PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1984
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1984, AT 5:00 P.M. IN ROOM 211 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: RONALD J. WHITEHEAD ALICE SHEARER GRANT MABEY IONE M. DAVIS SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER EARL F. HARDWICK.
Council Chairperson Ronald Whitehead presided at and conducted the meeting.
POLICY SESSION
Ms. Leigh von der Esch, council executive director, briefed the Council on the agenda.
The City Council then met as the Redevelopment Agency.
The policy session adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1984, AT 6:00 P.M. IN ROOM 301 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: RONALD J. WHITEHEAD ALICE SHEARER GRANT MABEY IONE M. DAVIS SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER EARL F. HARDWICK.
Albert Haines, chief administrative officer, and Roger Cutler, city attorney, were present at the meeting.
Council Chairperson Ronald Whitehead presided at this meeting.
Councilmember Edward Parker conducted the meeting.
Invocation was given by Police Chaplain Michael McOmber.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes:
Councilmember Hardwick moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to approve the minutes of the Salt Lake City Council for the regular meetings held Tuesday, February 14, 1984, and Thursday, February 16, 1984, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(M 84-1)
PETITIONS
Petition 8 of 1982 by Union Pacific Land Resources Corporation (Upland).
RE: Centennial Park Annexation No. 4, annexation of 650 acres of property located approximately between 1300 South and 2100 South and 4800 West and 5600 West.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Ordinance 15 of 1984, extending the limits of Salt Lake City to include the “Salt Lake Centennial Park Annex No. 4”; zoning the same Industrial “M-lA” by amending the use district map as adopted by Section 51-12-2 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965; amending the Salt Lake City School District and School Precinct Boundaries Map, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Shearer who was absent when the vote was taken.
(P 82-171)
Petition 324 of 1982 by Patric McGarvey, et al.
RE: An ordinance effectuating the vacation of an alley between 1700 South and Blaine Avenue from 400 to 500 East.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Ordinance 16 of 1984, vacating that 170.33’ of the east/west leg of a 14’ “T” shaped public alley in the Avondale Park Subdivision (located between 1700 South and Blame Avenue from 400-500 East) as it runs from approximately 455 to 475 East in Salt Lake City, Utah, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Shearer who was absent when the vote was taken.
(P 83-471)
Petition 400-134 of 1983 by Little America Hotel Corporation.
RE: Requesting the vacation of Carson Street which runs from 4th South approximately 148 feet west of Main Street.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to schedule a public hearing for Tuesday, March 13, 1984, at 7:30 p.m. to discuss this petition, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Shearer who was absent when the vote was taken.
(P 84-11)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
#1. RE: Allocation of $4,628,840 of 10th Year Community Development Block Grant funds.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to schedule a public hearing for Tuesday, March 13, 1984, at 7:45 p.m. to discuss the allocation of 10th Year CDBG funds, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Shearer who was absent when the vote was taken.
(T 83-28)
#2. RE: Appropriation of $10,000 from 8th Year Community Block Grant Funds Operating Fund to assist the Travelers Aid Society in the renovation of their Shelter Project facilities at 353 and 349 South 300 West.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to approve the request for the appropriation of $10,000 from 8th Year Community Block Grant Funds Operating Fund to assist the Travelers Aid Society in the renovation of their Shelter Project facilities at 353 and 349 South 300 West. The motion was not voted on at this time. Councilmember Shearer indicated that this $10,000 would have to be used for operating expense because the renovation has been completed. She said that the Council had been informed that completed renovation is not an eligible CD project.
Councilmember Davis asked how this change would affect the Society since they need money for renovation. Mr. Heber Tippets, representing the Travelers Aid Society, said that other money received which would typically be used for operations will be used to pay for renovation.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to amend the motion to assist in the operation instead of the renovation of the Shelter Project, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to approve the motion, as amended, for the appropriation of $10,000 from 8th Year Community Block Grant Funds Operating Fund to assist the Travelers Aid Society in the operation of their Shelter Project facilities at 353 and 349 South 300 West, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Shearer expressed concern about this becoming an annual stipend. She hoped that either this would receive firm funding or would be included with private ongoing projects that the city could support.
(T 84-2)
FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
#1. RE: An inducement resolution for an Industrial Revenue Bond for Tennessee Plastic Moulding Corp., a Tennessee Corporation, in the amount of $3,500,000, to retool an existing 80,000 square-foot building located on seven acres at approximately 1850 West 1500 South, to manufacture, assemble and distribute finished plastic products for Caleco Corporation.
Without objection, Councilmember Parker referred the inducement resolution to the Budget, Finance, and Administration Committee for March 6, 1984.
(Q 84-3)
#2. RE: A public hearing relating to an Industrial Revenue Bond for Headlund Ltd.
Without objection, Councilmember Parker scheduled a public hearing for March 13, 1984, at 6:00 p.m. for Headlund Ltd., relating to a $1,000,000 Industrial Revenue Bond.
(Q 83-17)
POLICE DEPARTMENT
#1. RE: An ordinance amending Sections 20-13-5, 20-17-12, 20-30-5, 20-35-6, 30-1-31, 30-6-2, 43-3-5, 44-3-6, 46-5-98(4), of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to various application fees of the Salt Lake City Police Department.
Without objection, Councilmember Parker referred this ordinance to the consent agenda for March 6, 1984.
(O 84-7)
PUBLIC WORKS
#1. RE: A resolution authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County and E. T. Technologies for soils regeneration (process non-hazardous industrial wastes into soil conditioner at the landfill site).
Without objection, Councilmember Parker referred the resolution authorizing the execution of the agreement to the consent agenda for March 6, 1984.
(C 84-31)
#2. RE: A resolution to create Salt Lake City, Utah, Curb and Gutter Extension No. 38-750, numerous residential streets in the southwest and eastern portions of the city.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Fonnesheck seconded to adopt Resolution 23 of 1984 creating Salt Lake City, Utah, Curb and Gutter Extension No. 38-750, as amended by removing Sunnyside Avenue, 700 North Street, and Andrew Avenue from the District, and authorizing the construction of improvements as set forth in the notice of intention and creating the curb and gutter extension, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 84-1)
#3. RE: A resolution to create Salt Lake City, Utah, Curb and Gutter Extension No. 38-728, Main Street beautification extension from 300 to 400 South.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Resolution 24 of 1984 creating Salt Lake City, Utah, Curb and Gutter Extension No. 38-728 and authorizing the construction of improvements as set forth in the notice of intention and creating the curb and gutter extension, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 84-2)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Federal Heights Alley Refuse Collection.
RE: Public comments concerning the proposed creation of the Federal Heights Alley Refuse Collection Special Service District.
A public hearing was held at 6:00 p.m. to receive public comments about this issue. Don Piepgrass, Department of Public Works, said the purpose of the hearing was to accept protests from residential property owners within the proposed service area in order to continue the compilation of protests. Ray Broadbent, 414 South 1300 East, said he understood that if the district is implemented it will continue until December 31, 1986. He asked if there would be a hearing at that time before it is either discontinued or extended. He was not sure that the district needed to be created because he had observed the refuse collection in his alley and said that a single operator can operate in the alley.
Councilmember Fonnsebeck explained that some time ago a city-wide policy was implemented to discontinue all garbage collection in alleys. There were problems with the widths of specific alleys and also with ingress and egress. When this policy was implemented in the Federal Heights area, Ms. Fonnesbeck said that several people indicated to her that they wanted alley refuse collection continued. It was explained that this could be continued if the people were willing to pay for the special collection. Ms. Fonnesbeck said that if 51% of the property owners are against this district then it will not be created.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that if the district is created a board will be formed and they can request another hearing in the future to reconsider the district. If the board has an indication from the residents that a hearing is not needed then the district could be continued automatically. The decision about having another hearing is up to the board and the residents. Dale Gill, 108 Virginia Street, said he understood that this service would only apply to those who petitioned for it. Mr. Gill explained that his property does not have access to an alley although he is included in the district. He also said that some properties abut an alley but the residents have not had garbage collection from the alley nor do they want to start collection from the alley. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that the service would apply to everyone in the district but particular streets can be excluded if the residents protest against the district. Mr. Piepgrass said that some of the properties are not contiguous to an alley so these properties will not be assessed. Properties not abutting an alley will receive curb side garbage collection and will be excluded from the district. Albert Haines, chief administrative officer, said that those people who have not had alley collection but have access to an alley will be affected by the creation of the district. Those not contiguous to an alley will not be considered.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck indicated that if the residents abutting an alley have not had alley collection and do not want it then if at least 51% of those people protest, the street can be excluded. Beth Beck, 132 University and owner of 124 and 112 University Street, and Dr. Paul Nicholes, 330 South 1300 East, said that they have never had alley collection and they do not have access to the alley. Councilmember Fonnesbeck did not believe that there was ever an intent to start alley collection where there wasn’t alley collection in the past. She indicated that the Council can exclude streets and she felt that if there has never been alley collection there is no reason to start.
Annie Ballantyne, 1324 East 1st South, said that her garbage has always been collected from the alley because according to the refuse collector it was better for them to collect the garbage from the alley. She felt that it was ridiculous to have the block between 1st and 2nd South and 1300 East and University Street included in this district since all those people who face the University cannot use the alley because of a wall. Art Swindle, chairman of the Greater Avenues Community Council and resident of the Federal Heights area, speaking for several individuals, said that those who currently have alley collection wish to continue the practice and are willing to pay for the service.
Robert Jones, 169 South 1300 East, indicated that even though he has had alley collection for many years he prefers curb side collection so that a fee is not charged. Mr. Jones said that the trucks have a hard time maneuvering in the alley and he did not want the district created. Palmer DePaulis, director of public works, indicated that all the property owners in the proposed area were notified of this special service district to be sure that no one was missed who would be affected by this district. He said that some residents don’t abut an alley and this will be considered. The exact number of residents abutting an alley will be considered for protest purposes.
Mr. DePaulis also said that alley collection was not being encouraged where it has not been done in the past. He felt that there could be enough flexibility, at least on a block-by-block basis, to meet everyone’s needs.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing and take into consideration the names of the protestors, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmembers Shearer and Fonnesheck who were absent when the vote was taken.
(Q 83-7)
Petition 400-160 of 1984 by R. L. Wood and Company.
RE: A request that property located at 2010, 2016, and 2022 South 2100 East be rezoned from a Residential “R-2” to an “R-7” classification.
A public hearing was held at 6:15 p.m. to consider this petition. Mark Hafey, Department of Planning and Zoning, outlined the area on a map. He said that the property in question is located on the west side of 2100 East and 160 feet north of 2100 South. The northwest corner of 2100 South and 2100 East is zoned Business “B-3”. The petitioner is requesting a zoning change from “R-2” to “R-7” which allows for multiple residential units, depending on the size of the property, and allows as a conditional use, which requires a special hearing, limited offices. The zoning across the street is Business “B-3” and Residential “R-6”. An “R-7” zone allows for structures to be 75 feet high. The “R-6” zone, across the street, also allows for a 75 foot height limitation but is developed as multiple units which are two and three story buildings.
Councilmember Whitehead asked if the zoning change would constitute spot zoning since there is not presently “R-7” zoning in the area. Mr. Hafey indicated that the zoning change could be referred to as transitional zoning. He also said that by a 4 to 2 vote the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that a public hearing be held to change the zoning. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked how the zoning change would fit within the master plan of the area. Mr. Hafey said the master plan indicates that the area will remain residential, however the boundary is not firm so the business zone could be extended or the zoning could be kept residential. The master plan does not specify that the area will become commercial but it is a transitional area.
Ed Fankhauser, petitioner, showed a preliminary drawing of a two-story office building proposed to be constructed on the property in question. He said there will be a landscaped buffer zone on 2100 East and proper retaining walls and buffer zones in the back. Mr. Fankhauser indicated that there is an existing five-year-old duplex on the property which will be remodeled to be used as an office. He also said that there are two old homes, 40 to 50 years old, which will be destroyed (he showed pictures of the run-down condition of the homes). Mr. Fankhauser said that all the units in the area are multiple dwellings with the exception of the two old houses. For this reason he did not feel that the “R-7” zone would be spot zoning. He also reiterated that the plans for the office structure will have to be approved by the Zoning Commission. Mr. Fankhauser said that the residential area abutting the property will not be affected because there are no thoroughfares. He also said that he has received signed affidavits from the neighbors behind his property giving their approval to the zoning change. He indicated that the neighbors were tired of the run-down condition of the property and favored the change. Mr. Fankhauser said that his partner, Mr. Wood, has talked with property owners in the surrounding area and he received no objection to the zoning change.
Councilmember Whitehead expressed concern that the property is not being maintained. He was also concerned that the run-down condition of properties would be used as a means to get zoning changes in order to improve property. He questioned why the property is not being maintained. Mr. Fankhauser said that he did not own any of the property but had an option to purchase the property conditional upon the zoning change. He felt that a better use for the property would be a maintained structure which fits in with the existing conditions of the area, the “B-3” and R-6” zoning.
Keith Jeppsen, 1990 South 2100 East, said that he was not contacted by the petitioners about this proposed change. He expressed the same concern as Councilmember Whitehead that the property is not being maintained. Mr. Jeppsen was concerned with the increase in traffic that the office building would generate and he said he was in favor of keeping the property zoned “R-2”. Martin Brixen, 2155 South 2100 East, said that in the application for changing the zoning of property in Salt Lake City, the applicant must indicate the reasons why the present zoning is not proper for the area and must describe changes which have taken place in the area which justify a change in zoning.
Mr. Brixen said that he was not aware of why “R-2” zoning is not proper for the area and was not aware of any changes in the area which would justify a change to “R-7” zoning. No “R-7” zoning presently exists, therefore he felt the change would be spot zoning. Mr. Brixen also reiterated that if this request is granted four families will be displaced and more than 50 cars will be introduced into an already congested intersection. He felt that enough business zoning exists along 2100 South east of 2100 East and some of the area is still undeveloped. He opposed the requested zoning change.
Rawlins Young, chairman of the Sugar House Community Council, said that the surrounding neighborhood had not been notified about the zoning change (in the area of Redondo Place, Sylvan Avenue, and Hollywood Avenue). He indicated that in the past this neighborhood has strongly protested encroachment. Mr. Fankhauser said that the people directly involved with this change have given their approval. He also said that this is not commercial property. It is an office building and businesses would not be allowed.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Hardwick seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Davis felt that a decision should be postponed until the Council could view the property in question. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that viewing this property would not convince her that this change is good planning. She said that business use would be moved off 2100 South into a residential area. The city is investing over $l,000,000 in Sugar House and the proposed development would be welcomed in Sugar House. If this request is approved, she felt that it would be injurious to the neighborhood and would detract from the improvements being made in Sugar House.
Ms. Fonnesbeck felt that the zoning change would put development in an area where it does not belong. She mentioned the Council’s policy about encouraging housing and said this would destroy four units and would be detrimental on all the housing with which it comes in contact. This is also not an area where the Council wants development. Ms. Fonnesbeck reiterated that no other “R-7” zoning is in the area. She felt that “B-3” zoning is a problem and said that approval of this request would extend the problem. Councilmember Fonnesbeck felt that this change would be contrary to every Council policy regarding zoning changes.
Councilmember Shearer had a question about who was notified and had a question about the Planning and Zoning Commission vote. Ms. Shearer indicated that she would feel more comfortable having these two questions answered before she made a decision. Mr. Hafey indicated that notices regarding the Planning Commission hearing were sent to a large area and no one opposed the rezoning at that time except Rawlins Young. Councilmember Parker said that he was sympathetic with the need to preserve the “R-2” neighborhood but he was not sure the run-down condition of the homes in this area would be solved by rejecting this petition and the request for “R-7” zoning.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to make a decision in 30 days after the Council has viewed the property, which motion failed, all members voting nay except Councilmember Shearer and Davis who voted aye.
Councilmember Whitehead felt that there were potential problems with destroying homes to rid an area of blight.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Hardwick seconded to deny Petition 400-160 of 1984 requesting that property at 2010, 2016, and 2022 South 2100 East be rezoned from an “R-2” to an “R-7” classification, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Davis who voted nay.
(P 84-8)
City and County Building.
RE: Public comments concerning the disposition of the City and County Building.
A public hearing was held at 6:30 p.m. to receive public comments about this issue. Councilmember Parker introduced the Salt Lake County Commission, Mike Stewart, Bart Barker, and Tom Shimizu. Commissioner Stewart said that restoration of the City and County Building has been a concern since the 1930’s but it has only been within the last decade that major monies have been put into the rehabilitation of the building. However, this has not been done to the satisfaction of the basic and critical safety needs. Mr. Stewart said that the City and County Building is the oldest nondenominational public building in the state. Representatives from the County Commission and City Council were asked to chair a group study with professionals in order to evaluate various options for the use of the building.
Commissioner Stewart said that there is mutual concern about the preservation and the future of the building. He said that Salt Lake County supports the city’s effort regarding funding formulas. Commissioner Stewart indicated that the county’s space-needs study is a separate issue from the future of the City and County Building. Commissioner Barker said the spirit of this study has been one of making permanent decisions and reaching long-range solutions about the City and County Building. The decision regarding the City and County Building should be in context with the decision on the overall county space needs but the building should stand on its own merits and not be tainted by less historical considerations which have to be reviewed. He said that the issue of the county’s space needs could be addressed at a separate occasion.
Phil Erickson, executive assistant, gave a brief chronological history of the study. In April of 1982, the study committee was formed and the purpose of the committee was to evaluate all the various aspects of the City and County Building. In November of 1982, 18 architectural firms responded to the request for statements of interest and in March of 1983 the joint venture team of Dean L. Gustavson Associates and the Ehrenkrantz Group was selected to complete a City-County Building restoration study. The study was completed in October of 1983. Ten options for the disposition of the building were explored ranging from complete historical restoration to demolition and construction of a new government building. Costs for the options ranged from $30 million to $60 million.
Mr. Erickson said that the recommendation of the consultants called for the rehabilitation of the building at a cost of $30.3 million. It is the opinion of the architects that the building is old but well constructed and if repaired will last for another 90 years. Albert Haines, chief administrative officer, said the administration recommended that the Council and Commission render a decision around April 1, 1984. This is suggested primarily because there is a time frame extending for at least 1$ months regarding the housing or relocation of offices. The identification of structural deficiencies in the building, principally the question of potential liability, has created the need to proceed in a decisive manner. Mr. Haines said that with the submission of the various feasibility studies, including the financing options, sufficient information is now in place to pursue that course. Cost is a consideration that will have to be made whether or not the building is rehabilitated. Space will have to be provided and it will cost about $30 million.
Mr. Haines reiterated a statement made by Mayor Wilson that the administration of Salt Lake City is firmly in favor of restoration of the City and County Building according to the recommendations that have been received. It is the city’s intention to make every effort possible to support the Mayor’s decision and encourage the Council to follow suit. The following citizens spoke in favor of the restoration of the City and County Building: Hermoine Jex, Land Use and Natural Resources Committee of Utah Neighborhoods Mark Pedroza James Murphy Allen Roberts, National Trust for Historic Preservation Henry Whiteside, Landmarks Committee Bernice Cook Jeff Welch, University of Utah Associated Student Chapter/American Institute of Architects Alice Steiner, Utah Heritage Foundation Mike Stransky, American Institute of Architects Art Swindle, Greater Avenues Community Council Bill Ligety Barbara Cowley, American Society of Interior Designers Andy Shearer Ann Marie Boyden, Utah Society, American Institute of Architects Stephen Smith, Assist Inc. Mike Smith Carol Jean Owens and daughter Stephanie Churchill, National Trust for Historic Preservation Laura Young Wells Matthew Rogers James Webster, Architectural Historian/Land Planner Don Tucker Mustafa Kanishka, American Institute of Architects.
These citizens agreed that the City and County Building is a very historical building which represents the seat of local government. All agreed that if the building is demolished it could never be duplicated and historically much would be lost. New buildings are not necessarily better, functionally or architecturally, and it is time to start preserving historical buildings. The building was a gift to Salt Lake City from its ancestors and it should be preserved for future generations. The City and County Building is a link to the past and is a symbol of the secular values and traditions which built the city. It is also a landmark which distinguishes Salt Lake City and gives the city a sense of identity.
Comments were made about a dangerous precedent being established if this historical building is destroyed. Many agreed that rehabilitation would be worth the cost. The construction of a new building would cost about the same but there are benefits to be gained by restoration of the City and County Building. Many viewed government as the stewards of this building and felt that government representatives had the responsibility to preserve the City and County Building.
Councilmember Parker said that earlier Norma Matheson had indicated her support for the preservation of the City and County Building. Mayor Maloney, on behalf of West Valley City, expressed concern about the burden which would be placed upon the people if a bond is passed in order to restore the building. He said he was not suggesting that the city should not retain their heritage or that a bond issue shouldn’t be voted upon by the people. He was concerned that every time an additional mill is placed in West Valley it generates approximately $300,000 which leaves the city. With the recent flood bond, over $4.5 million left West Valley City. Mayor Maloney said his city would be concerned if they became part of a restoration plan that had to spend $30 million for the City and County Building and then were faced with another bond issue for $30 or $40 million in order to house and consolidate agencies in county government. Mayor Maloney said that they did not want to be bonded to pay for the City and County Building.
Written comments were received from the following individuals (these comments are on file in the Office of the City Recorder): Hermoine Jex, Land Use and Natural Resources Committee of Utah Neighborhoods Russell Lowe Arthur Swindle, Greater Avenues Community Council James Davis, Mayor of South Salt Lake William Frazier, National Trust for Historic Preservation Officers of the University of Utah, Associated Student Chapter/American Institute of Architects Don Faulkner, Assist Inc. Michael Stransky, American Institute of Architects.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck said she was pleased with the consulting team which had been selected to study the situation of the City and County Building. Ms. Fonnesbeck said that she has a fondness for historic buildings but at the beginning of the study she realized her responsibility to the people of Salt Lake City and County. She knew the possibility existed that the cost of restoration may be prohibitive in which case it would have been hard to justify to the citizens the need to save the building.
Ms. Fonnesbeck said that money will have to spent whether it is on the City and County Building or for a new office building. Ms. Fonnesbeck agreed that government has the responsibility to protect this building because it belongs to many generations and who can decide if a historic building should be destroyed for the future. The decision to demolish the building can only be made once. She was relieved that the study showed the financial feasibility of restoration. Councilmember Whitehead said that the City and County Building represents many things to many people and he agreed with the sentiments expressed about the importance of the building. Councilmember Parker said that a decision would be rendered in approximately two months.
(G 84-3)
The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.