PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
REGULAR/BRIEFING SESSION
TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 1988
The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met as the Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, April 5, 1988, at 5:00 p.m. in Suite 300, City Hall, 324 South State.
The following Council Members were present: Florence Bittner Thomas Godfrey Wayne Horrocks Roselyn Kirk Sydney Fonnesbeck Willie Stoler Alan Hardman.
Council Chairperson Godfrey presided at the meeting.
BRIEFING SESSION
The Council interviewed C. Reuel Ware prior to his appointment to the Central Business Improvement District. Mr. Ware told the Council that although he does not live in the City, he has operated a business there for the past 30 years. He added that he would serve as the Downtown Retail Merchants Association representative for the Central Business Improvement District.
Linda Hamilton, Executive Director, briefed the Council on the evening’s agenda. She told the Council that Dick Fox, Bond Counsel to the City Council, had requested that the Council postpone adopting a resolution in support of the amendment of documents pertaining to the $14,900,000 Housing Authority adjustable/fixed rate housing bonds for the Housing Development Corporation. She said that Mr. Fox had recommended that the Council wait to adopt the resolution pertaining to the Housing Development Corporation until a resolution could be prepared amending the adjustable/fixed rate housing bonds for the Housing Authority. She told the Council that Mr. Fox suggested it would be easier to adopt the resolutions together than separately.
Ms. Hamilton told the Council that they should consider adopting an ordinance amending Title 20 of the Revised Ordinances pertaining to sexually oriented business licensing. She added that the ordinance now contained all of the changes that the Council requested following the public hearing on sexually oriented business licensing. Mayor Palmer DePaulis, Buzz Hunt, City Treasurer, and Lance Bateman, Director of Finance, briefed the Council on the status of the current year budget.
Mayor DePaulis told the Council that although many options were available for covering the revenue shortfall, he preferred options which had one time impacts. He suggested, for example, that options such as layoffs and furloughs were not feasible because of the extended impact of such actions. Buzz Hunt, City Treasurer, told the Council that the City was not receiving as much money from the County in property tax revenue as was originally projected. He added that the shortfall had risen an additional $736,000. Lance Bateman, Finance Director, told the Council that the shortfall had been covered by various City departments. He stated that $793,500 was raised by City department cuts and an additional $160,000 was taken from the telephone fund, while $400,000 was taken from fleet management retained earnings. He added, that, overall, the City now had $1,353,500 to cover the $1,238,710 shortfall. (See attachments) Councilmember Stoler asked why there were retained earnings in Fleet Management. Mr. Bateman said that Fleet Management billed the general fund for the estimated costs of repairing City vehicles, then when they repaired City cars for less money than originally estimated, the fund built up a surplus. He added that over the past three years approximately $800,000 had built up in the fund.
Mayor DePaulis said that the retained earnings showed that the Fleet Management Division was well managed. Council Member Godfrey asked why the money was building up in the fund instead of being used to help cover the shortfall in the other funds. Mayor DePaulis answered that the money was being used to help cover the shortfall in the general fund. He added that the money could be used in the vehicle replacement fund which would decrease the amount of money that fund would require from the general fund.
Couri1nnber Kirk moved and Councilmember Bittner seconded to enter into executive session to receive a briefing from Mayor DePaulis concerning labor negotiations, which motion carried, all members voted aye. Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Hardman seconded to conclude the executive session, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in regular session on Tuesday, April 5, 1988, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 324 South State Street.
The following Council Members were present: Florence Bittner Thomas Godfrey Wayne Horrocks Roselyn Kirk Sydney Fonnesbeck Willie Stoler Alan Hardman.
Mayor Palmer DePaulis, Roger Cutler, city attorney, Kathryn Marshall, city recorder, and LaNita Brown, deputy city recorder, were present.
Council Chairperson Godfrey presided at and Council Vice-Chairperson Stoler conducted the meeting.
The Council led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes
Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to approve the minutes of the Salt Lake City Council for the regular meetings held Tuesday, March 15, 1988, and Tuesday, March 29, 1988, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(M 88-1)
Special Recognition
The resolution of appreciation for Tom Greenwood was pulled from the agenda and set for April 12, 1988.
PETITIONS
Petition 400-578 Evans Automotive.
RE: Set a date for a non-advertised public hearing to be held Tuesday, April 12, 1988 at 6:40 p.m. to obtain public comment regarding a request that the city close and sell Gillespie Avenue between Fulton and March Streets.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to set the hearing date for Tuesday, April 12, 1988 at 6:40 p.m., which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(P 88-58)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
#1. RE: Consider adopting an ordinance amending Title 20 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, as amended, relating to licensing of sexually oriented businesses and repealing and amending other ordinances relating to the subject, including Sections 19-3-15, 19-4-12, 20-20-1, et seq., 20-34-1, et seq., and 20-37-1, et seq.
ACTION: Councilmember Bittner moved and Councilmember Hardman seconded to adopt Ordinance 21 of 1988, amending Title 20 regarding the licensing of sexually oriented businesses, and repealing and amending other ordinances relating to the subject, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
DISCUSSION: Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that the Council often granted more time before making a decision when someone specifically asked for it, and questioned whether anything would be lost by waiting to adopt this ordinance. Bruce Baird, Assistant City Attorney, said that his office had no problem with this but the Police Department was anxious to have the ordinance in force.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck questioned the reasoning behind the 45 day compliance wait and Mr. Baird said it was to allow ample time for people to apply so there wouldn’t be an influx all at once, and he said there had been no issues raised regarding the hardship of complying within that time frame. He said the prohibition on touching would make dancing in public places illegal, and said that the courts were entitled to put a reasonable limiting construction on an ordinance, but it would sometimes be difficult to define what was legal or illegal touching. He said the Police Department had done a thorough job of documenting the fees and they had been adjusted lower and that the 30 day period for approval did not mean that a business had to wait 30 days for approval, but it was a deadline showing the maximum time the city would have to approve an application. Councilmember Kirk said they had given Mr. Cantrell consideration before and she felt the questions he raised had been answered so he should not be given any more time.
(O 88-3)
MAYOR’S OFFICE
#1. RE: Consider approving the appointment of Nancy Saxton to the Community Development Advisory Committee.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to approve the appointment, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(I 88-3)
#2. RE: Consider approving the appointment of Richard J. Howa to the Planning Commission.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to approve the appointment, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(I 88-7)
#3. RE: Consider approving the appointment of Grant M. Burbidge to the Public Utilities Advisory Committee.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to approve the appointment, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(I 88-6)
#4. RE: Consider approving the appointment of Reuel Ware to the Central Business Improvement District.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to approve the appointment, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(I 88-9)
#5. RE: Consider approving the appointments of Kathy Sheaffer and Roger Borgenicht to the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board.
ACTION: Council referred these appointments to the Committee of the Whole.
(I 88-2)
#6. RE: Consider adopting a resolution in support of the amendment of documents pertaining to the $14,900,000 Housing Authority’s ‘Housing for the Elderly’ project and related matters.
ACTION: Without objection Councilmember Stoler pulled this item from the agenda.
(C 85-564)
#7. RE: Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution of an interlocal agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the State of Utah allowing the city to lease 108 square feet of storage space located at 2780 South Connor Street from the state.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adopt Resolution 27 of 1988 authorizing execution of an interlocal agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the State of Utah allowing the city to lease 108 square feet of storage space located at 2780 South Connor Street from the state, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(C 88-108)
PUBLIC WORKS
#1. RE: Consider adopting a resolution approving the City County Landfill budget for 1988.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to approve Resolution 28 of 1988, approving the City County Landfill budget for 1988, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(B 88-2)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petitions 400-349, 400-351 of 1985 Submitted by Harold Wilkinson.
RE: A public hearing at 6:20 p.m. to obtain public comment regarding a request that Salt Lake City annex a small portion of both Elgin Avenue and Austin Avenue and establish a zoning classification of “R-2”.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to approve the annexation and zoning reclassification, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
DISCUSSION: Doug Wheelwright, Planning and Zoning, addressed the Council and said that Mr. Wilkinson was one of the developers of the Brickyard Mall and at the time the brickyard property had been annexed, the two parcels in question had been excluded. He showed the Council the locations of the properties on a map and said that later as Mr. Wilkinson tried to develop other vacant parcels, problems occurred because of separate jurisdictions regarding the City and County, for example on a corner lot, one side would be under jurisdiction of the County and the other side under jurisdiction of the City, with possible complications of delivery of emergency services. He said the annexation of these two parcels would allow the development of the properties and the reclassification would make it compatible with the privately owned property. Harold Wilkinson, 2912 Oakhurst Drive, stated his appreciation to Mr. Wheelwright and the City for their efforts with this development and said he felt it would help clean up the area and be a nice addition to the neighborhood.
(P 88-27, P 88-28)
Parking Lots and Nonconforming Uses.
RE: A public hearing at 6:30 p.m. to obtain public comment regarding a proposed ordinance amending Section 51-8-4(3) of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to parking lots and nonconforming uses.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Horrocks seconded to continue the public hearing to May 3, 1988, at 6:30 p.m., and direct the City Recorder to re-advertise, which motion carried, all members voted aye. No one from the audience addressed this issue.
(O 88-5)
Salt Lake City Watershed Management Plan.
RE: A public hearing at 6:40 p.m. to obtain public comment regarding a resolution adopting recommendations for the Salt Lake City Watershed Management Plan.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to adopt the resolution. After some discussion Councilmember Kirk withdrew the motion.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Hardman seconded to table the resolution adoption until April 19, 1988, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
DISCUSSION: LeRoy Hooton, Public Utilities Director, addressed the Mayor and Council saying that much had happened to the Salt Lake Valley since the pioneers settled it in 1847. He said the population in Salt Lake County was now 700,000, that the Wasatch Canyons provided vast recreational opportunities, that there was a multi-million dollar ski industry using the canyon watersheds, and that most importantly, the Wasatch Canyons provided drinking water for nearly 500,000 people residing in the city’s service area and there were very stringent drinking water standards mandated by federal law. He said because of the increasing demands on both water supply and the watersheds, it was necessary to develop a plan to meet their future needs and this plan addressed these issues. He said the City’s plan was based on water supply and quality, and was a companion study to the County’s plan which would be premised on land use criteria.
He said that all governmental jurisdictions in the canyons agreed that watershed for water supply was the best use for this resource. He said the plan called for the following: sewer lines in Emigration and Big Cottonwood Canyons; increasing watershed enforcement programs; building a water treatment plant in the mid 1990’s to develop the water supply in Millcreek Canyon; and developing a watershed and water right acquisition fund to purchase critical watershed property.
He said they were requesting in their 1988-89 budget proposal a permanent $250,000 annual fund to purchase watershed by increasing water rates by $2.40 per year, with a $4.80 decrease in sewer rates for city residents. He said the plan had been approved by the Public Utilities Advisory Committee and by the Planning Commission. He expressed his appreciation to all who had participated in the plan. Mr. Hooton made note of a letter received from Colonel Fred J. Hillyard, Fort Douglas, who requested that Fort Douglas’ water uses be clarified in the Watershed Management Plan.
Ralph Becker, consultant for Bear West, addressed the Council. He said they had received cooperation from city and county government, the City County Board of Health, the U.S. Forest Service, and from the public which he felt had enabled them to be aware of the major issues relating to watershed in the canyons. He said they held a public meeting in October 1986 and were provided with many comments and concerns. He said they also received written comments.
He said they then began an extensive data collection effort regarding the quality of water in the canyons, the current land status, and many other issues. He said a draft plan was published in May 1987 containing a summary of information and options. He said all jurisdictions involved then met in a series of sessions to review the draft and determine preliminary recommendations. He said these were then reviewed and published for comment in September 1987, after which another meeting was held to obtain public comment. He said the group of public officials again reworked the preliminary recommendations and after many meetings with the Public Utilities Advisory Committee and its sub-committee, they arrived at recommendations which had been reviewed by the Planning Commission. He said they felt the recommendations would move the City into the next century with as good or better watershed status than they had now.
The following people spoke in support of the plan: Dr. Harry Gibbons, Director City County Health Department; Mary Reilly, League of Women Voters; Hermoine Jex, SLACC Land Use and Natural Resources Committee; Charles W. Wilson, 2690 Parley’s Way; Darrell Scow, Public Works Director, Sandy City; Milton Hollander, 2561 Valley View Avenue; Nick Norton, 1208 Harvard Avenue; Joseph T. Sargent, Emigration Canyon Community Council; Dr. Howard Garber, Utah Wilderness Association; Michael Budig, Save Our Canyons and Jon R. Miller, Economics Professor, U of U.
Individuals expressed support for maintaining a high quality of water, pollution control, watershed protection, public education and participation in the plan, monitoring degradation in the canyons, and necessary land acquisition. Ms. Jex asked about the 50 and 100 foot stream setbacks required in the plan, as her committee had contacted many other states that required a 200 to 300 foot setback. She wanted to know the status of the recently acquired Bertinoli property in Emigration Canyon.
She was concerned about the canyon’s surplus sales policy and who would be establishing it, and wanted a list of persons who would secure the surplus water if the moratorium was lifted. She was concerned about the possibility of Salt Lake County ‘folding’ to Solitude’s development plan and refusing to wait until the canyon master plan was complete. She said the city must be involved in the county development considerations.
Mr. Wilson said he felt that government councils should consider a recommendation that uniform regulations be applied to all canyon watersheds, regardless of size, where culinary water was being served in the county. He said there was a need to know more about the relationship between the canyons and the ground water areas in the valley. Mr. Norton expressed concern that the plan did not adequately address water conservation, the ground water contamination problem, or use of culinary water for irrigation purposes.
He agreed with the purchase of watershed land as long as it remained multi-use, but felt it should be coordinated with those doing the open-space plan. Mr. Sargent asked whether the City could initiate the annexation of Emigration Canyon or if it had to be done by residents, and if the 1989 schedule for annexation and sewer construction was feasible or possible. He asked if the water supply would come with the proposed sewer line and how far up the canyon it would go. He wondered what the anticipated costs would be for both the City and residents.
He said some disadvantages of the sewer line were: it would export water from the canyon to the Great Salt Lake; thus increasing demand on the city’s water supply; vegetation would dry out and increase fire danger; the service load on the city’s sewage plant would be increased; construction of the sewer would permanently. damage stream ecology; many homes were right on the creek bed and the sewer line would have to follow it for drainage so construction of the sewer might cause more environmental damage than existing conditions caused; and the costs would add a huge financial burden. He requested that the. Emigration Canyon Community Council be kept informed regarding those developments. Dr. Garber suggested that there needed to be another study done on water quality. He said there was no data available on how air pollution from auto emissions and other sources could lead to acid deposition and other water pollution. He said there had been no analysis of road salting, mine tailings, parking lots, or construction and its effect on water quality.
He said they felt that the data regarding water quality deterioration was not sufficient alone to justify the need for a sewer in Big Cottonwood Canyon and the plan did not identify why water quality in that canyon had shown a slightly downward trend and that a sewer alone might not alleviate the problem. He said that less drastic measures could be implemented, such as requirements that picnic and recreation areas be located adequate distances from the stream. He said that before a sewer was advocated, pollution sources needed to be identified and the desired level of development should ‘be determined.
Mr. Budig said his group supported the review, on a canyon by canyon basis, of in-stream flows but they would like to see the city establish a policy of minimum in-stream flows. Mr. Miller said he was, concerned that the water planning had been done without a clear picture of future demand and supply of water in the valley. He said there was a need to be specific regarding the need for future water development because if not you were at the mercy of those who wished to develop all water supplies as soon as possible, regardless of the cost, and it was a very costly undertaking.
He suggested that before the city built a water treatment plant in Millcreek Canyon, developed Emigration Canyon for water supply, or paid the Bureau of Reclamation in the future for water from the Jordanelle Dam they should look at the water surpluses that occur.
The following people opposed the plan: John L. Anderson, 629 Lake Street and James Light, Big Cottonwood Canyon resident. Mr. Anderson said he was opposed to the city1s being able to purchase privately owned property located on the watershed areas. He said the city already owned approximately 185 miles of the watershed area, whereas, if this were privately owned it would have generated millions of dollars of taxes which could have been deducted from the tax crunch property owners were now feeling.
He said that private ownership of land was sacred and should be protected. He said that approximately 66% of Utah was owned by government agencies, so no taxes were paid on these properties, which meant that the other 34 percent paid 100% of the property taxes for the entire state. He gave some examples of how and why taxes were started and then eventually mushroomed, such as the federal income tax, state sales tax and sewer tax. Mr. Light questioned the feasibility of a sewer line in Big Cottonwood Canyon as the water flows dropped drastically during the winter.
He said in the previous two years it had dropped to 4 gallons per minute, which wasn’t enough to run a sewer line. He said the sewer line would be a big expense and eventually force property owners to sell out. Four persons filled out registration cards who were neither in support nor opposition, did not wish to speak, but submitted comments. Councilmember Hardman questioned whether the Water Department had eminent domain and Roger Cutler answered that the city had the power of eminent domain for the Water Department.
Councilmember Hardman asked who owned the properties the city would be interested in purchasing and Mr. Hooton answered that the Forest Service owned 62%, private owners 20%, the city 18%, and the County 1%. Councilmember Kirk asked if Mr. Hooton was aware of the water surpluses mentioned by Mr. Miller. Mr. Hooton said that last year the full allocation in Deer Creek was used, all canyon streams were used and all wells were pumped and they had ended with a zero water supply.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck said Mr. Miller meant that although the water available to them was made use of, there was a tremendous amount of water going through the city that was never used. Mr. Hooton said only about 1/3 of the water coming from the canyons was used, as it would require dams in all the canyons to capture the water into reservoirs, and it was easier said than done.
Councilmember Kirk asked Mr. Hooton if they had previously heard from Mr. Miller or •the other persons who expressed questions and suggestions at the meeting regarding the plan. Mr. Hooton said they had extensive public participation but he had not heard Mr. Miller’s comments prior to this meeting.
Councilmember Godfrey said there had been a lot of input regarding development in the canyons and asked Mr. Hooton what he saw as being the line between protecting water quality and preventing development in the canyons. Mr. Hooton said they had tried to focus on water quality and watershed protection issues and allow the County to develop their master plan with the city’s input, as the County had jurisdiction over the planning and zoning.
Councilmember Godfrey asked if the city could step in, if it became necessary, and tell the County that something was not acceptable regarding land use, and Mr. Hooton said that the city had extraterritorial jurisdiction to protect its water supply. He said in the early 1950’s City Creek became polluted and overused and the water department closed the canyon to public use for 10 years. Councilmember Godfrey asked if there was a way to ensure that the watershed plan was not misused in preventing development.
Mr. Hooton said that was why they were allowing the County to carry out their responsibility and the city was focusing on its responsibility and hopefully they would both be doing a good job. Councilmember Godfrey asked if conservation had been addressed, and Mr. Hooton replied that the city’s policy was that water should be wisely used and not wasted and that people should pay for what they used, so this provided the opportunity for people to conserve. Councilmember Godfrey said it was mentioned that the city used more water per capita than others, and Mr. Hooton said that was correct. He said this was because of our semi-arid climate, and that people liked their gardens, lawns, golf courses, parks, etc., which meant irrigating.
Councilmember Godfrey questioned Mr. Hooton regarding the purchase of watershed lands and said it had been recommended that these should be for multi-use purposes. Mr. Hooton said the city supported multi-use purpose lands as long as it did not affect water quality. Councilmember Godfrey asked Mr. Hooton about the need for a sewer line in Big Cottonwood Canyon and Mr. Hooton said it was necessary to have adequate flow to keep the sewer lines flowing properly and that even in the city it was necessary at times when there was not enough water, to use flush trucks to keep the lines flowing.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck said she felt they needed another opportunity to look at the plan to consider the comments they had heard. She asked what the next step should be in meshing the City’s and County’s plans and bringing together a reunified use of the canyon. Mr. Hooton said the City’s plan would be a supplement to the County’s plan, and although they had not been prepared together they would be put together after completion. He said the same firm was preparing both plans so that would be a plus in meshing the two plans.
Councilmember Bittner said she hoped that everyone understood that there were separate issues involved, such as the annexation of Emigration Canyon which would be pursued separately. Councilmember Kirk said she felt they had heard most of the comments before and asked Mr. Becker if they had been integrated into the plan. Mr. Becker said they had heard the majority of the comments and concerns expressed, and that most of them related to issues that were beyond the scope of what they were able to address. He said they had focused on the condition of the watersheds, how they were being managed, and how they could continue to manage them in a way that would assure good water supply and quality.
(C 88-678)
COMMENTS
Bernice Cook, People’s Freeway, thanked the Council for getting the Sexually Oriented Businesses out of the neighborhoods. Tom Cantrell, owner of Angel’s Escorts, addressed the Council and said it was his understanding that their last meeting was a public hearing and that it had been continued, so persons wanting to comment should be allowed that privilege. He said there had not been adequate notice given, that there had been only three working days since Mr. Baird had prepared the final draft and that was not enough time to review it and prepare comments. He asked the Council to consider tabling the ordinance until they had time to review and prepare comments, etc. He said they had 45 days to comply after the ordinance was passed and that was not adequate time either. Mr. Cantrell said his escorts only dated, so the ‘no touching’ part of the ordinance would mean they couldn’t hold hands, kiss goodnight, hug, or even dance.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck said they had not heard from anyone else who said they had been denied access to the ordinance or that they hadn’t been given adequate time to consider it. She said they had others comment on the fees so they had studied and adjusted them. Mr. Cantrell said the ordinance placed a terrible burden on him and his business and he was not able to speak for anyone else. Brenda Suiter, employee of Angel’s Escorts, addressed the Council and said that the ‘no touching’ issue in the ordinance was unreasonable and that they should reduce the $150 fee or give them 90 days to raise the money.
The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.