PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
THURSDAY, APRIL 26, 1984
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON THURSDAY, APRIL 26, 1984, AT 5:00 P.M. IN ROOM 211 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: GRANT MABEY IONE M. DAVIS EARL F. HARDWICK EDWARD W. PARKER ALICE SHEARER.
Councilmembers Ronald Whitehead and Sydney Fonnesbeck were absent from the meeting. Mayor Ted Wilson was absent from the meeting. Roger Cutler, city attorney, was present at the meeting.
Councilmember Grant Mabey presided at and conducted the meeting.
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
PUBLIC WORKS
#1. RE: UMTA requirements concerning the Main Street Beautification Special Improvement District No. 38-728, and a resolution rejecting the current bids for the project and authorizing the rebidding, with bids to be opened before the City Council in their meeting of Tuesday, May 15, 1984.
Rick Johnston, deputy city engineer, said that last Thursday, April 19, the Council awarded the contract for this project to Okland Construction with a provision that a determination be made as to whether or not UMTA would approve the deletion of items in order to proceed with the awarding of this contract to Okland. Mr. Johnston said that in a telephone conversation with UMTA they reaffirmed their position that they would not fund the project under these circumstances. A letter has been received reaffirming this position and the letter has been reviewed by the Attorney’s Office. A copy of this letter is on file in the City Recorder’s Office.
Roger Cutler, city attorney, said that it was made clear by UMTA that they will not fund and approve any funds if the project is not rebid. A negotiated bid between the two contractors would be considered but the review process would take four months. Mr. Cutler said he would not approve a contract because no funds are certified as being available. At this point Mr. Cutler took the position that the project is not fundable by deletion of items and the City Council has the authority to reject both bids and rebid the project.
Max Peterson, city engineer, said that the rebid should be advertised this weekend so that bids can be opened on May 15. A recommendation for award could then be presented to the Council on May 22 which would permit work to start the first part of June. This would allow the project to be completed this construction year. Mr. Peterson indicated that the project would not be completed this year if the time frame is further delayed and there could also be an escalation of costs. Mr. Johnston said that the merchants along Main Street want the project built by October. Mr. Beesley, attorney representing Okland Construction, was concerned because he felt that the regional office in Denver, who had sent the opinion letter, had a misconception and was confused about the situation. He wanted an opportunity to talk with general counsel in Washington in order to get a further definition. Mr. Beesley asked that they be given seven days to clarify this matter with Washington. If they do not get a decision within seven days then he was agreeable to entering into competitive negotiation with both bidders as suggested on page 3 of the opinion letter.
Mr. Cutler indicated that a negotiated bid was not agreeable to the City Attorney’s Office because it would not allow for bonding and it would not meet the state law. Councilmember Parker asked if the current bids would be available to those bidding under the rebid. Mr. Johnston said that bids are public information. Councilmember Davis asked if 15 days would be sufficient time for a contractor to prepare a bid on a project of this size. Mr. Peterson felt that the time would be sufficient since the project is familiar to subcontractors.
Councilmember Shearer asked John Pingree, UTA, about reallocation of funds for this project. Mr. Pingree said that six members of the board felt money could not be taken from other projects. Representative Sam Taylor suggested that the city remove planters and reduce the sidewalks which jut out into the streets in order to add additional space for bus bays. He felt that the city should determine if these modifications will work before a great deal of money is spent on the project. He also suggested that rescheduling or rerouting buses may eliminate part of the problem on Main Street and added that vehicles using the bus bays as loading zones should be ticketed.
Mr. Johnston explained that under a rebid some items would be deleted from the project and others would be included as additive alternatives if funds are available. Councilmember Shearer felt that the question was whether or not the Council wants the Main Street Beautification project. She mentioned that the Council has tried numerous ways to avoid a rebid but apparently the rebid is necessary in order to proceed with the project. Ms. Shearer expressed concern that if the grant is turned down at this point, the city will not get the money in the future.
Mr. Peterson explained that the money would be used for additional improvements besides the bus bays such as signal and lighting improvements and drainage improvements on Main Street between 300 and 400 South. The Council referred to the list which had been distributed outlining the items to be considered as additive alternatives under the rebid (a copy of this list is on file in the City Recorder’s Office). The Council reprioritized the list so that the relocation of 250 South Main crosswalk was number one. The relocation of bus shelters to State Street remained item number two. The Council agreed that if the project was to proceed, it appeared that the only alternative was to rebid the project.
Councilmember Hardwick moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to reject the current bids for the project and authorize the rebidding, with bids to be opened before the City Council in their meeting of Tuesday, May 15, 1984, which motion carried, all members present voting aye except Councilmember Parker who voted nay. Councilmember Parker indicated that he was against the rebid because he said he felt that it would be unjust to the current low bidder.
(Q 84-2)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Urban Development Action Grant.
RE: The Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG) application for Hiller Industries in the amount of $450,000 for expansion of their bookbinding business at 2340 West 1500 South.
A public hearing was held at 5:00 p.m. to discuss this issue. Doug Carlson, capital planning and programming, said that this project was referred by the state and he felt that the project has a reasonable chance for success based on its own merits. Mr. Carlson said that the total cost of the project has changed to $3,720,000 which is an increase of $530,000. The increase includes working capital needed for expansion. The proposed UDAG amount also increased from $450,000 to $600,000 to fund additional equipment. He said that it would easier to reduce the UDAG amount than to try to get an increase later.
Mr. Hiller said that there is increased demand in the area for graphic arts and he felt that the company was making the right decision to increase the capacity for graphic arts services. No one from the audience addressed this issue.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members present voting aye except Councilmember Shearer who was absent when the vote was taken.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to approve the UDAG and authorize the Mayor to submit the grant application, which motion carried, all members present voting aye except Councilmember Shearer who was absent when the vote was taken.
(T 84-8)
CITIZEN COMMENTS
#1. Representative Sam Taylor explained that last year there were many volunteers willing to help with the flood effort but they did not have transportation. He suggested that the Council support the idea of allowing volunteers to board any bus for any area so that they have transportation and are able to help where needed. This would apply mostly to off-peak hours. John Pingree, UTA, mentioned that the county has approached them about this idea and it will be presented to the UTA Board.
The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.