PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
REGULAR/BRIEFING SESSION
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1987
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1987, AT 5:00 P.M. IN SUITE 300 CITY HALL, 324 SOUTH STATE.
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 Kirk presided at the meeting.
BRIEFING SESSION
The Council interviewed Frank Jackson prior to his appointment to the Mosquito Abatement District Board. Mr. Jackson told the Council that he recently retired from the Utah Department of Health where he worked in insect and rodent control for 37 years. He added that he looked forward to serving on the Mosquito Abatement District Board. The Council wished him good luck in his new position. Linda Hamilton, Executive Director, briefed the Council on the evening’s agenda. She told the Council that Bernette Murphy had asked not to be appointed to the Community Development Advisory Committee at this time.
She told the Council that they must pull his name from consideration on the agenda. Ms. Hamilton told the Council that a proposed Boundary Adjustment Policy Declaration and agreement with West Valley City would allow the annexation, by Salt Lake City, of a portion of property in West Valley City at approximately 2100 South 1800 West and the relinquishment of a portion of property in Salt Lake City at approximately 2100 South 2901 West, which would be annexed into West Valley City. She told the Council that the 2100 South freeway system acted as a barrier to Salt Lake City in trying to service areas south of the freeway. West Valley City was inconvenienced by the freeway system in trying to service areas north of the freeway.
She told the Council that the proposed property exchange would be beneficial to West Valley City and to Salt Lake City. After the adjustment, the boundary between West Valley City and Salt Lake City would be the center line of the 2100 South freeway system. The Council discussed sending a letter to Mayor Palmer DePaulis concerning a legislative intent passed in the November 10, 1987, City Council meeting concerning payment of the Municipal Building Bonds.
The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1987, AT 6:00 P.M. IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, SUITE 300, CITY HALL, 324 SOUTH STATE.
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 city recorder, were present.
Council Chairperson Kirk presided at and conducted the meeting.
The Council led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes
Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to approve the minutes of the Salt Lake City Council for the regular meeting held Tuesday, November 17, 1987, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmembers Fonnesbeck and Hardwick who were absent for the vote.
(M 87-1)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
ATTORNEY’ S OFFICE
#1. RE: A proposed boundary adjustment policy declaration and agreement with West Valley City contemplating the annexation, by Salt Lake City, of a portion of property in West Valley City at approximately 2100 South 1800 West and the disconnection of a portion of property in Salt Lake City at approximately 2100 South 2901 West, which shall be annexed into West Valley City; and an amendment to the City’s Master Annexation Policy Declaration, and zoning the proposed annexation area “M-1A”.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to set a date for a public hearing to be held Tuesday, January 5, 1987, at 6:30 p.m., which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent for the vote.
(T 86-1)
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
#1. RE: A resolution authorizing and approving the issuance of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds for Huish Chemical Company.
ACTION: Councilmember Hardwick moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Resolution 137 of 1987 authorizing and approving the issuance of the $2,300,000 Salt Lake County, Utah, Insured Industrial Development Bonds (InDeBonds-Tm) Huish Chemical Company Project, Series 1987, to provide financing for a project to be acquired and developed by Huish Chemical Company, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(Q 87-8)
MAYOR’S OFFICE
#1. RE: An ordinance amending Section 25-30-4 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City regarding appointment of members to the Community Development Advisory Committee, to insert one word which was inadvertently left out when the ordinance was enacted as Ordinance 61 of 1987. The word “fail” would be added to a line so it would read, “Every member who shall fail within ten (10) days after notification of his or her appointment to file with the City Recorder his or her oath of office to perform faithfully, honestly and impartially the duties of the office, shall be deemed to have refused such appointment...”.
ACTION: Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to adopt Ordinance 87 of 1987 amending section 25-30-4 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to establishment of the Community Development Advisory Committee, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent for the vote.
(O 87-25)
#2. RE: The appointment of Bernette Murphy to the Community Development Advisory Committee.
ACTION: The Council pulled this item from the agenda.
(I 87-20)
#3. RE: The appointment of Frank Jackson to the Mosquito Abatement Board.
ACTION: Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to approve the appointment, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent for the vote.
(I 87-3)
#4. RE: The appointments of Pat Shea and Tom Young to the Airport Authority Board of Directors.
ACTION: Without objection Councilmember Kirk referred these appointments to the Committee of the Whole.
(I 87-10)
#5. RE: The appointments of Pam Grubagh-Littig, Harold Christensen, Linda Edeiken, and Louis Schricker to the Historical Landmarks Committee.
ACTION: Without objection Councilmember Kirk referred these appointments to the Committee of the Whole.
(I 87-21)
#6. RE: The appointment of Norton Parker to the Housing Authority Board of Directors.
ACTION: Without objection Councilmember Kirk referred the appointment to the Committee of the Whole.
(I 87-7)
#7. RE: The reappointment of L.C. Romney to the Sugar House Park Authority Board.
ACTION: Councilmember Stoler moved and Councilmember Bittner seconded to approve the reappointment, which motion carried, Councilmembers Bittner, Mabey, Fonnesbeck and Stoler voted aye, and Councilmembers Hardwick, Godfrey and Kirk voted nay.
DISCUSSION: Councilmember Kirk said the Council had a policy of appointing people to serve on boards for only two terms and she wondered when the Council would start enforcing it. Councilmember Stoler said the Sugar House Park Authority’s by-laws and the County’s rules and regulations did not coincide with Salt Lake City’s and he thought because of this conflict the Council should approve Mr. Romney’s reappointment at this time.
He added that a letter should be sent to the Sugar House Park Authority explaining the City’s policy so future appointments could be made accordingly. Councilmember Godfrey said Mr. Romney had served for 30 years on this Board and he thought one of the policy’s intents in limiting appointments to two terms was so other people could share their expertise with the City and work on different boards. He thought the Sugar House Park Authority knew about this policy and he thought 30 years was enough time to serve on one board.
Councilmember Mabey said he felt the Council should have sent a letter to the Sugar House Park Authority informing them that the Council would not accept names of those who had served more than two terms but he felt at this point the Council would do Mr. Romney a disservice if they did not reappoint him. Councilmember Godfrey asked Emilie Charles from the Mayor’s Office if the Sugar House Park Authority was aware of the Council’s policy. She indicated that they were not aware of the policy at the time they re-nominated Mr. Romney.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck thought if the Council voted against Mr. Romney’s reappointment it could be construed as a personal issue but she said on the other hand the Council had a policy which continually seemed to be ignored. She thought this situation was a real dilemma but she did not want the Council’s action to be misconstrued. Councilmember Mabey suggested that the Council send a letter to all the boards stating that no exceptions would be made to the length of board members terms. Emilie Charles said since the time when the Mayor’s Office received the Council’s letter regarding their policy on board appointments, the Mayor signed a city policy and procedure stating the guidelines. She said this had been sent to all city boards in addition to the Sugar House Park Authority. She said she had been working with them to get them to adhere to city policies and procedures yet they had their own separate by-laws and interlocal agreement and at this point in time they were choosing not to follow the city policy. Councilmember Mabey suggested that a letter directed to the Sugar House Park Authority should say that regardless of their by-laws the Salt Lake City Council would not approve appointments for more than two terms.
Councilmember Hardwick said in the four years he had been on the Council this had been an on-going problem and he thought if they were going to have respect for and adhere to the policy then the Council needed to vote against this reappointment. Councilmember Stoler thought this was a real problem since the Sugar House Park Authority had to send their appointments to both the city and county. Brian Wilkinson, Council Staff, explained that there were five members approved by both the County Commission and the City Council, and the Mayor and one Commissioner also served on the board.
He said currently there was one member who lived in the unincorporated county, three who lived in the city and one vacant position. He indicated that there was a board member serving his second term and his term expired this month. Councilmember Kirk said she hadn’t heard a reason why Mr. Romney should be reappointed other than the Sugar House Park Authority didn’t know the city’s policy at the time they re-nominated him. She didn’t think this was a compelling reason and asked if the Council had compelling reasons.
Councilmember Stoler said he didn’t know Mrs. Kirk’s definition of a compelling reason but said Mr. Romney knew the position well and asked if there was a degree of expertise needed on a park authority. Mrs. Kirk said in a similar situation the compelling reason was that many members had resigned and that particular board needed the expertise because it was in a transitional period.
(I 87-6)
COMMENTS
#1. Councilmember Stoler moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to schedule the parameters resolution adopted on November 17, 1987, by the Municipal Bond Authority authorizing the issuance of not to exceed $20,000,000 in Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 1987, for reconsideration on the regular Council agenda of December 8, 1987, which motion failed, Councilmembers Fonnesbeck, Hardwick, Godfrey, and Kirk voted nay and Councilmembers Bittner, Mabey and Stoler voted aye.
Prior to the vote, Councilmember Stoler explained that on Tuesday, November 17, the City Council acting as the Municipal Building Authority passed Resolution 134. He expressed concern about a question on the maintenance for the street lighting. He understood that Utah Power and Light had not agreed to sell the fixtures to Salt Lake City because they wanted a 30-year maintenance contract but bond counsel said there couldn’t be a maintenance contract for more than three years. He said he understood that UP&L did not want the city to take over maintenance because of UP&L’s liability if the city made a mistake. He understood that unless the city was willing to assume the liability UP&L wanted to continue to maintain the lights. He felt uneasy that the Municipal Building Authority approved the resolution without knowing this information.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if the Council was mixing administrative details with the concept of bonding. She said they approved a maximum amount for the bond and if the lighting didn’t work out then the money wouldn’t be spent. She didn’t think they needed to work out all of the administrative details. Lance Bateman, finance director, said when they were working out the details of the street lighting he didn’t know the maintenance contract would be such a large issue with Utah Power and Light. He said UP&L said the liability question of outside employees working in their vaults or on their poles was such that they didn’t think the city could indemnify them.
Mr. Bateman said the city didn’t say they wouldn’t indemnify UP&L, but UP&L did not want to allow the city to indemnify them because they wanted to do the maintenance. He said everything in connection with the street lighting but the maintenance question had been agreed to and UP&L was blaming the Willburg Mine disaster for their reasoning in this maintenance issue. He said he had a problem with a 30-year maintenance contract because 30 years was a long time to agree to maintenance without knowing what direction electric power transmission would take.
Councilmember Bittner said she thought as long as there were unanswered questions there wouldn’t be any harm in reconsidering this issue. She said she felt uneasy about it and wanted to discuss it again. Mr. Bateman said the parameters resolution gave the city the authority to consider a $20,000,000 parameter, which was the highest they could go. He said they would not bond for street lighting if they couldn’t work out the arrangements. Mrs. Bittner said she didn’t think they should have the authority to bond for the street lights until they were certain about what they were doing.
Roger Cutler, city attorney, said the resolution approved at the November 17 meeting was a parameters resolution and the bonds had not been issued. He said the final documents would come back to the Council for approval. Mr. Bateman said if Salt Lake City wanted to sign a 30-year contract for maintenance, the city would still have almost $750,000 worth of savings on the street lighting bill on an annual basis. He said the question wasn’t money but who had the right to do the maintenance.
Councilmember Stoler said he understood but wanted to know about any potential liability before he voted. Mr. Cutler, said the opinion of not signing a 30-year contract was not a firm position and bond counsel had modified their position. He also thought there was misunderstanding on the issue of liability and said they hadn’t discussed the possibility of city crews working on UP&L equipment but had discussed the ability to subcontract or have other qualified electrical contractors do the maintenance and repair work. He raised the question that if they signed a 30-year contract without specific prices would the city lose all or part of the incentive to enter into the arrangement.
He said they were troubled about signing a 30-year contract without checking competitive bidding and he said they were negotiating for a shorter contract term in order to check costs to know that UP&L was not taking advantage of the city on a long-term contract. Mr. Cutler thought the issue of liability was an excuse and said he wouldn’t recommend something to the Council that didn’t make sense or that he wasn’t prepared to defend. He said the lighting issue might have to be excised out of the bond issue and the amount of the bond reduced. Mr. Bateman said the final sale of the bonds would come before the Council.
Councilmember Mabey thought the Council should know what the cost for maintenance would be. Mr. Bateman said they did not want to get tied into an agreement where UP&L could escalate prices. He said all of the current costs for UP&L maintenance had been calculated into the cost for the whole system. Councilmember Bittner asked after how many years the lights could be paid off. Mr. Bateman said the bond length was 15 years but the cans and packers and telephones would be paid for in five years, the street lighting would be paid for in 10 years, and the building would be paid for in 15 years. He explained that once these different elements were paid for they would be released from the bond.
Mrs. Bittner asked if the lights could be paid off before 10 years and Mr. Bateman said no. He said when the bond holders purchased the bonds they did not want elements pulled out of their portfolio before their time. Councilmember Stoler said he thought the bond had to be sold before the first of the year to take advantage of a lower interest rate and he now understood that the Council may not pass the final document until January.
Mr. Bateman explained that they wanted to issue the bonds in December but had to postpone it for various reasons. He said they reviewed the history of interest rates in January and said basically the rates had stayed flat and the last few years had gone down. He said this would not come back to the Council until January.
(Q 87-11)
The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.