PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 1986
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 1986, AT 5:00 P.M. IN ROOM 211 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: FLORENCE BITTNER THOMAS M. GODFREY GRANT MABEY ROSELYN N. KIRK SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK WILLIE STOLER EARL F. HARDWICK.
Council Chairperson Hardwick presided at the meeting.
BRIEFING SESSION
Carole Stokes, council executive director, briefed the Council on items pertaining to questions arising from the previous week’s agenda. She also reviewed items proposed for the upcoming Thursday agenda. Ms. Stokes then briefed the Council on the evening’s agenda. She reviewed the reasons for the staff recommendation on item F-2, El Centro Civico, giving a brief history of the project. Mark Finlinson and Al Blair reviewed the reasons for the effective date recommended on item F-3, Dresden Place. Larry Livingston also briefed the Council on the specifics of the Trolley Square IRB request which Council staff had been investigating since the request was first submitted.
The briefing session adjourned at 5:55 p.m.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 1986, AT 6:00 P.M. IN ROOM 301 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: FLORENCE BITTNER THOMAS M. GODFREY GRANT MABEY ROSELYN N. KIRK SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK WILLIE STOLER EARL F. HARDWICK.
Mayor Palmer DePaulis, Roger Cutler, city attorney, Kathryn Marshall, city recorder, and Lynda Domino, chief deputy recorder, were present.
Council Chairperson Hardwick presided at the meeting and Councilmember Bittner conducted the meeting.
The invocation was given by Police Chaplain Jan Duszak.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes.
Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Hardwick seconded to approve the minutes of the Salt Lake City Council for the regular meetings held Tuesday, April 8, 1986, and Thursday, April 10, 1986, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(M 86-1)
Special Presentation
#1. The City Council and Mayor presented a Resolution of Appreciation in honor of the service which Stephanie Churchill gave to Salt Lake City in regards to historic landmarks and preservation. Councilmember Fonnesbeck read the resolution and Mayor DePaulis presented Ms. Churchill with a commemorative silver plate. Ms. Churchill thanked the Council and Mayor for this honor and said that Salt Lake City was in the forefront of preservation in the state by approving the state’s first preservation ordinance in 1975 and by creating the state’s first historic district.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Resolution 48 of 1986 expressing appreciation to Stephanie Churchill, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(R 86-1)
#2. The City Council and Mayor presented a proclamation designating the week of May 4, 1986, as Be Kind to Animals Week.
Councilmember Godfrey read the proclamation. Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to approve the proclamation, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(G 86-14)
#3. The City Council and Mayor presented a proclamation commemorating Arbor Day on April 25, 1986. Councilmember Kirk read the proclamation and Steve Schwab, urban forester, introduced several of the members of the Urban Forestry Board. He said he was happy that these people would devote their time and energies to making Salt Lake City a more beautiful place to live. Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to approve the proclamation, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(G 86-15)
PETITIONS
Petition 400-251 of 1984 by Robert Garner and Michael Error.
RE: Ordinances rezoning the East Central Neighborhood.
ACTION: Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to adopt Ordinance 33 of 1986 amending Section 51-12-2 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, as amended, relating to zoning and fixing of boundaries of use districts by rezoning the area between 700 and 1000 East from South Temple to 600 South from Residential “R-6” and Business MB-3M to Residential “R-5, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Hardwick moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to adopt Ordinance 34 of 1986 amending Section 51-12-2 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, as amended, relating to zoning and fixing of boundaries of use districts by rezoning Dresden Place (between 500 and 600 South from 900 to approximately 975 East from Residential “R-6” and Business “B-3” to Residential “R-5”, with an effective date of October 15, 1986, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Kirk who was absent for the vote.
(P 85-242)
Petition 400-277 of 1985 by the Sugar House Community Council.
RE: Rezoning three remaining parcels in the Forest Dale and Fairmont neighborhoods pursuant to Petition 400-277.
ACTION: Councilmember Staler moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to approve the rezoning of the Anderson Lumber Site (2300 South 500 East) from Commercial “C-3” to “C-1”; deny the rezoning of the northeast corner of 2700 South 500 East from Business “B-3” to Residential “R-2”; refer the properties on the north side of Stringham Avenue between 500 East and 600 East to the Planning Commission to review the rezoning of this area to “R-2”; and set a date for a public hearing to reconsider Stringham Avenue on June 10, 1986, at 6:30 p.m., which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 86-8)
Petition 400-405 of 1986 by Intermountain Health Care Hospitals.
RE: A request that property located immediately northwest of the University of Utah Hospital be rezoned from a Residential “R-2” to a Hospital “H” classification to permit the relocation of the Primary Children’s Medical Center.
ACTION: Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to schedule a public hearing for Tuesday, May 13, 1986, at 6:45 p.m., which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 86-61)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
CITY ATTORNEY
#1. RE: An ordinance amending and re-codifying Title 51 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, as amended.
ACTION: Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to schedule a public hearing for Tuesday, May 6, 1986, at 6:45 p.m., which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 86-10)
CITY COUNCIL
#1. RE: An ordinance reducing the prima fade speed limit from 30 miles per hour to 25 miles per hour.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Hardwick seconded to adopt Ordinance 35 of 1986 amending Section 117 of Article 7, Title 46, of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, as amended, relating to speed limits on Salt Lake City streets, reducing the prima fade speed limit from 30 miles per hour to 25 miles per hour, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
DISCUSSION: Councilmember Kirk said that the people on 1300 South were concerned about whether or not that street would have a 25 mile per hour speed limit and she asked how the determination was made. Tim Harpst, transportation division, explained that the speed limit was not directly correlated to the functional class of the street; the speed limit would depend on the character of the street, the width, the number of lanes, accident history, etc. He said that every street now 30 miles per hour, or streets where the speed was not posted, would probably revert to 25 miles per hour and the only streets in question would be those that were very heavily traveled or in the downtown area and influenced by traffic signals.
He indicated that 1300 South was being re-evaluated because it was so heavily traveled but said that if the Council wanted to post a certain speed limit on a street they could indicate their preference and this would be considered. He said the primary objective was that all the standard local residential streets would be 25 miles per hour. Councilmember Mabey suggested that the collector streets and speed limits be identified on the master street plan. Mr. Harpst said they had a map which indicated all the streets that were signed other than the prima facie speed limit. He said that the vast majority of the streets were the prima facie speed limit.
Councilmember Stoler asked if the transportation department had the $7,000 which was indicated would be required to implement the program. Mr. Harpst said that they might need to postpone another program. Councilmember Stoler said that changing the speed limit would not solve all the problems in the neighborhoods. Councilmember Kirk said that the neighborhoods hoped this would be a step in slowing the traffic through the residential neighborhoods.
Councilmember Mabey asked if a projection had been made about how the change would affect traffic. Mr. Harpst said there would be a slightly broader range of travel speed since some drivers would automatically reduce their speed to 25 miles per hour and others would continue to travel at their own speed. He said that the 25 mile per hour speed limit was the standard prima fade speed limit in the state and most other communities had this speed limit.
(O 86-8)
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
#1. RE: An ordinance amending Sections 5-8-2(11) and 5-8-6 B(l) in order to provide the flexibility necessary to facilitate demolition of properties not at issue with the intent of the reuse policy.
ACTION: Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to refer this ordinance to the City Attorney and reconsider it before the Council at the June 15, 1986, meeting, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 86-11)
#2. RE: An extension of the time deadline imposed by legislative intent on El Centro Civico to obtain funds to match a 10th Year CDBG of $150,000; and authorizing certain modifications in the scope of the project.
ACTION: Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Hardwick seconded to approve a six-month extension to allow El Centro Civico to sell their building and raise funds from private sources to match up to $150,000 of 10th year CDBG funds, the total amount to be used to purchase a new building; all elements of a purchase agreement will be reviewed by the Council prior to the finalization of any contract for the purchase of a new building; if purchase of a new building Is not finalized and executed by October 15, 1986, the $150,000 will automatically revert to the contingency fund, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmembers Godfrey and Kirk who voted nay.
DISCUSSION: Stephanie Loker, capital planning and programming, explained that during the 10th Year CDBG process (1984-85) El Centro was given $150,000 to be used as a match to complete their community center. She said they were also given $26,000 for staff in order to raise funds but it had been hard to raise money in the community. She said there had been staff turnover and a recent change in board membership. Ms. Loker reiterated that last year the Council had an intent that El Centro would be given one more year to raise matching funds and April 15, 1986, was the deadline. She said that they had not matched the money but had requested an extension and suggested that they sell their property in order to match the money. She said they felt that their site was not very good and thought they would get more support if they changed locations.
Ms. Loker said that the current site was in an industrial area and El Centro felt they could better serve the community at a different location. She said because of the zoning the property could be worth quite a bit of money and the intent would be that if the building was sold then the money would be used to match the city funds and buy another building which met city codes. She also said there would be an agreement with El Centro that if the new building was ever sold the money would revert back to the city plus they would have to prove that they had money to operate the building. Ms. Loker said Development Services recommended that El Centro be granted the extension. Beatrice Sanchez, El Centro project director, reiterated that a new board was established in January of 1986. She indicated that previous board members had been sentimental about the current location and had wanted to keep the site but the new board felt the current location was keeping people from investing in the project. She said they had letters of support for the project from leaders in the community and UP & L had donated $1,000. She also said they had many pledges from community members who wanted to donate money once the matching funds were raised. Ms. Sanchez said their current property was valued at $230,000 and realtors had indicated that it would not be difficult to sell. She asked that they be given a six-month extension to raise the matching funds.
Councilmember Kirk expressed concern about extending the deadline in order to wait for the bull ding to be sol d when there were other projects ready to proceed. Councilmember Mabey said that he did not have a problem with extending the deadline six months as long as it was final and he indicated that he could support this based on the fact that El Centro was willing to change locations. Council- member Godfrey strongly expressed his feeling that the Council should follow through with its legislative intent since at the time it was made the one-year extension was final.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that projects were being cut and she did not feel good about holding the money. She said that this project had been supported for about three years to allow for problems to be resolved and she suggested that if the deadline was not extended then they could re-apply. Councilmember Mabey expressed concern that if they had to re-apply the project may not be approved and at least with an extension they would get one last opportunity. Councilmember Bittner said this was the first time they had considered selling the building which indicated that they were being more realistic about their problems and she agreed with the six-month extension.
Councilmember Stoler also agreed with the extension because the sale of the property added a new dimension and willingness on their part. Councilmember Fonnesbeck indicated that the scope of the project would change if a new building was purchased. Ms. Loker said that a new agreement would have to be written outlining all of the legal details. Craig Peterson, director of development services, indicated that the project would be better because of the location change and for this reason he thought El Centro deserved a six-month extension.
Councilmember Hardwick felt that the only way the project could be salvaged was by relocating. Councilmember Kirk asked why the community had not considered selling the building before now. Ms. Sanchez indicated that people had to be convinced that there was no other way. Pete Suazo, Mayor’s office, said that Police Chief Willoughby was supportive of the project and had allowed police staff to develop a brochure about this project. He said that the Chief’s support was renewed when he saw a resurgence in the project. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if the CDBG funding would encourage the purchase of a more expensive location when a good replacement building could possibly be purchased with the proceeds from the sale of the current site, in which case CDBG funding would not be needed. Ms. Loker said that the Council would have to change the intent of the project when a new building was located and if it was less expensive than anticipated then the funding issue could be reconsidered at that time. She said the Council could make a motion that the project would be given up to $150,000 for purposes of acquisition or rehabilitation of a new building. Councilmember Mabey asked if El Centro would be able to maintain the building without funding from the city. Ms. Sanchez said that they would continue to hold fund-raising festivals and they planned to lease out space for community organizations and events In order to raise money for maintenance.
Delores Valesquez, director of the State Office of Hispanic Affairs, Louis Cadillo, 1858 East Hollywood Avenue, Solomon Chacon, 468 North Oakley Street, spoke in support of the project. Mr. Peterson said that before money was awarded to the project there would be several steps with which the group would have to adhere. He said this project was unique because it required a tremendous fund-raising effort in the private sector. He also said that their new approach was a way to fulfill the original intent of the fund-raising commitment plus place the center in an area more residential in character. He supported the extension.
(T 86-10)
MAYOR’S OFFICE
#1. RE: The Mayor’s recommendations for 12th Year Community Development Block Grant funding.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to accept the Mayor’s recommendations, refer the recommendations to the Committee of the Whole, and schedule a public hearing for Tuesday, May 6, 1986, at 7:00 p.m., which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(T 86-9)
PUBLIC WORKS
#1. RE: Lighting District No. 3.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adopt Ordinance 36 of 1986 amending Ordinance 25 of 1986 relating to tax assessments and levies for property in Lighting District No. 3, providing for a reduction of assessment for properties meeting certain use and location profiles, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 85-16)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Revenue Sharing.
RE: A public hearing at 6:30 p.m. to obtain public comment regarding the use of $794,000 in general revenue sharing funds allocated to Salt Lake City for the 1986-87 fiscal year.
ACTION: Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
DISCUSSION: No one addressed this issue. (B 86-5)
Trolley Square IRB.
RE: A public hearing at 7:00 p.m. to consider the Issuance of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds to TS 1 Partnership in an amount not to exceed $9,500,000; to consider the issuance of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds to TS 2 Partnership in an amount not to exceed $9,500,000; and to consider the issuance of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds to TS 3 Partnership in an amount not to exceed $5,500,000; all funds to be used for various improvement projects at Trolley Square.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to close the public hearing regarding the IRB for TS 1 Partnership, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Stoler moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Resolution 45 of 1986 authorizing and inducing the execution of a Memorandum of Agreement with TS 1 Partnership regarding the issuance of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds in an amount not to exceed $9,500,000 for the acquisition of approximately 9.2 acres of land and the rehabilitation and general Improvement of the Trolley Barn, the Theater Building and parking together with certain existing improvements on or near the parking areas located south of 6th South at approximately 7th East, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing regarding the IRB for TS 2 Partnership, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to adopt Resolution 46 of 1986 authorizing and inducing the execution of a Memorandum of Agreement with TS 2 Partnership regarding the issuance of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds in an amount not to exceed $9,500,000 for the acquisition of approximately 2.8 acres of land and the rehabilitation and general improvement of structures known as the Trolley Barn, the North Building and a three-level parking structure located on 6th East, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to close the public hearing regarding the IRB for TS 3 Partnership, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Resolution 47 of 1986 authorizing and inducing the execution of a Memorandum of Agreement with TS 3 Partnership regarding the issuance of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds In an amount not to exceed $5,500,000 for the acquisition of approximately 2.8 acres of land and the rehabilitation and general improvement of the Bank Building and surrounding parking located at approximately 445 Trolley Square, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
DISCUSSION: John Hiskey, director of economic development, said that this proposal encompassed three separate partnerships at the same location and he said that the primary purpose of the bonds, totaling $24.5 million, was acquisition and upgarding of Trolley Square. He said the bonds were not for new construction. He noted that any improvements were subject to review by the Landmarks Committee and said that this issue had been reviewed by the planning and zoning, finance, and legal departments. Mr. Hiskey referred to a prior meeting where reference was made to a 600-stall underground parking lot and he said that this was not part of the proposal.
Jeffery Simon, developer, addressed the issue of the 600 parking spaces to which Mr. Hiskey referred and said they were advised that it was not prudent or economical at this time to expand the parking. He said, however, that the current parking was not practical since the top deck was in disrepair, the bottom was full of water, there was no lighting, it was dirty, and the ingress and egress was not logical. Mr. Simon deferred to Ralph Evans, architect, to explain the proposed improvements. Mr. Evans said that the three parking levels would be interconnected with a circular ramp at the south end, and the lighting and pedestrian access to the center would be improved. He said that the gas station on the corner would be removed to recapture additional parking and also the main entrance on the north side would be realigned in order to gain additional parking.
Mr. Evans said that the bank would be relocated and the current bank site would become a restaurant. He said the tower would remain and the northeast portion of the site would be reorganized to accommodate more efficient parking access. In order to give Trolley Square a festive atmosphere Mr. Evans said there would be flags and banners around the perimeter. He said that the bottom two levels of the parking structure would open into a glass-covered sub-courtyard which would connect directly to the building.
Councilmember Godfrey asked if Mr. Simon was purchasing the property south of Trolley Square and Mr. Simon said he was, which would include the parking lot and five houses. He indicated that at this time he did not plan to do anything with that parking. Mr. Simon said one community group expressed concern about the preservation of the house on the corner of 6th South and 7th East and he said that he told them he would not tear down the structure but would move it to a different location and donate the house to the community group. He told the Council he would put this commitment in writing. Councilmember Kirk asked how much time the developer had spent with the community groups. Mr. Simon said he met for two or three hours with members of the two community groups representing the area surrounding Trolley Square.
He said that his associate had also been in contact with these groups and Mr. Simon said he understood that the community groups were forming joint committees to meet with the developer during construction and operation. He said the community surrounding Trolley Square was important and he wanted the local residents to shop at Trolley Square. Councilmember Stoler expressed his concern about the traffic situation at Trolley Square. Mr. Simon indicated that connecting the parking levels with a ramp and improving circulation patterns would help the problem. He also indicated that part of the problem was the lack of correct signing. Mr. Simon said they would do their best to alleviate the problems. Mr. Evans said that the reorganization of the interior space would help reorganize the traffic patterns. He said they were aware of the problems.
Councilmember Hardwick expressed concern about reduced parking area because of space used by the employees. Mr. Simon said they had tried to put the employee parking in the south lot across the Street and he said this would be enforced. Councilmember Bittner said that the Council was concerned with the parking situation and the traffic circulation and said that the developer needed to be aware that this may be part of the reason for the economic problems of Trolley Square. Mr. Simon indicated that he would be willing to meet with city officials in order to resolve the problem.
The following people expressed concern about the project: Mark Thomas, chairman of the Central City Community Council, supported the developer but said that the community council had not met with the community and suggested that if the inducement resolution was approved it be contingent upon community involvement. He expressed concern about this process proceeding too quickly. He questioned the legality of issuing three separate bond issues for this project and suggested that the Council carefully consider this question.
Hermoine Jex, Land Use Committee, suggested that more time needed to be taken to review future development of the block south of Trolley Square and said that the neighborhood councils were against commercial encroachment on the residential area. Robert McQuarry chairman of the East Central Community Council, said his initial response to the project was favorable with the condition that the project be discussed before the full community council since there were several concerns. He mentioned concerns about the loss of residences, improved parking and improved tenant mix. He said zoning problems with the property south of Trolley Square had not been discussed and said this needed to be clarified. Bernice Cook said she wanted to see Trolley Square preserved but suggested that the Council proceed carefully. Michael Jones, 2050 Alva Circle, suggested that the city consider other projects which will rely on IRB funds. John Hiskey explained that this project was proceeding quickly because of the fragile nature of the existing ownership and the financial conditions which they face. He said that even though an inducement resolution would be given there was still a process required before the Landmarks Committee. Dick Fox, bond attorney, said there was also the issue of availability of quota.
He said the state had in its balance account, which was available to entitlement cities like Salt Lake, about $13,500,000. He said that the board made a motion at their last meeting to call a special meeting to consider this project if requested by Salt Lake City. Mr. Fox said this project would use the entitlement of Salt Lake plus all but $2 million of the state’s balance account but he indicated that the state’s balance account would be gone soon.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck referred to the issue raised by Mark Thomas about the legality of three bond issues for this project and asked for an explanation. Mr. Fox said that this was one economic project, however, the legal test was If the project had substantial common facilities. He said that the developer’s bond counsel had submitted a preliminary opinion, reviewed by himself and Roger Cutler, expressing the legality of the project. He said that three unrelated partnerships (In a tax sense) were created and there were also three projects created avoiding the use of common facilities. He indicated that the projects did not overlap.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck raised an ethical concern about this project and if the process was being abused. Mr. Fox said that the reaction of the state board was very favorable and he said that the board commented that Trolley Square was the second largest tourist attraction in the state. He suggested that if Salt Lake was abusing the process then he thought complaints would come from other cities, however, the board, consisting of 11 members throughout the state, was supportive. Mr. Simon said that Chemical Bank had agreed in writing to purchase all the bonds and it was his opinion that Chemical Bank would not abuse the IRB process.
The following people supported the project: Brent Sloan, Trolley Square management, Jeff Scott, prospective Trolley Square tenant, Bill King, Trolley Square tenant, Bill Campbell, Trolley Square tenant. Comments were made that the tenants in Trolley Square were generally small businesses, representing many cultural and ethnic backgrounds, which needed to be taken into consideration and were relying on quick action. Comments were made that there was sufficient parking space but the theaters were causing the parking problems on the weekends. Other comments were made that resolving the problems at Trolley Square was mutually in the best Interest of Trolley Square and the developer. Comments were also made that there had been a lack of consistent ownership, leadership, and planning, and that there had not been financing to carry out a plan. Comments were made that having a nationally renowned shopping center developer in the community may lead to prosperity for the city in other directions. Councilmember Mabey asked Lance Bateman, finance director, if he felt that there was anything legally wrong in approving this project. Mr. Bateman said they should rely on bond counsel. He reiterated the board’s willingness to support the project. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that approving the inducement resolution would not mean that the project plans were approved; she indicated that the Council would expect the plans to be scrutinized. Councilmember Godfrey said he had not heard any specific complaints from the community about this project and said he felt good about it.
Councilmember Hardwick agreed that Trolley Square needed improvements and he said he had voiced his concern to the developers that they be sensitive to the needs of the neighborhood. He expressed his support. Councilmember Fonnesbeck mentioned that the community would have an opportunity to give input before the Landmarks Committee and planning and zoning. Councilmember Bittner expressed further concern about the preservation of the house on the corner of 6th South and 7th East and Mr. Simon assured her that he would pay to move the house and he would donate it to the community if that became necessary.
(Q 86-8, Q 86-9, Q 86-10)
COMMENTS
Rich McKnight, representing Wasatch Youth, Inc., said that their company had youths between the ages of 12 and 16 selling candy and cookies door to door. He said that their license fees were exorbitant because each worker had to have a $10.00 license and the company had a high turnover rate. He requested that they be allowed to pay an annual fee, such as $400, for one license and have each worker carry a copy along with their identification badges. He said they would keep records on each person who worked for the company. Councilmember Godfrey questioned if the group should be accommodated because they had a high turnover rate and he questioned if their screening process was adequate.
Mr. McKnight said that they talked to prospective workers and made sure they had written permission from parents. He said that they were trained and monitored. He said that the turnover rate was high because of the nature of teenagers and because door-to-door selling was difficult, however, he said they had a lot of workers who stayed for a long time. Councilmember Fonnesbeck suggested that possibly they could purchase a number of licenses based on the number of workers they had in Salt Lake and transfer licenses when workers quit. But she said that this was an administrative problem. The Council referred this issue to the Mayor.
(G 86-16)
The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.