PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
REGULAR/BRIEFING SESSION
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17 1987
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1987, AT 5:00 P.M. IN SUITE 300 CITY HALL, 324 SOUTH STATE.
THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: GRANT MABEY THOMAS M. GODFREY SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK ROSELYN N. KIRK EARL F. HARDWICK WILLIE STOLER.
Councilmember Bittner was absent.
Council Chairperson Kirk presided at the meeting.
BRIEFING SESSION
1. Linda Hamilton, Executive Director, briefed the Council on the evening’s agenda. Council Member Mabey told the Council that a petition submitted by Ray Campos requesting the rezoning of the northwest corner of 9th West and 8th South by increasing the “B-3” zone west an additional 50 feet was to allow for the construction of a 7-1l on the property. The Council was to set a date for a public hearing to be held concerning the petition.
2. Max Peterson, City Engineer, briefed the Council on Special Improvement Districts 40-R-l3 and 38-813. Mr. Peterson told the Council that City Engineer Parviz Rokhva had met with the residents affected by the Special Improvement Districts and found no real opposition to their creation. Mr. Peterson assured the Council that work would begin in August.
3. The Council discussed a petition submitted by the City-County Board of Health requesting the closure of Edison Street. Council Member Fonnesbeck questioned the reasoning behind the closure. Ms. Hamilton told the Council that the one-way street was used as a walkway for patients going to and from the immunization clinic. It was dangerous to have cars traveling in the same area as pedestrians were walking. The Council would hear public comment concerning the petition in the Council meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1987, AT 6:00 P.M. IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, SUITE 300, CITY HALL, 324 SOUTH STATE.
THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: GRANT MABEY THOMAS M. GODFREY SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK ROSELYN N. KIRK EARL F. HARDWICK WILLIE STOLER.
Councilmember Bittner was absent.
Mayor Palmer DePaulis, Roger Cutler, city attorney, Lynda Domino, chief deputy recorder, and Doc Kivett, deputy recorder, were present. Kathryn Marshall, city recorder, was absent.
Council Chairperson Kirk presided at the meeting and Councilmember Mabey conducted the meeting.
The invocation was given by Police Chaplain Allen Roden.
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 meeting held Tuesday, February 10, 1987, which motion carried, all members present voting aye except Councilmember Staler who was absent for the vote.
(M 87-1)
PETITIONS
Petition 400-274 Calder Brothers Annexation.
RE: The reconsideration of Petition 400-274 by the Calder Brothers requesting Salt Lake City to annex property located at 3130 South Highland Drive.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to set a public hearing for Tuesday, April 7, 1987, at 6:20 p.m., which motion carried, all members present voting aye except Councilmember Stoler who was absent for the vote.
(P 85-71)
Petition 400-479 by Kathryn Diamant.
RE: The vacation of an alley located between Edith Avenue and 1300 South and 200 and 300 East.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to set a public hearing for Tuesday, March 17, 1987, at 6:30 p.m., which motion carried, all members present voting aye except Councilmember Stoler who was absent for the vote.
(P 87-32)
Petition 400-484 by Ray Campos.
RE: The rezoning of the northwest corner of 9th West and 8th South from “R-4” to “B-3” by enlarging the “B-3” zone west an additional 50 feet.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to set a public hearing for Tuesday, March 10, 1987, at 6:30 p.m., which motion carried, all members present voting aye except Councilmember Stoler who was absent for the vote.
(P 87-31)
Petition 400-490 by Councilmember Earl Hardwick.
RE: The closure of an alley which borders on the east boundary line of Richmond Park, located between 600 South and Sego Avenue and 500 East and Graham Court.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to set a public hearing for Tuesday, March 17, 1987, at 6:20 p.m., which motion carried, all members present voting aye except Councilmember Stoler who was absent for the vote.
(P 87-30)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
MAYOR’S OFFICE
#1. RE: The Mayor’s 1987 State of the City address.
ACTION: None.
DISCUSSION: Mayor DePaulis said Salt Lake City was experiencing the best of times and the worst of times. He said the economy was slow, there was high vacancy rates in the office market, the stagnation of Block 57 remained a source of frustration, the Triad Center filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy, homeless people roamed the streets in record numbers, youth were becoming more difficult to challenge in positive ways, good jobs were hard to find, established neighborhoods were facing new pressures regarding zoning, growth and traffic, and arterial traffic to downtown was at an all-time high state of congestion.
However, Mayor DePaulis said there was a bright side to our economic and environmental picture and we could look with pride at many positive developments in 1986: We were better defining the focus of the Redevelopment Agency, particularly in Block 57; we responded to the Triad situation by explaining that Salt Lake did not fail, a developer did; we initiated a private sector valley-wide response to the homeless plight; we developed Salt Lake City’s niche for economic development to be a strong advocacy role for local business expansion and technology transfer opportunities; we recognized the plight of the Salt Palace and initiated steps for a solution this year; we set up a one-stop information counter to cut red tape for those seeking to build or do business in the City; we opened a volunteer counter as the first step to a volunteer program to involve citizens in city government; we were revitalizing the Community Affairs Office to strengthen and serve neighborhoods more efficiently; we demonstrated that City government was more efficient, leaner, more realistic in its revenue projections, and was now on firmer fiscal ground than ever before, without federal revenue sharing; we undertook the renovation of the City and County Building, which was ahead of schedule and under budget; we financed the construction of 330 new elderly housing units; we entered a public-private partnership to assist in funding a 300-unit housing complex for low to middle income families; we launched a study which would focus on our canyons; the construction of the McDonnell Douglas and the IOMEGA plants reinforced the observation that our economy continued to develop in the high technology and manufacturing fields; with the acquisition of Western by Delta Airlines, the Salt Lake City International Airport was perhaps the brightest spot in our portfolio of growth; and Salt Lake City was selected as one of the 15 cities in the nation to receive the “Most Livable Cities” award.
Mayor DePaulis said the Economic Development Office, with assistance from SRI International, prepared a report of the City’s current trends which provided us with a “likely” future for Salt Lake City as well as a “desired” future. He said this study was the first step toward developing a plan of action and said the “Salt Lake City Tomorrow” program was launched which was a blueprint for action. He said that in planning our future we had to ensure that elected officials looked beyond specialized concerns and pledged themselves toward betterment of the whole community. He said we were moving forward with realism and hope and were setting goals and developing the creative tension and energy to define the future we chose for ourselves and for our children.
(G 87-8)
PUBLIC WORKS
#1. RE: A resolution declaring the intention of Salt Lake City, Utah, to create Special Improvement District No. 40-R-13.
ACTION: Councilmember Hardwick moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adopt Resolution 15 of 1987 declaring the intention of Salt Lake City, Utah, to create Special Improvement District No. 4O-R-13, concrete replacement, involving State and Main Streets from 900 South to 2100 South along with the connecting streets between them and an area in the Avenues from “A” Street to “E” Street between 4th Avenue and 7th Avenue; and setting a time for a protest hearing, which motion carried, all members present voting aye except Councilmember Stoler who was absent for the vote.
(Q 87-3)
#2. RE: A resolution declaring the intention of Salt Lake City, Utah, to create Special Improvement District No. 38-813.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to adopt Resolution 16 of 1987 declaring the intention of Salt Lake City, Utah, to create Special Improvement District No. 38-813, curb and gutter extension, noncontiguous streets; and setting a date for a protest hearing, which motion carried, all members present voting aye except Councilmember Stoler who was absent for the vote.
(Q 87-4)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition 400-441 Kyle Treadway.
RE: A public hearing at 6:30 p.m. to obtain public comment concerning the request to vacate an alley located between Edith Avenue and 1300 South and between 300 and 400 East.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members present voting aye except Councilmember Stoler who was absent for the vote.
Councilmember Hardwick moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to adopt Ordinance 12 of 1987 vacating an alley located in Pendelton Subdivision, Lot 2, Block 25, running east and west between Edith Avenue and 1300 South and between 300 and 400 East, which motion carried, all members present voting aye except Councilmember Stoler who was absent for the vote.
DISCUSSION: Doug Wheelwright, planning and zoning, outlined the area on a map and said it was an “H”-shaped alley and the ends running north and south would remain open. He said there were 18 abutting property owners but the petitioner only obtained 8 signatures and said he was not able to get any other signatures. Mr. Wheelwright indicated that the alley was not needed for access to garages or driveways but said there were utility easements which would have to be retained. Kyle Treadway, petitioner, said by his count he obtained 12 signatures and reaffirmed that the alley was not the sole access to any garages. He said the alley was not maintained, was a junk pile and fire hazard, and there had been problems with vandalism. He said a car could drive through about half the alley but the remainder was impassable. There was no opposition to this petition.
(P 87-5)
Petition 400-367 by Terry Becker, et al.
RE: A public hearing at 6:45 p.m. to obtain public comment concerning the request that the City place the “F-1” Overlay Zone over the Arlington Hills neighborhood lying north of the intersection of 11th Avenue and Virginia Street up to the present “P-1” Foothill Preservation Zone, and change the “F-1” Overlay Zone requirements and the Site Development Ordinance to require larger lot sizes and buildable areas for the area described and in some cases for other in-fill subdivisions.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Hardwick seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Hardwick seconded to accept the petition with the recommendations of the Planning Commission except allow a grandfather clause for existing platted lots to use current requirements; and request that an ordinance be prepared and the planning staff make recommendations to the Council about the most fair and logical point in the subdivision process to grandfather lots, which motion carried, all members present voting aye except Councilmember Stoler who voted nay.
DISCUSSION: Doug Wheelwright, planning and zoning, outlined on a map the Foothill Preservation Zone as currently constituted, the Foothill Overlay Zones, and the area in Arlington Hills which the petitioner requested be placed in the “F-1” Overlay Zone. He said the Planning Commission broadened the petitioned area to include more of the surrounding area. He said the first aspect of the Planning Commission’s recommendation was the rezoning of the petitioned area and the broadened area to the foothill overlay. He indicated that the petitioned area was mainly undeveloped and the majority of the broadened area was developed into subdivisions but there were still some vacant lots.
Mr. Wheelwright said the second major aspect was a text change to the “F-1” Overlay which would expand restrictions. He said the side-yards would be changed from a total of 20 feet to a total of 40 feet with a minimum of 20 feet on one side; rear yard requirements would be changed from 25 feet to 40 feet; and only 50% of the total lot area could be covered with buildings and hard surfacing. He further explained that the planning staff recommended a grandfather lot exemption for lots in previously approved subdivisions but the Planning Commission chose not to recommend this. He said they thought the Board of Adjustment was the proper vehicle to consider appeals to the increased side yard, rear yard and lot coverage requirements.
Mr. Wheelwright said the third aspect of this proposal would be a text change to the site development ordinance. He said currently the ordinance required a buildable area on each lot to be 30 feet deep and 40 feet wide and the proposed change would require lots to be 50 feet deep and 65 feet wide. He said they experienced several cases where lots were approved using the old criteria and there were major problems with development. He explained that another change to the site development ordinance would affect lot size criteria. He said basically the Planning Commission would make the final decision on lot sizes on a subdivision by subdivision basis. He said this would allow the Planning Commission to make new development and in-fill more compatible with the existing development, they would have the ability to consider view corridors, and they could take slope into consideration with the general concept that the lot should be larger as the slope of the land increased. He said they would require minimum lot area to consist totally of property less than 40% slope. Councilmember Fonnesbeck reiterated the three basic changes: Rezoning the petitioned and the broadened areas to the “F-1” zone; changing the foothill overlay zone requirements to enlarge the side yards and rear yard, and limit the amount of coverage, which the Planning Commission recommended apply to all undeveloped lots in the foothill overlay zone with the Board of Adjustment to make exemptions (the Council Staff recommended that any plotted land in the area be grandfathered under the current ordinances); and finally giving the Planning Commission the right to establish the lot sizes of new subdivisions based on criteria which would depend on the surrounding area and the slope - this would apply to any new subdivision in the city.
In reference to the proposed change in the site development ordinance, Councilmember Stoler asked what was meant by “buildable area” (proposed to change from 30 feet by 40 feet to 50 feet by 65 feet). Mr. Wheelwright said this was the portion of a lot on which a person could have buildings, driveways, recreation areas, patios, etc. Larry Livingston, Council Staff, recommended that the Council grandfather existing lots so they wouldn’t have to meet the new requirement for side and rear yards but not height. He explained that if the new requirements were applied to existing lots, which may be too small to accommodate the change, then builders may try to recapture floor space by building the home higher. He said the current ordinance was trying to keep the profiles of homes low enough so views were not blocked.
Terry Becker, petitioner and chairperson of the Greater Avenues Community Council, said foothill development started with little restriction and many subdivisions were not carefully designed. She said ordinances were slowly revised to deal with problems specific to foothill development. She said their petition addressed view protection and asked that larger lots be required to accommodate larger homes. She said development would not be prevented but consideration of the consequences of development would be required in relation to neighborhoods and the aesthetics of the foothills as a whole.
The following people spoke in support of the petition: Renae Pierce, 191 Canyon Road, said SLACC unanimously endorsed the petition. Lynn Pershing, Tomahawk Drive, was concerned with the overcrowded situation in the Ft. Douglas Circle area and didn’t want overdeveloped lots.
The following people expressed concern about the petition: Christopher Robinson, representing land owners in Ensign Downs, said he thought the present ordinances were satisfactory to protect views of current and future residents and the proposed changes were excessive regulation. He expressed his opinion that larger lots were harder to sell because of the cost and said a change in the ordinance would have a negative effect on development in the area which would affect the tax base for the city. John Scharr, Valley View Investment, concurred with Mr. Robinson. Harry McCoy, Claude Hawke Corporation, was concerned about setting a dangerous precedent in developed and operating subdivisions, specifically Arlington Hills which still had some undeveloped lots. He said there had been no problems in the Arlington Hills subdivision and expressed his opinion that the “F-l” zone was imposed to protect the hillsides and not views. He urged the Council to reject the petition. He supported having a grandfather clause for existing plotted lots if the Council approved this request.
Robert Poulson, representing a property owner with Mount Olympus Investment, questioned how the hearing had been noticed in reference to slope requirements. He said he thought the proposed slope requirements were arbitrary and capricious and the present ordinances were adequate. He also expressed concern about the effect an increased requirement for side yards would have on cul-de-sac lots. He said without a grandfather clause there may be a “wrongful taking” of property from the land owners. He said he did not see how the slope of the Avenues could be zoned differently from other hilly areas in the city, such as 1300 South and 1300 East, without it being discriminatory. He suggested that this issue should be tabled until an ordinance was actually developed.
In response to Mr. Poulson, Councilmember Godfrey asked Roger Cutler, city attorney, to respond to the question of discriminatory zoning. Mr. Cutler said there had to be a rational basis for the distinction between areas, which was part of the function of any zoning or land use decision. He indicated that if the Avenues had unique features which needed special protection, this had to be part of the factual determination that the area was in need of this kind of protection as opposed to some other area.
Harden Brienholt, representing a property owner of an undeveloped lot in Arlington Hills, urged the Council to grandfather existing lots which were surrounded by existing development. Carl Duhrstieler, property owner on Christina Way, supported having a grandfather clause for existing lots. Vaughn Brockbank, property owner, suggested that this be tabled until an ordinance had been developed which property owners could respond to. He also thought too much discretion would be left to the Planning Commission. Tom Hawke, Claude Hawke Corporation, considered the proposed changes to be excessive. He expressed his opinion that these changes would leave a lot of ground undeveloped and it would stay of f the tax records.
Reed Clegg, Christina Circle, asked about the extension of 11th Avenue eastward in relation to this issue. Councilmember Fonnesbeck explained that if the extension ever happened and if the land on either side was developed, the lots would have to adhere to the ordinance because the land was in the foothill overlay. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked at what point lots would be grand-fathered. Mr. Wheelwright said they could be grandfathered at the point where the Planning Commission had given preliminary approval or at the point where a subdivision had been submitted to the Planning Commission for preliminary approval. He suggested that lots not be grandfathered if the subdivision was still at the concept level. Councilmember Stoler said he was uncomfortable with making a decision at this point because of the economic issues. He suggested that the Council take time to get more figures on the economic impact of the proposed changes.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck said she felt strongly that the residents of a neighborhood, and not economic factors, should determine the quality of life in a neighborhood. She said this area was unique because it was the foothills, the watershed, and a wildlife refuge, which justified unique protection. She said tax money could not be the overriding factor. She felt strongly that existing platted lots should be grandfathered but also felt that if the land was going to be protected it had to be done now. She said residents in a neighborhood had the right to fight to control development.
(P 87-4)
Petition 400-456 by the City-County Board of Health.
RE: A public hearing at 7:00 p.m. to obtain public comment concerning the request that Salt Lake City close Edison Street which abuts the Board of Health property between 600 and 700 South.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Hardwick seconded to adopt Ordinance 13 of 1987 closing Edison Street between 600 and 700 South, which motion carried, all members present voting aye except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who voted nay.
DISCUSSION: Doug Wheelwright, planning and zoning, outlined the area on a map and said the street varied in width from 16.5 feet to 25 feet to 20 feet. He said the proposal was to close the entire length of Edison Street and the portion by the health clinic would be used for parking. He said the remainder could either be used by the Utah State Employees Credit Union or Deseret Industries. He said the Street could be effectively eliminated and all the abutting property owners agreed. He said the Real Property Manager recommended that the property be sold to the abutting property owners but the Development Services Director recommended to just close the street without reference to selling the property.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked what would be done with the remainder of the street if the property was closed and the Board of Health used their portion for parking. Mr. Wheelwright said the city could receive future requests to purchase the property. He said the Deseret Industries property would really be the only abutting property owner that could use the street since the state had developed without it. He said when a building request was received the situation could then be addressed. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked why the city would want to close the street and not do anything with it. Craig Peterson, director of development services, explained that if the board of health property wasn’t used for health purposes the ownership would revert back to the city. Mr. Peterson indicated that it would be to Salt Lake City’s advantage to keep the closed portion of the street since the city owned the health department property. He suggested that if at some future point the building was not used for health purposes and reverted back to the city, the closed street could enhance the parcel of land. He recommended that the closed portion of the street be put under the same agreement as the rest of the parcel.
Kent Fitzgerald, deputy director of the City-County Board of Health, said the city gave them the property to use as a public health facility until such time as they no longer had a cooperative agreement with the city at which time the use of the property would revert back to the city. He said the City-County Board of Health had purchased adjoining parcels of property in order to Increase parking and they would use the closed portion of the street for parking too.
Bernice Cook, People’s Freeway, said it was difficult to get in and out of the current parking lot because there was no room to turn around. She agreed that the street should be closed and used for parking. Councilmember Stoler asked about the Council’s policy regarding street closures. Mr. Wheelwright said they usually closed and obtained compensation. Councilmember Hardwick said he thought that as long as the street was part of city property there wasn’t a problem with just closing it. He indicated that he did not know the city owned the health department property; Councilmember Mabey said he thought the property had been sold to the county. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said the city gave the property to the county.
Roger Cutler, city attorney, explained that the property for the board of health building was not totally given to the county without compensation. He said they were supposed to provide Salt Lake City with a commensurate level of employee health checks without charge for 50 years. He suggested that with the closure of this street the city may want to remind the county that Salt Lake City was giving more than its share on a number of services including support for the heal th department.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck said she was angry with the way the county dealt with the board of health. She said the taxpayers paid the city allotment and their part of the county allotment for the board of health. She explained that the county charged the board of health for support services they provided to them and she thought this was a problem. She was concerned about the city doing more than its share to support the board of health and getting fewer services than demanded by the citizens. She suggested that if perhaps the city demanded payment for the street this would bring about a discussion with the county commissioners.
(P 87-15)
1987-1988 Community Development Block Grant Funds.
RE: A public hearing at 7:15 p.m. to obtain public comment concerning the general housing and community development needs prior to allocation of the City’s Community Development Block Grant funding of $3,368,000.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
DISCUSSION: The following people spoke in support of funding for various projects: Jerrie Hofeling asked for more than 5% of the total CDBG funds for buildings and facilities in order to obtain a greenhouse to train developmentally disabled people. Opal Clarke supported funding for the Work Activity Center which served handicapped adults. She said that 25% of those served lived in Salt Lake City and said they had funding commitments from other entities. She said they needed a new building. Geneva Hall, mother of a handicapped person requiring total care, supported funding for the Work Activity Center.
Jeanette Drews supported funding for the Work Activity Center. Gerald Nichols supported $300,000 in funding to establish centers for the homeless in Salt Lake. He said his architectural office had volunteered to help. Sharon Abegglen, HORP, supported funding for the Housing Outreach Rental Program. She said they were currently serving 2500 families in finding permanent housing and 88% were emergency housing clients. Suzanne Goldsmith, Travelers Aid, supported funding for shelters for the homeless. She said they needed more storage space, bathroom facilities and privacy. She said they had asked for funds from other cities.
Charles Johnson, president of the United Way, supported funding for shelters for the homeless. Councilmember Kirk asked about commitments from other cities. A member of the audience indicated that 5 of the other 9 cities had pledged 10% of their allotment based on Salt Lake City’s 10%. He also mentioned that they were asking the unincorporated county for $200,000 and the incorporated entities for another $100,000. Virginia Walton supported funding for the Westside Food Pantry and said their clientele was increasing. Pauline Valdez supported continued funding for the Westside Food Bank.
Bob Leggat supported funding for the First Step House, a low-income, non-profit alcoholism treatment center which catered mainly to homeless alcoholics. He said their building needed a new roof and they were asking for $40,000 to finance the improvements. Claudette Reeves, St. Vincent De Paul, supported funding for shelters for the homeless. Celeste Schow, executive director of the Children’s Museum, thanked the Council for past funding for the Children’s Museum and said they may ask for funds in the future. She said they were looking at long-term solutions to the funding problems. Roger Borgenicht supported funding for ASSIST and said this program provided architectural planning and home repair services to groups and individuals who could not normally afford them. He said their emergency home repair program in 1985-86 did over 400 repair jobs for very low-income people in Salt Lake City. He said they also provided technical assistance to non-profit and community groups. Jim Donnelly, 803 West 100 South, supported continued funding for the Euclid neighborhood area improvements. Chuck Whyte, CDAC Committee, urged support for the low-income housing proposal s.
Param Bedi supported funding for the ASSIST program and said without It volunteers wouldn’t be provided with materials or space. Dale McCormick supported funding for ASSIST. Michale Lamoreaux, president of the Board of Directors for the Work Activity Center, supported funding for the Work Activity Center and said the individuals served were not eligible for other programs. He said they were soliciting community businesses for support and had received support from other community groups and cities.
Thomas King, volunteer member on the Board of Directors for the Work Activity Center, supported funding for a building for the Work Activity Center. He said they would need a total of $700,000 to $800,000. He said currently they had approximately $250,000 available and additional amounts had been pledged. He said they were requesting $200,000 from Salt Lake City. Ira Ames, 363 West 400 North, thanked the Council for funding improvements in the Pugsley area and asked them to consider funding improvements in the area between 300 and 400 West on 400 North.
Mary Allen, HORP, thanked the Council for their support and asked the Council to support housing programs. Three people who did not wish to speak submitted public hearing registration forms which indicated their support for the Work Activity Center. Stephanie Loker, capital planning and programming, said the community development and housing needs had not diminished. She said all applications had been reviewed by the Community Development Advisory Committee and had made their recommendations.
She said the Mayor would look at the CDAC recommendations and the Council would probably receive the recommendations about mid April. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if the Council could get a list of those who applied. Ms. Loker also mentioned that the city may get an additional $500,000. Councilmember Stoler asked if CDAC’s recommendations included the $500,000. She indicated they did. Ms. Loker said the Council would have a public hearing the first Tuesday of May to make their preliminary recommendation and then finalize it the next week.
(T 87-1)
The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.