ms. Plumer, Ms. Suhesaretta, has agreed to Ms. Plumer’s request. He said that Ms. Plumer wanted the alley to be vacated as requested but would settle for the vacation of 62.5 feet. Ms. Leigh von der Esch, council executive director, referred to the letter submitted by Ms. Subesaretta which states that she agrees to the vacation as requested by Ms. Plumer. Ms. von der Esch said that the property description in the submitted ordinance would have to be changed. No one from the audience opposed the petition.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to vacate the alley as requested in Petition 400-137 of 1983 and adopt Ordinance 26 of 1984, subject to the amendment of the property description, effectuating the vacation of a portion of a public alley located within the Arlington Heights Subdivision, said alley being 15 feet wide and running south from 700 South Street between 1100 East and McClelland Streets, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(P 84-16)
Petition 400-119 of 1983 by Keith Larsen for LaRueil Larsen.
RE: The closure of a portion of a public alley located within the Main Street Subdivision, said alley being 16 feet wide and running north from Herbert Avenue between State and Main Streets in Salt Lake City, Utah.
A public hearing was held at 6:20 p.m. to discuss this petition. Mark Hafey, planning and zoning, outlined the area on a map and said that all city departments recommended the closure of the alley. He indicated that the alley dead-ends into the old Ramada Inn property. The petitioner owns the property on both sides of the alley and the area is zoned Commercial “C-3”. Mr. Hafey said that the Planning Commission recommended that the property be closed and sold to the petitioner. Councilmember Parker said that the petitioner requested vacation of the alley and since the city recommended closure he questioned whether or not the petitioner would want to buy the property.
Keith Larsen, petitioner, said that the Ephraim Creamery and Audio Tech are businesses operated on his property. The proposed use of the property in the back is for parking and access to a new building at the back of the Audio Tech business. The end of the alley in question has been a dead end for many years and there is currently a problem with transients. The area would be entirely fenced and paved. Mr. Larsen said that if it is necessary to purchase the property he will do so. Councilmember Mabey said that it is normal policy to sell alleys if they are to be used for a commercial purpose.
Councilmember Shearer asked if the other property owners along the block would have trouble accessing the rear of their property if the alley is closed. Mr. Hafey indicated that access would not be hampered. No one from the audience opposed this petition.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to approve Petition 400-119 of 1983 and adopt Ordinance 25 of 1984, closing a portion of a public alley located within the Main Street Subdivision, said alley being 16 feet wide and running north from Herbert Avenue between State and Main Streets, with the intent that the alley will be purchased, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(P 84-17)
Petition 400-120 of 1983 by O. J. Rowland.
RE: The closure of an 11.4 foot wide alley which runs north from Warnock Avenue for approximately 175 feet at approximately 675 East in Salt Lake City, Utah. The petitioner requested that his petition be withdrawn.
(P 84-18)
Petition 400-144 of 1983 by Joanne Milner, et al.
RE: The vacation of the alley which runs east and west and parallel to Montague and 900 South Streets and between 8th and 9th West Street.
A public hearing was held at 6:30 p.m. to discuss this petition. Mark Hafey outlined the area on a map. He said that the north portion of the alley is abutted by the Union Pacific Railroad. All abutting property owners have signed the request for vacation, however, the advertisement for the public hearing states that the alley is 9.6 feet wide. It appears to be 9.6 feet wide but after additional research it was discovered that the alley is actually 15 feet wide.
Roger Cutler, city attorney, said that as long as all the abutting property owners have signed the petition the advertisement will not present a problem. Councilmember Shearer said that the Railroad had not signed the petition. Mr. Hafey indicated that they do not usually sign these types of petitions but they are not opposed to this request. Joanne Milner, petitioner, said that at one time the alley was 15 feet wide but about 10 years ago the railroad installed a fence that took 7.5 feet so actually the alley is 7.5 feet wide. Mr. Hafey indicated that he could not find any action which had previously vacated this alley, although the atlas plat shows that the width of the alley has been changed to 9.6 feet. Councilmember Fonnesbeck suggested that the railroad could be charged for their half of the alley and the other half could be given to the residents. No one from the audience opposed this petition.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Hardwick seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
There was some question as to what would become of the railroad’s half of the alley if they do not want to purchase the land. Mr. Cutler said that it would still be city property even though it would be closed for public access. If the railroad leaves their fence on the property the city could deed the land to the residents who would have to get the railroad to move their fence or the city could take action, such as a lien, against the railroad if they do nott move their fence. Mr. Cutler indicated that if the alley is closed a deed would need to be issued indicating who would get the alley without compensation and who would be required to pay.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to close the alley and deed 7.5 feet of the property to the residential properties without compensation and request compensation from the Railroad should they request a deed on the remaining 7.5 feet of the alley, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(P 84-19)
Guadalupe Target Area Plan.
RE: The adoption of the Guadalupe Target Area Plan.
A public hearing was held at 6:45 p.m. to discuss the plan. Bill Wright, planning and zoning, said that in 1982 the Guadalupe neighborhood was designated as a CDBG target area in the three-year community development plan. He outlined the area on a map and said that this is a linear neighborhood which is about two blocks wide and five blocks long. Mr. Wright said that the goal of the plan is to guide neighborhood reinvestment both with city capital improvement funds and private market resources. The overall goal of the plan and the program is to improve and provide housing and neighborhood amenities for areas of low- and moderate-income families or blighted neighborhoods. Mr. Wright then briefly outlined the format of the plan.
Barry Esham, chairman of the Northwest Community Council, expressed his support for the plan and mentioned that the people of the area have been involved in developing this plan and have worked hard for its implementation. Rosemarie Rendon, Jay Montoya, and John Adamson all expressed their support for the plan. Councilmember Whitehead supported the plan and said it was exciting to see its development. He mentioned that when the freeway was constructed it was predicted that this area would become commercial but it didn’t. Mr. Whitehead felt that the neighborhood would do better if the city got more involved. He said that this area could become a viable place to live. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if there would be rezoning in the area. Mr. Wright said that the plan would support rezoning if petitions are submitted. The current zoning in the neighborhood consists of Residential “R-6”, small amounts of “B-3” and “C-l”, and “M-l” zoning. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked about the percentage of owner-occupied houses. Mr. Wright said that about 32% of the housing is owner-occupied.
Al Chacon, area property owner, mentioned that he had met with Mr. Wright regarding parks in the area. Mr. Chacon did not want his property used for a park and he felt that the current parks are not utilized enough to justify having several parks in the area. Mr. Chacon said he was not against the plan but did not want to give up any land. Councilmember Shearer asked if Mr. Chacon’s property is currently vacant and she asked what the property is zoned. Mr. Chacon indicated that the property is vacant and Mr. Wright said that the property is partially “C-l” and “R-6”. Mr. Wright said that it was difficult to decide on park locations in this area. The plan supports a park located at 500 North 600 West and if Mr. Chacon sells his property another park would be located by the Boys’ and Girls’ Club. Mr. Wright said that they did not want to take good housing in order to build parks.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Hardwick seconded to adopt the Guadalupe Target Area Plan, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(T 84-4)
Landmark Site.
RE: The designation of the James T. and Mary M. Donahue house, 141 South 200 East, as a landmark site and the addition of the house to the City Register of Cultural Resources.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to continue the public hearing to May 8, 1984, at 7:00 p.m. to discuss this issue, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(L 84-1)
Aeronautics Ordinance.
RE: An ordinance amending Title 2 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, as amended, relating to aeronautics.
A public hearing was held at 7:15 p.m. to discuss this ordinance. Louis Miller, Director of Airports, outlined the pertinent changes to the ordinance: 1) amending the landing fee and use fee sections to provide for automatic changes in rates at the same time rates are adjusted for participating carriers; 2) increasing transient aircraft parking rates in an effort to dissuade aircraft owners from storing aircraft on transient apron areas (this is on the west side of the airport; 3) prohibit the use of ultra-lights and hang gliders from both Salt lake City International Airport and Airport II; 4) exempting any person from paying fuel and oil royalty if that person is paying landing fees; and 5) providing changes to minimum standards for conduct or leasing at Salt Lake City airports.
The following are recommended fees: aircraft sales - $1,000/year; airframe/power plant repair - $1,000/year; aircraft rental - $250/aircraft per year plus two per pound of gross certified landing weight of each aircraft per year; flight training - $250/aircraft per year plus two per pound of gross certified landing weight of each aircraft per year; commercial flight service - $250/aircraft per year plus two per pound of gross certified landing weight of each aircraft per year; miscellaneous services - $500/year. Minimum insurance coverage will also be upgraded as recommended by the Airport’s aviation insurance consultant.
Paul Lietz, 702 East 3155 South, said that there was virtually no input to these amendments from the people whom this will affect. Mr. Lietz directed his objections to the changes in the minimum standards for conduct or leasing, which includes the fees. He cited federal laws which prohibit discrimination, either direct or indirect, at airports that have received federal funds. Mr. Lietz felt that more study and public input was needed before the Council approved the ordinance. It was Mr. Lietz’s opinion that the proposed fees were an effort to price the small operator and independent flight instructor off the field. He said that the little people are the roots of general aviation. Councilmember Shearer asked how many fixed-base operators are currently operating on the east side of the airport and the kinds of services that they offer.
Mr. Lietz indicated that there are three and they offer a wide range of services such as fuel, repairs, flight training, and charters. Mr. Lietz said that the flight instructors working for a fixed-base operator were not being charged $250 for every plane in which they fly nor were the f.b.o.s being charged $250 for every plane which is rented. Mr. Miller said that fixed-base operators paid fees differently but they pay substantially more fees than the small operators. They pay building, space, and land rentals, and fuel royalties. Individuals operating off a permit, as has been proposed, are not required to lease space.
The following people opposed the amendments to the ordinance: Ray Steele, 3874 Bluebird Circle, Edith Steele,3874 Bluebird Circle, Emery Arnold, 714 Monte Azul, Anthony Hussey, 65 East Oakland, David Madsen, 4852 South Rockhill Lane, Robert Allred, 764 Pecos Drive, Patrick Sullivan, 734 Park Street, Tracy Smith, 1820 Siggard Dr., Thomas Smith, 935 3rd Avenue, Rod Brown, 778 West 1700 South, Louis Ranney, 3122 Majestic Dr.. Russell Hadley, 2122 So. Orchard Dr. #12, Daniel McCorvey, 1775 W. Homestead #2, Leslie Smith, 3949 W. 3100 So., Scott Slaymaker, 6856 Country Woods Circle, Tom Sullivan, 2428 West 7370 South, Scott Hansen, 328 South Glen Circle. These people felt that the fees would be discriminatory against independent flight instructors and that their rates for flight instruction would have to increase to a point which would hamper flight instruction for people with limited funds. They felt that independent instructors would be priced out of the business. Fuel, services and supplies are purchased from the fixed-base operators. This contributes to city revenues and the well being of the f.b.o.s. Suggestions were made that the ordinance be studied and that the public be given the opportunity for input.
The following people supported the ordinance changes: Jim Buswell, 5557 South 2200 West and Don Witke, 50 Hartwell Avenue. These people said that many of the independent operators use the facilities provided by fixed-base operators who have invested millions of dollars for a facility plus pay employees to provide the services. The independents need to pay their fair share, otherwise the fixed-base operators may eventually have to charge a rent/service fee for use of their facilities.
Clint Bangerter, 4069 Mountair Dr., felt that there was a middle ground to this issue since both the fixed-base operators and independent operators provide a service. Clark Peterson, 1055 Crandall Avenue, asked if an instructor had to pay the $250 fee if they teach in another person’s plane. Mr. Miller indicated that the fee applies to the aircraft owned by the instructor or a business. Thomas Smith said that the ordinance indicates that a person who rents his/her plane is required to have a building. Mr. Miller said that this was not the case and indicated that if there was an error it would be corrected. He said that if a person holds a permit for operation at the airport they are not required to lease facilities.
Daniel Mitchell, 2850 East 3300 South, felt that more clarification was needed about the amendments and he suggested that another public hearing be held after clarifications have been made. Bill Ienatsch, 3838 South 2900 East, did not think that independent instructors take students away from the fixed-base operators. The people who use independent operators probably wouldn’t fly if the service wasn’t available. He felt that there needed to be cooperation on everyone’s part to make this equitable.
Scott Hansen, 328 South Glen Circle, said that there were many independent operators who would be impacted by this ordinance. He felt that input was needed from these people. He felt that the proposed use fees were high and a good deal of business would be evicted from the airport. Councilmember Whitehead asked the cost for flight instruction. Mr. Hansen said that some independents will charge $24 per hour for the plane and $10 per hour for the instructor. Mr. Whitehead then asked how much the cost would increase if the ordinance is adopted. Mr. Hansen said that depending on how much the plane is used the cost per hour may increase by $2 to $3 or $15 to $20. Mr. Whitehead said he did not feel that anyone would go bankrupt by this increase. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked Mr. Hansen about the services which are provided by the airport. Mr. Hansen mentioned gasoline, tie down, hangar, tower, approach control, runway, taxiway, snow removal, security. But he indicated that he pays directly for some of the services such as fuel taxes, tie downs and hangar.
Jerry Maass, 3411 Enchanted Hills Drive, suggested that an airport users association be established to provide input into the Airport Authority. He also recommended that the Council carefully study the amendments and that many issues be clarified so that there is better understanding between the Airport Authority and the aviation community. Dan Suttlith, 1631 South 800 East, and Fred Freymuller, 802 Grenoble Drive, felt that there was a great deal of confusion surrounding this ordinance. Mr. Suttlith was concerned about the $250 fee which is proposed to be paid by plane owners.
Mr. Miller said that if a plane is used for commercial activity the fee will be paid but there is no fee if a person uses their plane for their own use. Mr. Miller said that if a pilot is involved in commercial flight instruction at the airport and it is done without owning an aircraft, the pilot would have to comply with the rules and would have to provide insurance but there would not be a fee. Mr. Miller added that a flying club is not classified as a commercial operation; a non-profit flying club flies for its members and would not be required to pay the fees.
Mr. Suttlith asked what benefits people would be getting for the fees proposed to be charged. Mr. Miller indicated that people will not be getting additional benefits but will start to pay for the services which they are already receiving such as snow removal, etc.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
Councilmember Mabey suggested that a committee be established to review the ordinance and develop scenarios regarding the costs. Mr. Miller said that the airport currently has a general aviation subcommittee which includes the president of the Utah Pilots Association and several other members who are prominent individuals in general aviation flying. He said that this subcommittee has reviewed and approved the amendments. He felt that the people who have concerns with this ordinance should meet with the general aviation subcommittee rather than create a new committee. Albert Haines, chief administrative officer, felt it would be appropriate to have the concerned individuals meet with members of the airport staff and general aviation subcommittee to get clarification. He asked that 30 days be given to do this. Mr. Haines felt that the ordinance amendments were a matter of management and control rather than a means to generate revenue. Councilmember Whitehead wanted to insure that questions about costs are answered because the intent of this ordinance is not to put people out of business but have people pay for services.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to refer the ordinance to the Committee of the Whole for May 10, 1984, and to the Council agenda for Tuesday, May 15, 1984, and ask Louis Miller to meet with a group of the concerned pilots to clarify questions, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(O 84-8)
Urban Development Action Grant.
RE: The application by Hito International, Inc. for an Urban Development Action Grant for the Riverwalk Condominium project at 500 South 1100 West.
A public hearing was held at 7:20 p.m. to discuss this UDAG. Doug Carlson, capital planning and programming, said that this will be a five phase, 404-unit housing development. The UDAG will be involved in phase one which will include approximately 44 units. Mr. Carlson said that owner-occupied housing is desirable in this location and the project has community support. He said that the price range for the housing has not yet been determined.
Mr. Carlson explained that when a UDAG is involved in a housing project, HUD is interested in trying to make as many units as possible available to low- and moderate-income individuals. Generally HUD feels that 50% of the units should be made available for low and moderate income. Mr. Carlson indicated that the developer will be providing information to determine the level of subsidy that will be required in order for a person to qualify. Mr. Carlson said that when the level of subsidy is determined then he will know the amount of the UDAG.
Councilmember Mabey felt that this issue ought to be presented to the neighborhood again. Councilmember Parker said that at one point Hito was looking for a second partner and he asked if they had been successful. Mr. Carlson indicated that they were still negotiating with an equity partner and a construction lender.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to continue the public hearing to Tuesday, April 17, 1984, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(T 84-6)
CITIZEN COMMENTS
#1. Woody Wright, 120 South 200 West, requested, on behalf of residents of the Multi-Ethnic highrise, that a semaphore be installed on 200 West near the highrise. He said that it is very dangerous for the residents to cross the street at 100 South and 200 West, especially since the underpass was constructed to facilitate the Salt Palace. There are crosswalks in this area but the motorists do not give the pedestrians any leeway. Mr. Wright felt that unless something is done there may be an accident. Councilmember Mabey said that there was currently no money in the public works budget for a semaphore but CDBG slippage money is being considered and it may be possible to use this money. If money is available a recommendation has been made to install a push-button-type light at the corner of 100 South. However, after money is acquired it will probably be about three months before the light will be operational.
All Council Members agreed that the light is necessary for pedestrians to traverse the street in safety. Councilmember Whitehead felt that the light should he installed midway in the block. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked how much the lights would cost. Dolly Plumb from the Mayor’s Office indicated that a light midway in the block would cost about $18,000 and a light at the corner would cost about $22,000. She said that a memo recommending this action would be submitted from the Mayor’s Office. Albert Haines indicated that a meeting will be held with the transportation department and a recommendation will be made to the Council.
#2. Bernice Cook was concerned about using CD funds for a community organizer. She felt that it would be better to have a member from each district comprising an organization rather than having one community organizer. Ms. Cook felt that SLACC presently serves this purpose. Councilmember Shearer said that at this point it is just a request.
The meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m.