December 12, 1989

PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH

REGULAR AND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1989

The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met as the Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, December 12, 1989, at 5:00 p.m. in Room 325, City County Building, 451 South State Street.

The following Council Members were present: Florence Bittner Wayne Horrocks Sydney Fonnesbeck Alan Hardman Tom Godfrey Roselyn Kirk Willie Stoler.

Council Chair Stoler presided at the meeting.

Cindy Gust-Jenson, Council Executive Director, reviewed the Council’s calendar of events. She made note of the joint meeting of the Redevelopment Agency Board and the Planning Commission on Thursday, December 14, 1989. Reviewing the evening’s agenda, she noted that the Council would present a resolution to Pat Smith who was retiring from the Police Department. Councilmember Stoler would read the resolution during the Opening Ceremonies segment of the meeting. The item relating to recreational vehicles in side yards was on the agenda to be referred to Committee of the Whole for discussion.

Item F-4, regarding the Landmark Hotel IRB Escrow Extension, was pulled from the agenda at their request. Elections for the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Council for the year 1990 were held. The votes were taken by written ballot, counted and announced by Ms. Gust-Jenson. For the Chair, there were three votes for Councilmember Roselyn Kirk and four votes for Councilmember Alan Hardman. For the Vice-Chair, there was one vote for Councilmember Roselyn Kirk, two votes for Councilmember Wayne Horrocks and four votes for Councilmember-Elect Nancy Pace.

Ms. Gust-Jenson announced that as a result of the vote, Councilmember Alan Hardman would be the Chair-Elect and Councilmember-Elect Nancy Pace would be the Vice-Chair-Elect of the Council for 1990. Ms. Gust-Jenson asked the Council for permission to destroy the ballots. Permission was granted and the ballots were destroyed. Mike Chitwood of the Redevelopment Agency joined the Council at the table to provide a briefing of the agenda for the December 14th meeting. The briefing session was then concluded in preparation for the regular Council session.

The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Regular Session on Tuesday, December 12, 1989, at 6:00 p.m. in Room 315, City Council Chambers, City County Building, 451 South State Street.

The following Council Members were present: Florence Bittner Wayne Horrocks Sydney Fonnesbeck Alan Hardman Tom Godfrey Roselyn Kirk Willie Stoler.

Mayor Palmer DePaulis, Roger Cutler, City Attorney, Kathryn Marshall, City Recorder, and Lynda Domino, Chief Deputy City Recorder, were present.

Council Chair Stoler presided at and conducted the meeting.

OPENING CEREMONIES

#1. The invocation was given by Police Chaplain Ferdinand Johnson.

#2. The Council led the Pledge of Allegiance.

#3. Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to approve the minutes of the Salt Lake City Council for the regular meeting held Tuesday, December 5, 1989, which motion carried, all members voted aye.

(M 89-1)

#4. The Council presented a Resolution of Appreciation to Detective Pat Smith of the Salt Lake City Police Department who was retiring after 25 years of service. Councilmember Stoler read the resolution which thanked her for years of sensitive and compassionate service. He then presented the resolution to Detective Smith. Christine Waters from the Rape Crisis Center said Detective Smith had worked with over 3,000 victims of sex crimes. She had treated rape victims sensitively and had made a significant difference in the safety of the community. Ms. Waters presented Detective Smith with a dozen roses and a plaque. Detective Smith said Salt Lake City was a good place to be and said if she could do anything to make it better she would.

Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Hardman seconded to adopt Resolution 136 of 1989, which motion carried, all members voted aye.

(R 89-1)

COMMENTS

#1. Councilmember Kirk acknowledged Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was the last original member of the City Council. She said Councilmember Fonnesbeck had been a member of the Salt Lake City Council for 10 years and she thought Mrs. Fonnesbeck epitomized the City Council. She said Mrs. Fonnesbeck’s 10 years of service said a lot about her strength of character and Mrs. Kirk expressed her appreciation for what Mrs. Fonnesbeck had done for the city and for Mrs. Kirk personally.

#2. Councilmember Stoler said he had enjoyed his 40 years of service with Salt Lake City and had enjoyed meeting many people. He said he owed the people of Salt Lake a debt of gratitude and he thanked them for allowing him to serve. He congratulated the newly elected Council Members.

#3. Craig Jorgensen, 11446 Willow View Way, addressed the issue of Salt Lake City’s Sister City in the U.S.S.R. He said he was upset that the Council did not get all the facts before they passed the resolution. He presented his opinions about the U.S.S.R.

#4. Vicki Jorgensen, 11446 Willow View Way, addressed the issue of Salt Lake City’s Sister City in the U.S.S.R. She expressed her opposition to this sister city and expressed her opinions about the U.S.S.R.

CONSENT AGENDA

Councilmember Hardman moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to approve the consent agenda, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent for the vote.

#1. RE: Setting a date to hold a public hearing on January 2, 1990, at 6:20 p.m. to receive public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending Section 21.74.140, Salt Lake City Code, adding two houses as city landmark sites.

(L 89-1)

NEW COUNCIL BUSINESS

#1. Re: An interlocal agreement for the construction of three segments of pipeline in the Northwest Quadrant.

ACTION: Councilmember Bittner moved and Councilmember Horrocks seconded to suspend the rules and on first reading adopt Resolution 137 of 1989 authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City for the construction of three segments of pipeline within the Northwest Quadrant, which motion carried, all members voted aye.

DISCUSSION: Councilmember Bittner congratulated the public utilities department and LeRoy Hooton, Director of Public Utilities. She said constructing the pipeline in the Northwest Quadrant was one of the most significant things the city had done in a long time. She complemented the department for good management, planning and foresight and said installing these major lines would open up an area for development equal in size to the current geographical area of Salt Lake City. She said this was an outstanding accomplishment. Councilmember Horrocks concurred.

(C 89-671)

#2. RE: An interlocal cooperation agreement for the exchange of the Little Cottonwood Well and the Richards Ditch Well and 2,000 acre feet of the water rights therein.

ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to suspend the rules and on first reading adopt Resolution 138 of 1989 authorizing the execution of the interlocal cooperation between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City for exchange of the Little Cottonwood Well and the Richards Ditch Well and 2,000 acre feet of the water rights therein for water rights of equal value, which motion carried, all members voted aye.

(C 89-672)

#3. RE: An interlocal agreement for the expansion of Parley’s Water Treatment Plant.

ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Horrocks seconded to suspend the rules and on first reading adopt Resolution 139 of 1989 authorizing the execution of the interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City and Sandy City for the expansion of Parley’s Water Treatment Plant, which motion carried, all members voted aye.

(C 89-670)

#4. RE: An interlocal agreement fixing the boundary between Salt Lake City and Sandy City for water service areas and future annexation.

ACTION: Councilmember Horrocks moved and Councilmember Hardman seconded to suspend the rules and on first reading adopt Resolution 140 of 1989 authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Sandy City fixing the boundary between the two cities for water service areas and future annexation, which motion carried, all members voted aye.

(C 89-673)

UNFINISHED COUNCIL BUSINESS

#1. RE: An ordinance relating to a proposed overlay zone to allow certain recreational vehicles in the side yards of residentially zoned properties.

ACTION: Without objection Councilmember Stoler referred this to the Committee of the Whole.

(O 89-34)

#2. RE: An ordinance regarding Petition 400-720 submitted by Kevin Koncar requesting the property located at 2613 East 2325 South be rezoned from an “R-2” to a “B-3” classification.

ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to adopt Ordinance 74 of 1989, which motion carried, all members voted aye.

(P 89-351)

#3. RE: Industrial Development Revenue Bonds for Compeq International Company, Ltd.

ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adopt Resolution 133 of 1989, subject to the Salt Lake City Attorney’s approval, providing for the financing by Salt Lake City, Utah, of a project consisting of a portion of the equipment and related property and improvements for a manufacturing facility which will produce printed circuit boards and electronic parts; providing for the execution by Salt Lake City, Utah, of $1,000,000 lease and sublease agreements (Compeq International Company, Ltd. Project) which will be payable solely from revenues arising from payments of sublease lease installments by Compeq International Co., Ltd., its parent and guarantor, or its letter of credit bank; authorizing the execution and delivery of a lease-purchase agreement, a sublease agreement, an escrow agreement, closing certificates and other related documents; authorizing the assignment of the lease documents to a purchaser thereof; and related matters, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Hardman who abstained from voting.

DISCUSSION: Councilmember Hardman declared a conflict because of his employment and so abstained from voting.

(Q 89-3)

#4 RE: Industrial Development Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1989, for JTM Foothill Village Project.

ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Horrocks seconded to adopt Resolution 134 of 1989, subject to approval by the Salt Lake City Attorney, authorizing the issuance of Salt Lake City, Utah, Industrial Development Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1989 (JTM Foothill Village Project) in an initial principal amount not to exceed $7, 500,000; authorizing the execution and delivery of a financing agreement, an indenture, a tax agreement, a bond purchase agreement, an official statement and such bonds and closing documents in connection therewith, which motion carried, all members voted aye.

DISCUSSION: Councilmember Kirk asked if the bonds were being refunded in order to receive a better interest rate. Dick Fox, bond counsel, said the refunding was for a better interest rate and maturity schedule. He said these bonds would not finance new construction. He also pointed out that the amount was $7,410,000. Councilmember Kirk asked when the original bonds were approved and Mr. Fox said in 1984.

(Q 84-18)

#5. RE: An interlocal agreement for the services of a full-time police officer for Northwest and Glendale Intermediate schools.

ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Hardman seconded to adopt Resolution 135 of 1989 authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Board of Education of Salt Lake City providing for the services of a full- time police officer for Northwest and Glendale Intermediate schools in Salt Lake City, which motion carried, all members voted aye.

DISCUSSION: Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked who would pay for the cost of these police officers. Police Chief Chabries said the school board would pay 50% and the city would pay 50%.

(C 89-506)

#6. RE: Sixth Supplemental Indenture relating to an escrow extension for the $8,800,000 Salt Lake City, Utah, Industrial Development Revenue Bonds for Landmark Hotel - Airport Holiday Inn Project.

ACTION: This item was pulled from the agenda.

(Q 86-18)

PUBLIC HEARINGS

#1. RE: A public hearing at 6:20 p.m. to receive comment and consider adopting an ordinance rezoning the property located at 1307 South 900 West from Residential “R-2” to Business “B-3”; and rezoning the property on the northwest corner of 1300 South and 900 West from Business “B-3” to Residential “R-2”, as initiated by the Planning Commission.

ACTION: Councilmember Hardman moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.

Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Hardman seconded to rezone the property located at 1307 South 900 West from Residential “R-2” to Business “B-3”, with the publication of the ordinance to be immediately after adoption and zoning to take effect upon publication, which motion carried, all members voted aye.

Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Hardman seconded to rezone the property on the northwest corner of 1300 South and 900 West from Business “B-3” to Residential “R-2”, with publication of the ordinance to be in 120 days after adoption, which motion carried, all members voted aye.

DISCUSSION: Everett Joyce, planning and zoning department staff, outlined the area on a map. He said the “R-2” to “B-3” rezoning was to allow for the first phase of an office and parking expansion development proposed by the Ikers and additional phases would expand the project to California Avenue. He said when 900 West was widened, the right of way came within a few feet of the homes south of the office building; one of the homes was abandoned and one was in substandard structural condition. He said one additional home in the area was an isolated single-family home but had no access on California Avenue. He said in terms of future land uses in the area and from a traffic standpoint, there should be no driveways off of California Avenue because of the curve. He said the Planning Commission initiated rezoning the northwest corner of 1300 South 900 West, on which there was a single-family home, from “E-3” to “R-2”. He said the homes to the north were identified in an architectural survey as having some significance and the potential of being classified as a historic district or a conservation area. He said the Planning Commission recommended approving both rezonings.

Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked how this related to the master plan of the area. Mr. Joyce said the 1972 West Side Master Plan identified the northwest corner as residential. He said the area being rezoned from “R-2” to “B-3” had been identified as a transitional area. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if either request was in violation of the master plan and Mr. Joyce said no. Mel Ingersoll, 766 West 1300 South, asked if the rezoning would extend from 1300 South to California Avenue. Mr. Joyce pointed out the area on the map. Mr. Ingersoll said he endorsed the change. Nina Plant, 1250 South 900 West, said her property was the northwest corner that the Council had been discussing. She said her house had been used as a commercial enterprise in the past.

It had been used for a nursing home, an electronic business, and a construction/realty office. She said she purchased the property with the intention at some point of putting in a business and perhaps renting the garage. She said if the property was downzoned to residential then the value would be lowered. She asked that her property retain the business zoning and said she did not understand why the property should be downzoned. She reiterated that she purchased the property specifically for the business zoning. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked Mr. Joyce to respond to Ms. Plant’s comments. Mr. Joyce said planning researched the business license records and there had been no license issued for commercial uses. He said the construction company’s request had been denied.

He said in 1986 a building permit was issued in order to put on a new roof and at that time the structure was identified as a family residence. He said if Ms. Plant’s business qualified as a home occupation then it could be in any residential zone. He reiterated that there were no license records indicating that this property had been used for a business. Thelma Iker, 498 North Hills Drive, requested that the two rezonings be detached so her request would not be denied because of the controversy on the other issue. Ralph Plescia, 1048 West California Avenue, said in his opinion it appeared that planning wanted to keep the business district to a certain size so they were downzoning the existing “B-3” corner in order to rezone the other parcel from “R-2” to “B-3”. He also said he didn’t agree that the business district should go all the way to the corner of California Avenue because of the school in the area. He said he thought this would cause traffic problems and he suggested lowering the speed limit. He confirmed that there had been a rest home and a contractor operating at one time on the northwest corner (Ms. Plant’s property). He said there had been various businesses whether the records showed them or not. He also said that Ms. Plant had not been notified of the public hearings. Mr. Joyce reiterated that there were no records of business licenses for the property in question. And he said in order for this property to be granted a commercial use, the owner would have to take out a building permit and upgrade the property.

Councilmember Bittner said she remembered when there was a nursing home on that property. Councilmember Kirk asked why Ms. Plant was not notified of hearings regarding this issue. Mr. Joyce said Ms. Plant was a contract owner and the owner, BDL, was notified of the hearings. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said in this case Ms. Plant purchased the property knowing it was zoned “B-3” but since she was not currently using it for a business, she would have no right to use the property as commercial if it were rezoned. Bill Wright, deputy planning director, said the property owner had been notified about both Planning Commission meetings. He reiterated that the architectural study had identified the row of homes from Jordan Park to the northwest corner of 1300 South 900 West as being significant and he said the Planning Commission wanted to initiate the rezoning on the corner in order to comply with the master plan.

He said research found no evidence of business license activity for this property and the construction business may have occupied the property but they were denied a license because of the location. He said the Planning Commission’s objective was not to take away property rights but to have conformity between the master plan and the zoning. He also said the planning staff had communicated with Ms. Plant regarding this issue and he said it was difficult notifying owners of contract property because there was no way of knowing who owned it. He said planning staff members had also notified Ms. Plant that if she desired a business at that location then she should submit an application and get a license in order to establish the nonconforming right. He said to date the records showed that Ms. Plant had not requested a license.

Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked what uses were on the other corners. Mr. Wright said there were commercial businesses, a convenience store and auto service. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked about the impact if the northwest corner remained zoned “B-3”. Mr. Wright said the residential structure could be removed and planning tried to strive for conformity and balance regarding issues of business development and preservation of housing. Councilmember Kirk asked Councilmember Horrocks his recommendation since this property was in his area. Mr. Horrocks suggested delaying publication of the ordinance in order to allow Ms. Plant time to obtain a business license. He also said he wanted to maintain the decorum of the neighborhood since most of the homes had a historical impact. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked about the procedure for obtaining a business license. Mr. Wright said there was about a 30-day review process by city departments. Mrs. Fonnesbeck asked if there was any reason why Ms. Plant would not be able to obtain a license. Mr. Wright said the major issue would be the building code. He said it was possible that in order to operate a business Ms. Plant would have to make changes to the structure. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said she didn’t see an objection to what Ms. Plant wanted to do but suggested the danger in leaving the property zoned “B-3” was that the house would be demolished. She asked what kind of opportunity the city could give Ms. Plant to take advantage of the “B-3” zoning and then downzone the property.

Mr. Wright said the best way to handle this situation would be to delay publication of the ordinance and have Ms. Plant commit to pursuing a business license. He said this would give her the nonconforming status she would need. In regards to parking, Mr. Wright said he thought adequate parking could be provided and he reiterated that the issue was the interior of the building. Councilmember Hardman asked about the zoning on either side of Ms. Plant’s property. Mr. Wright said the zoning was “R-2”. Mr. Hardman also asked what criteria were used to establish the nonconforming use. Mr. Joyce said a residential structure required a business license and a permit to change the use of the structure.

Mayor DePaulis asked how much it cost to apply for the business license. Mr. Wright said he thought it was about $35.00, although he wasn’t certain he said the fee was fairly nominal. Councilmember Horrocks suggested separating the two zoning issues and giving Ms. Plant 90 days to obtain a business license and make the necessary alterations to the building. He said he didn’t want to see the house altered from the outside yet he wanted Ms. Plant to have the chance to pursue her business. Mr. Wright said the more time available would be better for the property owner to go through process.

He recommended separating the two zoning issues since the Ikers had been going through the process for almost a year. He said they were ready to proceed with their development. He said the area they were going to redevelop needed the improvement and he said planning felt confident that they could control the traffic/pedestrian conflict issues since Salt Lake City owned a corner parcel. Mayor DePaulis suggested perhaps 90 days was not long enough because of the holidays. He suggested allowing four months.

(P 89-174)

#2. RE: A public hearing at 6:30 p.m. to receive comment and consider adopting an ordinance electing to participate in the Public Safety Non-Contributory Retirement System.

ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmembers Horrocks and Hardman who were absent for the vote.

Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to adopt Ordinance 75 of 1989, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmembers Horrocks and Hardman who were absent for the vote.

DISCUSSION: There was no staff presentation regarding this issue and there were no public comments.

(G 89-20)

#3. RE: A public hearing at 6:40 p.m. to receive comment and consider adopting an ordinance closing a portion and vacating a portion of an alley adjacent to 2185 South 900 East pursuant to Petition No. 400-756 by Ricks and Brown Architects.

ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Bittner who abstained from voting.

Councilmember Stoler moved and Councilmember Horrocks seconded to close the west half of the alley with a provision that it be sold to abutting businesses as they desire to acquire it at fair market value and vacate the east half of the alley and arrange for title to be transferred by quit claim deed to the abutting residential owners, with the proviso that six feet on the north end of the alley (the full width) be subject to a condition that the owner not build a structure which would interfere with use of the six feet for ingress and egress, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Bittner who abstained from voting.

DISCUSSION: Everett Joyce, planning department staff, outlined the area on a map and pointed out that the block contained a “T” alley. He said the alley in question, which ran north and south, was a 20-foot wide, 221-foot long dead-end alley. He said the petitioner, Printers Inc., had hard-surfaced the alley behind their property but the remainder of the alley was in a condition of overgrowth and was not used. He said he sent letters to the property owners regarding the closure of the alley and said the property owner at the northeast corner did not respond, four property owners supported the petition and one property owner supported closure but said he used the commercial property to the south of the petitioner for access (the proposed alley closure would not affect his access).

Mr. Joyce said the planning staff recommended closure of the alley with the west half of the property being closed and sold to the businesses and the east half being vacated and given to the residences. Alex McMillan, 922 Elm Avenue, said his property abutted the east/west portion of the “T” alley and in order to get his car out of his carport, he had to back at least a car length into the south alley. He expressed his concern that he would not be able to get his car out if the alley was closed. Mr. Joyce said the petitioner was trying to improve his property and intended to provide additional parking in order to eliminate some of the problems with their off-street parking. He said the ten-foot portion to be closed that abutted Printers Inc., would be required as open space so there would not be any structures although they could fence the property. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if Mr. McMillan would be able to get his car out of his driveway if the Council closed the alley. Councilmember Hardman said he thought Mr. McMillan would be able to get his car out and said he thought Mr. McMillan had enjoyed a convenience that the other property owners abutting the alley had not.

Councilmember Bittner asked if Mr. McMillan could work out an agreement with the petitioner for the right of way. Mr. Joyce said according to the zoning ordinance this area would need to be landscaped. He said if there was no fence, Mr. McMillan could have an additional three-foot access out to the curb which would give him a total of 19 feet to back out of his driveway. Councilmember Godfrey suggested that the planning staff measure the area to determine if Mr. McMillan could get out. He said others abutting the alley had the same amount of space and did not use the south alley as extra backing space. Mr. McMillan said there was a telephone pole which interfered with backing out of his driveway and that was why he used a portion of the south alley. Councilmember Fonnesbeck suggested closing the alley but leaving three feet open in order to solve the problem.

DeLane Hutcheon, 2198 Lincoln Street, asked what Printers Inc. planned to do with the property. Wayne Ricks, petitioner, said Printers Inc. planned to put a 20-foot addition on the back of their building to facilitate new equipment. He said they would landscape the 10-foot area as required and he believed that the congestion in the alley would be alleviated because of the building expansion. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked Mr. Hutcheon if he opposed the expansion of the building. Mr. Hutcheon said he didn’t but said his concern was that Mr. McMillan would be able to get out of his driveway. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked the petitioner if the printing company would let Mr. McMillan have access to three feet of the property. Mr. Ricks said he thought Printers Inc. would work with Mr. McMillan.

Roger Cutler, city attorney, said to insure that the petitioner did not install a fencer the Council should direct his office of their intent to leave the area open for use. He said his office could then impose a condition that the petitioner would meet the landscaping requirements but leave the area open. Morna Winkleman, 932 East Elm Avenue, said the alley between Elm Avenue, 900 East and Lincoln Avenue was a hazard. She said if the city closed the alley and the petitioner added a building then the problem would become worse. She said large trucks parked in the alley and people couldn’t get through. She said the company needed a loading dock. Mr. Ricks said currently there was a problem with servicing and delivery of materials. He said the new addition would be set back so docking and loading accessibility off the existing alley would alleviate congestion. He said Printers Inc. proposed a 20-foot extension to the existing building, part of which would be a docking facility. He said the additional 10 feet for landscaping would separate the commercial and residential uses and said he was under the impression from Printers Inc. that they were interested in purchasing the additional alley from the residential owners. Councilmember Stoler said this proposal would clean up the alley and would resolve traffic congestion problems. Mr. Hutcheon asked what would happen if the alley was closed and the abutting businesses did not want to purchase their half.

Mr. Cutler said the city could not require the businesses to purchase the alley so the property would remain in city ownership although it. would be closed to public access. Mr. Hutcheon expressed his concern that the condition of the alley would not change if the businesses didn’t purchase the alley. Mr. Joyce said he had contacted the businesses and even though they might not have an interest in purchasing the property right now, in the future their parcel of the alley would benefit development plans since new construction would require a 10-foot setback. Councilmember Bittner disqualified herself from voting on this issue since she was the property owner of record for the property owned by Printers Inc.

Councilmember Stoler passed the duty of Chair to Vice Chair Hardman so Mr. Stoler could make a motion. In regards to Mr. McMillan’s problem, Mr. Cutler said the Council could grant a right of way or prohibit the petitioner from building structures which would inhibit the backing space. He said if the Council granted a right of way it would become a property right even after the use was no longer necessary. He also mentioned it wasn’t good policy to combine closing and vacating the same alley because of the potential checkerboard ownership the city would retain. After the motion was made and voted upon, Council Vice Chair Hardman relinquished the duty of Chair back to Councilmember Stoler.

(P 89-379)

#4. RE: A public hearing at 6:50 p.m. to receive comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending Title 11 of the Salt Lake City Code, 1988, by adding a Chapter 12 relating to parties, gatherings and events.

ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.

Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Hardman seconded to adopt Ordinance 76 of 1989, with the amended wording, which motion carried, all members voted aye.

DISCUSSION: Councilmember Godfrey asked why the amount of the fine would be reduced if paid or appealed within 10 days. Major O.J. Peck, Salt Lake City Police Department, said this was an incentive for people to take care of the ticket. He said the penalty would be greater if people waited. Roger Cutler, city attorney, said the large sum would act as a deterrent and the reduced fee was to cover costs and induce early payment since it cost the city money to try a collect fines. Councilmember Kirk said she thought the city would only charge people the cost of enforcement. Mr. Cutler said if people paid $50.00 the city would recoup a substantial portion of the costs and would induce compliance and impress on the public the cost of police service. Mr. Peck said it also relieved the police department of the responsibility to determine the actual cost of each call, which was a complicated process.

He said $50.00 was an acceptable fee for most of the special security agreements. He said if there were injuries or large numbers of officers involved, the cost could raise significantly. But those situations would be the exception and not the rule. Councilmember Bitter said each time a police officer issued a citation there was an opportunity for the reduction. She suggested that on the first call the amount be reduced but subsequent citations for the same gathering not be reduced. Councilmember Horrocks concurred that people would take the citation more seriously if after the second time the amount was not reduced. Mr. Cutler said the ordinance was broad enough to assess a citation for the actual cost and he said as a practical matter if the police went to the same gathering more than twice, the party would be terminated and there would probably be an arrest.

Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked about safeguards against harassment by the calling party and asked if the police officer had the discretionary right to determine if the call was harassment. Major Peck said as part of police policy, on a second call a supervisor would be called to add his/her discretion to the decision. He also said there would be training for police officers regarding this new ordinance and there was an appeal process for those who were issued citations. Mr. Cutler said that usually police knew they would be questioned by the prosecutor so they made sure they could hear the noise as they approach the gathering. Councilmember Bittner asked if alcoholic beverages or controlled substances had to be involved for the police to issue citations or if noise alone was sufficient, such as loud music.

Major Peck said the ordinance had been changed so as not to necessitate the use of alcohol or controlled substances. Steven Hemingway, 1336 South 2nd East, said he had neighbors who had loud parties and on occasion he had called the police four to six times in one night. He said it was frustrating for the neighborhood when nothing happened. He suggested that the penalty should be $1,000 so people would realize the importance of police costs and realize that frivolous occurrences at parties were the responsibility of the host. Bob Rose, 1371 2nd Avenue, said he held an annual fund raising party for the Salt Lake Arts Center and he had a neighbor who always called the police on him. He said people paid taxes and he thought the cost of police calls should be borne by the city. He suggested that the Council give more thought to the ordinance because it seemed unclear as to what the Council wanted and what they expected for the end result. Kerry Dunn, 2228 Brian Circle, expressed his concern about the ordinance and asked if its primary intent was to increase revenue or mitigate a problem. Councilmember Horrocks said the purpose of the ordinance was to mitigate a problem. Mr. Dunn asked if this type of legislation had been enacted in other places. Councilmember Stoler said other cities had similar yet tougher legislation.

Mr. Dunn said he showed the ordinance to three attorneys who had serious questions about it and said it held people guilty until proven innocent. He said the ordinance also specified that an- officer would -not have- to observe people creating a problem but would only have to believe they did. He also said there was no wording in this legislation which left room for discretion. Mr. Dunn said he wondered if this would cause the police to put a financial priority on their calls and respond to those first that would allow them to recover costs. He also questioned the additional costs to the city to hear appeals and train officers. He said if the city was trying to mitigate a problem he thought this ordinance would encourage more problems because of the animosity in neighborhoods.

He said some people were sensitive to noise but certain people would harass others and would use the police department to do so. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said the biggest problem in her area was Memory Grove and she asked if this ordinance would impact Memory Grove. Major Peck said the ordinance was to address problems in residences and would not apply to locations outside of a residential structure. He said the structure allowed the city to pinpoint responsibility. He said the noise ordinance would be the best vehicle for problems which occurred in Memory Grove. Mr. Cutler asked the Council to amend the language on the bottom of page three by substituting the word “if” for “the officer finds”, and in the first line on page four, changing the words “may be” to “are”. So the sentence would read “...and if there is probable cause to believe the activities or noise are in violation. He said this would remove the subjective element of the police officer and establish an objective probable cause standard.

Councilmember Bittner suggested adding language to the effect that when there were multiple police responses to the same party within 24 hours then the fee reduction for early payment would not be given. Mr. Cutler said the minimum fee was stated as $100.00 which presupposed the fee could be more if the costs were proved. He said he assumed that the “minimum” would become the fee actually imposed because of ease of administration. He said he assumed Mrs. Bittner wanted a caveat added that the reduction would not apply if there was more than one assessment within a 24-hour period. Mrs. Bittner said that was correct and said $50.00 would not hurt people very much. Mr. Cutler said he was not prepared to suggest the appropriate language and asked for time to draft workable language. Mrs. Bittner suggested that, the ordinance be referred to the attorney’s office to include the appropriate change. Mr. Cutler said another option would be to adopt the ordinance and have the attorney’s office prepare an amendment.

(O 89-37)

The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.