PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 1984
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 1984, AT 5:05 P.M. IN ROOM 211 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: RONALD J. WHITEHEAD ALICE SHEARER GRANT MABEY IONE M. DAVIS SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER EARL F. HARDWICK.
Council Chairperson Ronald Whitehead presided at and conducted the meeting.
POLICY SESSION
Carole Stokes briefed the Council on agenda items. Albert Haines asked the Council for a policy decision to determine labor representation of city employees. He noted that representation is determined by salary level classifications and that the Mayor had previously made an administrative ruling on this issue. He asked that the Council decide on this matter as quickly as possible. Mr. Haines then discussed the amendment of paragraph 4 of the CUP resolution to allow the city to apply for a needed 20,000 acre-feet of water. Mr. Haines felt that the city was being precluded from CUP negotiations and that the city must petition for rights to the aqueduct. Councilmember Whitehead added that the city must not allow the county to monopolize more than its share of this aqueduct space and water.
Councilmember Parker asked that the Council contact the fire department and clarify the city’s responsibility in responding to fires in and near the Brickyard Shopping Center. Mr. Haines requested that the Council meet on Thursday, April 5, to discuss plans to construct a dike in the area of 1700 North. Mr. Haines stressed that there is a new subdivision in this area that desperately needs protection and added that while the county had agreed to assist in this project, they have made no progress toward initiating it. Mr. Haines then said that the dike must be completed by Memorial Day to avert serious flood damages.
The policy session adjourned at 5:40 p.m.
THE CITY CO1JNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 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 ALICE SHEARER GRANT MABEY IONE M. DAVIS SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER EARL F. HARDWICK.
Mayor Ted Wilson, Albert Haines, chief administrative officer, and Roger Cutler, city attorney, were present at the meeting.
Council Chairperson Ronald Whitehead presided at this meeting and Councilmember Grant Mabey conducted the meeting.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes:
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to approve the minutes of the Salt Lake City Council for the regular meeting held Tuesday, March 20, 1984, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(M 84-1)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
#1. RE: An ordinance amending Title 2 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, as amended, relating to Aeronautics.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to schedule a public hearing for Tuesday, April 10, 1984, at 7:15 p.m. to discuss the ordinance amendment, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 84-8)
CITY COUNCIL
#1. RE: The restoration of the City and County Building. Phil Erickson, executive assistant, said that last November the consultants who were retained to study the building recommended that a middle course of action be adopted. This means rehabilitation of the building rather than meticulous historic restoration or demolition. At a February public hearing before the Council, support was expressed for the preservation of the building and on April 2, 1984, the County Commission recommended that the building be saved. Mr. Erickson stressed the importance of a timely decision because of the liability surrounding the building in regards to structural worthiness and fire protection.
Councilmember Mabey expressed concern about the county not participating over a long-term period in the rehabilitation of the building if in the future they discontinue leasing space. Councilmember Shearer felt that the financing aspect of the project has been brought into question by the indication that the county does not wish to participate further in the ownership of the building. Ownership is simplified by having a single-entity owner but the situation becomes difficult if only Salt Lake City residents are responsible for financing the entire renovation. Ms. Shearer felt that at this point the question was whether the building should be renovated or demolished. She felt that funding questions could be dealt with after the initial decision is made about whether or not it is worthwhile to keep the building. Councilmember Whitehead agreed that at this point the question is to vote on whether or not to keep the building. Councilmember Fonnesbeck felt that a decision needed to be made based on all the information which the Council has received and not based strictly on public surveys since most citizens have not had the benefit of receiving all the information. Albert Haines, chief administrative officer, felt that the issue had been clouded by the question of ownership and occupancy but said that at this point the administration was asking for direction so that they can proceed.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to support the recommendation of the City/County Building Restoration Committee to retain the building and proceed with renovation, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(G 84-3)
FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
#1. RE: An inducement resolution for an Industrial Revenue Bond for J.J. BAKD Limited Partnership, in the amount of $3,OOO,OOO, for the acquisition of an existing KOA Kampground and related facilities at 1400 West North Temple.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to schedule a public hearing for Tuesday, May 1, 1984, at 6:15 p.m. to discuss the inducement resolution for J.J. BAKD Limited Partnership, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 84-7)
#2. RE: Industrial Development Revenue Bonds for Samuel A. Hardage Project.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Resolution 32 of 1984, subject to City Attorney’s approval, authorizing and approving the issuance and sale by Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, of its Industrial Development Revenue Bonds, Series 1984 (Samuel A. Hardage Project) in the aggregate principal amount of $7,965,000, the execution and delivery of documents and instruments in connection therewith and related matters, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 83-16)
FIRE DEPARTMENT
#1. RE: An interlocal cooperation agreement with Salt Lake County for fire and rescue dispatch services by the city for Salt Lake County.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Resolution 33 of 1984 authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County providing for fire and rescue dispatch services by the City for Salt Lake County, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(C 84-75)
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
#1. RE: An amendment to the collective bargaining resolution to reflect the change in the form of government, changes in the classification system and more appropriately identify the bargaining units.
Without objection, Councilmember Mabey referred the amendment to the collective bargaining resolution to the Committee of the Whole for April 5, 1924.
(R 84-5)
#2. RE: The creation of a special service district to he known as the Sunnyside Recreation Special Service District. Albert Haines, chief administrative officer, presented an outline of the conclusions of the feasibility study regarding the Sunnyside Community Center concept and he summarized this information. It was determined that the facility would cost approximately $3.5 million. Based on a survey of similar public and private facilities the revenue generated would be about $750,000 and operating costs would be approximately $974,000, representing a potential net operating deficit of $225,000.
Mr. Haines said that the first alternative considered was the issuance of general obligation bonds. A financing rate of 10% on a 20-year bond would mean a mill increase of approximately 2.44 mills and based on a $70,000 or $75,000 home this would be about $29 per year. However, there would have to be a consideration for an additional subsidy because of the deficit. If the subsidy was in the form of a tax, cost per average home would be increased by about $10. Other alternatives would be to increase fees or increase attendance by 30%.
Mr. Haines said that revenue bonds were considered but it was determined that this would not be feasible since the center would not generate revenue. Thirdly, a private developer was considered but there was insufficient information to suggest that this was a viable alternative at this point, however, there is merit in pursuing this idea. Mr. Haines said that the report suggests two ideas regarding the construction of a facility. First, some consideration ought to be given to modifying the structure so that it is geared more towards recreational and/or related activities perceived as revenue generating activities.
Secondly, the city ought to consider the pursuit of joint venturing, either with other public groups or the private sector. The conclusion at this point is that it is not feasible to pursue general obligation bonds. Councilmember Davis mentioned that the possibility of a joint venture with the schools had been discussed and interest in the joint-venture idea has been expressed by members of the private sector. Ms. Davis felt that the appropriate action at this time would be to table the proposed special service district and have the committee, which has been established by the Mayor, proceed with meetings. This would give the committee an opportunity to review many different alternatives. Mayor Wilson felt that there was good potential in working with the School Board on this community center and he said that the University may be interested in participating. The Mayor said that more meetings need to be held to decide on a concept which meets everyone’s standards.
Councilmember Davis suggested that a portion of city tax money which goes to county recreation could be captured and used for this project. Councilmember Shearer indicated that this would be investigated during the budget process. Councilmember Whitehead asked why tabling this proposal would be better than voting against the district. Councilmember Davis felt that tabling the proposal would be better because of the time and effort which has been spent on the project up to this point. The majority of written petitions received in the Recorder’s Office expressed support for the district so in deference to the supporters she felt it would be more equitable to table the proposal.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck expressed concern about tabling the proposal because the Avenues would still be a part of the district when the majority of the area is not in favor of the project. Mr. Haines said that by tabling the proposal the option is left open if the Council wants to pursue the creation of a district. Mayor Wilson indicated that by tabling the proposal the basic concept remains and work doesn’t have to be redone. Councilmember Shearer added that the geographic boundaries cannot exceed the published limits but the size of the district may be decreased.
Roger Cutler, city attorney, said that the statute does not specify the length of time that such a matter can be under advisement, however, there would be a point where notice requirements would he violated. He said there would not be a problem with tabling the proposal for a reasonable period of time and suggested that the time period be specified so that it is not indefinite and so that statutory notice requirements are not violated.
Councilmember Davis said that she wanted the Sunnyside Recreation Center to be open to anyone and not restricted by boundaries. If the committee decides this is the best course to pursue, then the boundaries could be dissolved.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to table the creation of the Sunnyside Recreation Special Service District for no more than six months so the committee appointed by the Mayor can review other alternatives, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 83-27)
#3. RE: A resolution amending Resolution 101 of 1983 concerning the Central Utah Project.
Without objection, Councilmember Mabey referred the resolution to the consent agenda for April 10, 1984.
Later in the meeting Councilmember Whitehead indicated that the administration had requested to have action taken on this resolution.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to consider this resolution, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Whitehead indicated that the only change to Resolution 101 of 1983 would be to Paragraph 4. With the inclusion of this paragraph in Resolution 101 the city cannot proceed to negotiate with the Central Utah Project on the Little Dell project or ensure the city’s rights to the Jordan Aqueduct.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Resolution 34 of 1984 amending Resolution 101 of 1983 concerning the Central Utah Project, by deleting Paragraph 4 and adding a new Paragraph 4, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(R 83-20)
PUBLIC UTILITIES
#1. RE: A resolution authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement with Salt Lake County for water exchange.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Resolution 35 of 1984 authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County for water from a well to be drilled at Siesta Drive and approximately 1725 East 7500 South in exchange for water from within the city’s system, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(C 84-74)
#2. 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 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 he expended in the making of such improvements.
Without objection, Councilmember Mabey referred the resolution to the Committee of the Whole for April 5, 1984.
(Q 84-4)
PUBLIC WORKS
#1. RE: A resolution authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah Department of Transportation for repair or replacement of damaged guardrails on Salt Lake City streets.
Without objection, Councilmember Mabey referred the resolution to the consent agenda for April 10, 1984.
(C 84-82)
#2. RE: Special Improvement District No. 40-R-6.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Resolution 36 of 1984 declaring the intention of the City Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, State of Utah, to construct improvements on certain streets within said municipality consisting of the removal and reconstruction of deteriorated curb and gutter, sidewalk and driveways; removal of illegal driveways and setback parking; installation of wheelchair ramps and drainage facilities, where needed, and all other miscellaneous work necessary to complete the improvements in a proper workmanlike manner, including placement of topsoil and sodding where required; to create Salt Lake City, Utah, Concrete Replacement Special Improvement District No. 40-R-6; to defray the cost and expenses of said improvement district by special assessments to be levied against the property benefited by such improvements; and to provide notice of intention to authorize such improvements and to fix a time and place for protests against such improvements or the creation of said district, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 84-5)
#3. RE: Special Improvement District No. 38-763.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Resolution 37 of 1984 declaring the intention of the City Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, State of Utah, to construct improvements on certain streets within said municipality consisting of construction of California Avenue, Indiana Avenue and 400 to 500 South Connector Road from Redwood Road to Pioneer, together with an interchange on Interstate I-215 at California Avenue, including new curb and gutters, sidewalks, asphalt pavements, drainage facilities, traffic control structures and new bridges over the surplus canal at California and Indiana Avenues, and all other miscellaneous work necessary to complete the improvements in a proper workmanlike manner; to create Salt Lake City, Utah, Curb and Gutter Extension No. 38-763; to defray the cost and expenses of said improvement district by special assessments to be levied against the property benefited by such improvements; and to provide notice of intention to authorize such improvements and to fix a time and place for protests against such improvements or the creation of said district, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 84-6)
#4. RE: Special Improvement District No. 40-R-5.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Resolution 38 of 1984 amending Resolution 28 of 1983 to add to Concrete Replacement Special Improvement District No. 40-R-5 certain properties to be improved, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 83-4)
#5. RE: Bids for construction of Project No. 38-728, Main Street Beautification.
Albert Haines, chief administrative officer, opened the bids. Bids were received from Gibbons & Reed, whose total bid was $2,736,455, and Okland Construction, whose total bid was $2,583,086.79. The bid information is on file in the Office of the City Recorder. Mr. Haines recommended that the bids be accepted and referred to the City Engineer for tabulation and recommendation. Councilmember Shearer mentioned that the low bid was 25% above the engineer’s estimate and indicated that adjustments may have to be made.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to refer the bids for Project 38-728 to the City Engineer for tabulation and recommendation, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 84-2)
CITIZEN COMMENTS
#1. The Citizens Congress presented a petition requesting a technical review of the 201 Facilities Study and a return to the sewer rate schedule in effect before the January 1, 1983, rate increase. Perry Underwood, Salt Lake Citizens Congress, expressed concern about the increasing utility rates. She said that in December of 1982 the Council accepted the recommendations of the 201 Facilities Study and approved an increase effective 1983. Additional increases were approved for 1986 and 1990. Ms. Underwood said that allegations had been made that the technical information used in the study was invalid. She said that the steering committee of the Salt Lake Citizens Congress concluded that the allegations merit an investigation. Ms. Underwood indicated that 400 people signed a petition demanding that the Council’s decision be repealed and the additional money paid because of increased rates be refunded or that an impartial technical investigation be started. She submitted the petition to Albert Haines, chief administrative officer. Peter Maier compared Salt Lake’s sewer rates with various cities and of those cities Salt Lake’s rates are the highest. He felt that industrial growth would be deterred because of the high rates. Mr. Maier read letters from Robert Crandall, president of the Building Owners and Management Association, Ron Jones, president of the Salt Lake Valley Hotel and Motel Association, and the University Village Council, expressing concern about the increasing sewer rates and urging that the 201 Study be reviewed. Councilmember Whitehead explained that the rates were increased in order to upgrade the sewage plant. He indicated that many improvements are needed at the plant and regardless of the 201 Study the improvements are necessary. Mr. Haines indicated that a review would be conducted and the findings would be reported to the Council.
#2. Bernice Cook explained that on 900 South and Jefferson Street there is an abandoned service station which has been upgraded so that it is no longer an eyesore to the neighborhood. However, recently someone plastered the building with posters and also broke down the doors. Ms. Cook asked if something could be done about this situation. Mr. Roger Cutler, city attorney, said that this type of action would constitute defacing private property but the owner of the property would have to consent to the charge. Mr. Cutler indicated that an investigation into this matter would be a proper police function.
Ms. Cook also said that in Jefferson Circle a person with a semi-truck drove over the curb because there is not room for a truck of this size. She was concerned that the curb in Jefferson Circle would be damaged if this continues. Mayor Wilson suggested that next time this happens Ms. Cook could inform the administration and then the police could be called so that a citation can be issued. Councilmember Mabey also suggested that Ms. Cook have Dave Luscher from the Housing Authority check into the situation.
#3. Bart Lower addressed the issue of the City and County Building and it was his opinion that the building should be demolished and replaced with a new building. Bob Donkin supported the renovation of the City and County Building and felt that it was more economical than constructing a new building since basically the City and County Building is in good condition. Mr. Donkin also felt that if the question of the City and County Building is put on a ballot for a vote then the question needs to be straight forward and not confusing.
#4. John Hollingshouse complimented the city and the Council on the flood-control-prevention measures which are being taken. Mr. Hollingshouse said that in 1981 he sponsored House Bill 72, the flood control amendments which provided funding for local municipalities to take corrective action and preventative action in flood control. He asked Mayor Wilson if the funds were sufficient and if they were being utilized in this manner to assist Salt Lake City. Mayor Wilson said that this was good legislation and money is available for problems which the city faces.
The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.