PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
REGULAR AND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 1988
The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met as the Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, January 19, 1988, at 5:00 p.m. in Suite 300, City Hall, 324 South State.
The following Council Members were present: Florence Bittner Thomas Godfrey Wayne Horrocks Roselyn Kirk Sydney Fonnesbeck Willie Stoler Alan Hardman.
Council Chairperson Godfrey presided at the meeting.
BRIEFING SESSION
Linda Hamilton, Executive Director, briefed the Council on the evening’s agenda. Council Member Godfrey said he had not received a staff recommendation concerning a resolution amending the staffing document for the Office of the City Council to eliminate the Land Use Analyst position and increase the Budget Analyst position to two authorized full-time equivalent employees. Ms. Hamilton said the proposal was developed without any request for staff input and so she assumed no staff work was desired. She added that it appeared as if Council Members had concluded that Staff could not provide an objective recommendation.
Council Member Godfrey asked Ms. Hamilton to offer a staff recommendation. Ms. Hamilton said when she began work for the City Council more than one year ago, she was inexperienced in municipal government. At the time, she was unaware of the importance of land use issues but during the past year she had discovered that roughly 50 percent of all ordinances considered by the City Council were related to land use. All the other types of ordinances comprised the other 50 percent. Since passing ordinances was one of the Council’s three primary responsibilities and land use comprised more than half of those ordinances, she said her recommendation was that the resolution be denied.
Ms. Hamilton told the Council that a resolution authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement amendment between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County amending the agreement of October 5, 1982, raising the Health Department charge to a violator for a citation, should be referred to Committee of the Whole. She said that although she served on the City/County Board of Health she had not been briefed on the resolution. She added that it was her understanding that the resolution was designed to raise the fee for violation of emission control standards from $10.00 to $20.00. Half of that revenue was retained by the City. Ms. Hamilton told the Council that an ordinance enacting Sections 25-11B-1 through 25-118-17 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, relating to collective bargaining between Salt Lake City Corporation and its employees; and a resolution rescinding the Third Amended Bargaining Resolution, Resolution No. 41 of 1984, dated April 10, 1984, should be referred to the Mayor.
The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in regular session on Tuesday, January 19, 1988, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Suite 300, City Hall, 324 South State.
The following Council Members were present: Florence Bittner Thomas Godfrey Wayne Horrocks Roselyn Kirk Sydney Fonnesbeck Willie Stoler Alan Hardman.
Mayor Palmer DePaulis, Roger Cutler, city attorney, Kathryn Marshall, city recorder, and Lynda Domino, chief deputy city recorder, were present.
Council Chairperson Godfrey presided at and conducted the meeting.
The Council led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes.
Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Stoler seconded to approve the minutes of the Salt Lake City Council for the regular meeting held Tuesday, January 12, 1988, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Horrocks who was absent for the vote.
(M 88-1)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
#1. RE: An ordinance enacting Sections 25-11B-1 through 25-118-17 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to collective bargaining between Salt Lake City Corporation and its employees.
ACTION: Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to refer the ordinance back to the Mayor, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Horrocks who was absent for the vote.
(O 88-2)
#2. RE: A resolution rescinding the Third Amended Labor Bargaining Resolution, Resolution No. 41 of 1984, dated April 10, 1984.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Stoler seconded to refer the resolution back to the Mayor, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Horrocks who was absent for the vote.
(R 88-2)
#3. RE: The West Valley City/Salt Lake City boundary adjustment.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Bittner seconded to adopt Ordinance 12 of 1988 recognizing the adoption of amendment 13.1 to the Master Annexation Policy Declaration; adjusting the boundaries of Salt Lake City and West Valley City by annexing and de-annexing certain areas located around the 2100 South freeway; zoning the annexed area Industrial “M-1A” by amending the Use District Map as adopted by Section 51-12-1 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(T 86-1)
CITY COUNCIL
#1. RE: The West Temple Gateway Redevelopment Area rules of participation and redevelopment plan.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Stoler seconded to adopt Ordinance 10 of 1988 approving rules governing participation and preference by owners, operators of businesses and tenants in the West Temple Gateway Redevelopment Project Area as adopted by the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Horrocks who was absent for the vote.
Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Bittner seconded to adopt Ordinance 11 of 1988 adopting the West Temple Gateway Redevelopment Project Area Redevelopment Plan entitled, “West Temple Gateway Neighborhood Development Plan”, dated August 1, 1987, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(T 87-18)
#2. RE: A resolution amending the staffing document for the Office of the City Council to eliminate the Land Use Analyst position and increase the Budget Analyst position to two authorized full time equivalent employees.
ACTION: Councilmember Stoler moved and Councilmember Bittner seconded to suspend the rules and on first reading adopt Resolution 6 of 1988 amending the employee staffing document for the Office of the City Council to eliminate the Land Use Analyst position and increase the Budget Analyst position to two authorized full time equivalent employees; any reduction in Council Staff required by the amended staffing authorization shall occur on or before February 6, 1988, and the Executive Director of the Council shall begin recruiting immediately for an employee with qualifications focusing on budgeting process, accounting skills, and governmental auditing, with appropriate professional and educational credentials.
Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to make a substitute motion to delay eliminating the Land Use Analyst position and reconsider the issue in three months, and hire a consulting firm to assist with the budget analysis from March 15, 1988, through June 15, 1988, which motion failed, Councilmembers Fonnesbeck, Godfrey, and Kirk voted aye and Councilmembers Bittner, Horrocks, Hardman, and Stoler vote nay.
The Council voted on the original motion, which motion carried, Councilmembers Bittner, Horrocks, Hardman, and Stoler voted aye and Councilmembers Fonnesbeck, Godfrey and Kirk voted nay.
DISCUSSION: Councilmember Stoler said he wanted to adopt this by motion rather than resolution and asked Roger Cutler, city attorney to explain the difference. Mr. Cutler explained that in the past the Council had adopted the staffing document by ordinance but this procedure was changed to allow the Council to adopt the staffing document by resolution and the question was if the staffing document was adopted by resolution did it need to be amended by resolution or could it be amended by a motion. He said if the amendment was adopted by resolution it would be subject to veto by the Mayor but a motion would not be subject to the Mayor’s veto power. He said in his judgment, because the ordinance said the Council could adopt a staffing document as part of the budget document or otherwise and because there was no state law requiring a staffing document, he thought the Council could amend the staffing document by motion. However, he distributed a recent court case from the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals which raised a question about immunity.
He explained that in the court case a city council adopted a personnel action by motion rather than resolution and they were not entitled to the grant of legislative immunity. He said legislators were immune from lawsuits when they acted in their legislative capacity and the court ruled that acting by virtue of a motion was not acting in their legislative capacity so they were subject to 1983 liability. He said the court made the point that if they acted in legislative capacity the action would be subjected to the check and balance process of the administrative veto. He said he thought it was legal to act by motion but urged the Council to adopt this by resolution.
Councilmember Godfrey asked Councilmember Stoler why he wanted to adopt this by motion rather than by resolution. Mr. Stoler explained that adopting this by resolution would put the issue before the Mayor and the Mayor would be in a position with pressure to veto the action. He said he didn’t want to put the Mayor in this position. Councilmember Kirk suggested delaying the elimination of this position and reconsidering it in three months, and suggested hiring a consultant to help with budget analysis from March 15 through June 15. She said this would give the new Council members three months to hear from their constituents about this issue and then they could make their own decision rather than relying on other Councilmembers opinions. She said this compromise would also allow for additional help during the budget process and said that a new budget analyst in the Council Office would not get up to speed any faster than a consultant. She said if at the end of three months the new members felt the Land Use Analyst position should be eliminated she would agree to vote with them. She said this was a win/win situation and she didn’t see what they would lose by delaying this action.
Mayor DePaulis said he preferred Councilmember Kirk’s suggestion because this would not put him in a difficult position. He said he was not inclined to get involved in Council staff matters and thought what the Council was doing was unusual. He thought the Land Use Analyst was an important position and this action was a major shift from a neighborhood position. He said he was not inclined to get involved but could see if this was adopted by resolution he would be put in a terrible position and he would be under pressure to consider vetoing this action. He said he would have to consider all input.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck said from the beginning of the mayor/council form of government the Council knew how important land use was as an issue since many of the members had been active in land use prior to their terms with the Council. She said the Council had never handled a staffing issue this way and said these types of issues were usually brought up in a retreat. She said she had not heard why there was a need for another budget analyst and had only heard vague comments. She also said last year during the budget process she remembered that the Council received a lot of information.
She said the position of Land Use Analyst did many more important duties besides land use and she wanted to know who would do this work. She said she thought it was fallacious to think the Council could turn these duties over to the planning and zoning staff since, by law, the Council could not require city staff to do anything. She said the Council could make requests but they would work according to their schedules. She thought with this situation the Council would lose their ability to be proactive in land use. She also said that planning and zoning enforced the laws and the Council Land Use Analyst acted as an advocate. She said the Council couldn’t expect planning and zoning to do both and she said they were staff for the Board of Adjustment and Planning Commission.
She also thought the Council staff had a right to know who would do these additional duties and said they didn’t have the expertise or the time. She said if eliminating this position was a good idea then it needed to go through an assessment process. She said this action was a complete surprise to the Council Staff and three of the Councilmembers and she felt this action would be hard to justify to the public. She didn’t think it was unfair to request an assessment. Councilmember Kirk read a letter from former Councilmember Ron Whitehead (a copy of the letter is attached as part of the minutes). She said everyone would lose if the Council voted to eliminate this position including the Mayor, the community councils, and the City Council as a whole. She thought it would look like the Council was setting up voting blocks and not considering the issue on its merit. Councilmember Bittner said she regretted that this had become a personality issue and said this was not the intent. She thought it was a false assumption that the Council was not interested in land use if they eliminated this position. She said the planning department was being reorganized and planners would be assigned to neighborhoods. She said this situation worked well in many cities and thought with the number of planners there was no reason why advocacy couldn’t be done by the planning staff. She said she would not do anything to hurt the neighborhood councils.
Councilmember Godfrey said if the Council listened to the neighborhood concerns about this issue they would hear that the perception of Council disinterest for land use, true or false, had become a reality. He talked about separation of powers and said the Council couldn’t tell the Mayor’s staff what to do. He said the idea of having a planner assigned to neighborhoods was not a reality and didn’t think the Council could talk about possibilities that didn’t exist. He said the Council Office didn’t have enough work for another budget analyst and there was no clear plan what the new position would do. He said their current budget analyst said the Council Office didn’t need another position.
Councilmember Stoler expressed his concern that this had become a personality issue and had strayed from dealing with a concept. He said he had tried to avoid having this become an emotional issue. He said they had neighborhood councils, the Board of Adjustment, historical preservation groups and boards, the Planning Commission, a planning staff of about 35 people, business groups, property owners, general city interest, and Councilmembers who were interested and experienced in land use. He knew the budget analyst was very busy during the budget process and said he felt he couldn’t make any additional requests for information because the budget analyst did not have enough time. He said this action was a redirection of scarce resources and he resented the implication that he was against neighborhoods. He said he worked hard for his neighborhoods.
Councilmember Kirk said she thought it was a good option to have planners assigned to neighborhoods but this organization was not currently established. She said she was not adverse to trying this but didn’t think the Council position should be eliminated before this other structure was implemented. Councilmember Bittner said she had a planner assigned to her neighborhoods and asked if the other Councilmembers did too. Craig Peterson, director of development services, said they were in the process of implementing the changes but the action was not yet final. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said the city had a huge financial staff and consultants which the Council could rely on for financial information. And she thought because there were so many different boards appointed by the Mayor that affected land use the Council needed a person in their office Who would work with the various boards to bring back information to the Council and relay the Council’s intent to them. She also said that Council had always delayed action on an issue if other Councilmembers had questions and said the Council had done this for Councilmember Bittner two weeks ago. She asked for the same courtesy so they could discuss the need for another budget analyst and discuss the distribution of duties currently done by the Land Use Analyst. uncilmember Horrocks said he had been a strong neighborhood advocate for 20 years, had organized SLACC, had been the chairman of a west side community council twice, and had been invited to Spokane to organize neighborhood councils, which later became a model city for neighborhood councils.
He said he was sorry that this issue changed from a concept to a personality issue and he said he thought telephone calls he received had been orchestrated, which he didn’t mind except for the rude telephone calls and he resented being pulled down by these callers. He said he had done many things for other neighborhood councils by working with city departments, such as the West Side Senior Citizens Center, the over pass over the 1300 South railroad tracks, a new road. down California Avenue, new curbs and gutters, the PAL building, and the wave pool. He said he had a hard time with the way people who called had tried to align him and he took umbrage with the way his integrity had been questioned.
He thought this issue had been blown out of proportion to the point that those who voted for the resolution would be viewed as opponents to neighborhoods. Councilmember Hardman concurred with Councilmember Horrocks and said he also had been active in the neighborhood council for 8 or 9 years and he thought the City Council had a wealth of experience, knowledge, information, and commitment to the neighborhood council system and the land use issue. He was disturbed by the perception that eliminating this position meant the Council would abandon their commitment to the neighborhoods, which was not the case. He said the Council lacked a budgetary background and he felt the budget process needed to take place all year long.
He said he would feel comfortable with two budget analysts who researched what was happening in other large cities throughout the country and what they were trying. He was concerned about the capital improvement budget and that it was used for other things. He said people in his district were upset about the garbage fee and felt the number one issue was taxation. He said no one from the neighborhoods had spoken for the widows and elderly and he said he would speak for them and one of his major concerns was the budget process.
Councilmember Kirk said during her first year on the Council she voted against the budget and the second year argued against the budget and for concessions to eliminate the garbage fee. She said she studied the budget for four and a half months and felt she had enough information and when she asked for additional information she got it. She thought people elected the Council because they trusted those who really cared about issues and not because they were experts with the budget. She said she was as concerned about the neighborhood zoning issues as she was with the budget. She reiterated that there had to be a way to compromise and she asked for three months to talk about this issue. She asked the Council to act maturely and negotiate this issue and think it through. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked Councilmember Stoler who he thought would handle the duties of the Land Use Analyst if the position was eliminated. Councilmember Stoler said he would not comment.
Councilmember Godfrey expressed his concern with who would follow up on land use problems and what the additional budget analyst would do. He said these questions were not clearly answered and he supported Councilmember Kirk’s compromise. He recommended to Councilmembers Horrocks and Hardman that they check into this issue before voting and he said Councilmember Kirk’s suggestion was logical and responsible. He said the questions raised needed to be answered before the Council voted and he said if they analyzed this and gave reasons why the Council didn’t need the Land Use Analyst then the Council would accept their position but the Council needed logical and real reasons. For the welfare and good of the city he asked them to wait.
(B 88-1)
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
#1. RE: Industrial Development Revenue Bonds, hospital revenue refunding bonds (IHC Hospitals, Inc.).
ACTION: Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adopt Resolution 8 of 1988 authorizing the issuance and confirming the sale by Salt Lake City of its (i) Hospital Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1988-A (IHC Hospitals, Inc.) in the approximate aggregate principal amount of $66,540,000 and (ii) Hospital Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1988-B (IHC Hospitals, Inc.) in the approximate aggregate principal amount of $15,060,000, the total aggregate principal amount of which Series 1988-A and Series 1988-B Bonds will not exceed $110,000,000, for the purpose of refinancing certain health care facilities owned and operated by IHC Hospitals, Inc. and located both inside and outside the boundaries of Salt Lake City, Utah; authorizing the execution and delivery of loan agreements, indentures of trust and pledge, a purchase contract and a first supplemental indenture in connection with such transaction; repealing all ordinances, resolutions or portions thereof in conflict with the provisions of the resolution; and related matters, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(Q 88-1)
MAYOR’S OFFICE
#1. RE: The appointments of Sylvia Bennion, Tom Billings, Gary Hicks, Betsy Hunt, Alan Katoa, Bill Prince, and Blake Rosenvall to the Recreation Advisory Board.
ACTION: Without objection the Council referred these appointments to the Committee of the Whole.
DISCUSSION: Councilmember Fonnesbeck said she was a member of the Mayor’s Committee on Amateur Athletics and she thought it would be helpful if a member of the Recreation Advisory Board was also a member of the athletic board. Mayor DePaulis thought this was a good point and asked her to explain the role of the Committee on Amateur Athletics. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said the committee was a board the Mayor organized about a year ago to help promote amateur athletics and economic development through amateur athletics in Salt Lake City. She said it dealt with bringing money into the city via athletics as well as encouraging the development of facilities.
(I 88-5)
#2. RE: An interlocal cooperation agreement amendment between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County amending the agreement of October 5, 1982, raising the Health Department citation fees from $10.00 to $20.00
ACTION: Without objection the Council referred this agreement to the Committee of the Whole.
(C 88-4)
#3. RE: Plans, specifications and estimated costs of the projects to be financed with the proceeds of sale of not to exceed $20,000,000 of Lease Revenue Bonds.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Horrocks seconded to adopt Resolution 7 of 1988 approving the plans, specifications and estimated costs of the projects to be financed with the proceeds of sale of not to exceed $20,000,000 of Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 1988, of the Municipal Building Authority of Salt Lake City, and providing for related matters, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmembers Bittner and Hardman who voted nay.
DISCUSSION: Councilmember Hardman said he was against this issue and said he was disturbed about the creation of the Municipal Building Authority. He said even though this was legal he thought it was undemocratic and thought the citizens should vote whether or not they wanted this bond. He was concerned that the Municipal Building Authority would bypass the will of the people and would open the flood gates to a tremendous amount of bonding. He said he believed the citizens were misled regarding the creation of the mechanized garbage system and he believed the public perception was that the $4.00 per month fee would pay for a self-sustaining enterprise fund. Councilmember Bittner also opposed this bond issue and was concerned about bonding for items that would wear out before they were paid for. Councilmember Kirk said when she first started with the City Council they were discussing the bond issue for the City and County Building. She said at that time she felt she couldn’t vote on this issue and thought the public needed to decide. She said other Councilmembers told her that public officials were placed in the position to make decisions and they couldn’t have a public vote on every issue; the public official was elected to make these decisions. She thought this was part of the democratic system and people elected them to make these kinds of decisions. She referred to one of the 1986-87 legislative intents passed by the Council which asked the administration to pursue a mechanized trash collection program to be funded by a trash collection fee and asked the administration to include in the fiscal year 1987-88 budget a proposal to create an enterprise fund.
She also referred to discussion from the City Council minutes of May 21, 1987, in which the Council discussed the garbage collection program and fee as well as the bond. She said if the Council didn’t follow through with this issue they would have to find $12.5 million in the budget. Councilmember Stoler said he voted against the $4.00 garbage fee and said if the Council didn’t already have a fiscal responsibility regarding this bond he would vote against it. Councilmember Horrocks said he fully supported this bond issue with one concern. He said he hated to see the city bond for an expendable item.
Councilmember Hardman asked if the Municipal Building Authority would allow for the public to vote on bonds in the future or if the Council could use the building authority to bypass the public. Roger Cutler, city attorney, said this authority was set up for a limited purpose and the Council couldn’t use it for just any purpose. Mayor DePaulis said the Council always had the option how to bond and said the real issue to the Council was what was cheaper. Buzz Larsen, bond counsel, said the Municipal Building Authority did not take away the Council’s authority to decide how to bond. He explained that they could have issued these bonds as Certificates of Participation without the Municipal Building Authority but using the Municipal Building Authority was a better structure, particularly for a city like Salt Lake City that had good credit.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck said one issue was whether or not there was the option to spend or not spend the money on a project, such as the City and County Building. She said either the city had to spend money to restore the City and County Building or build a new building. Councilmember Hardman asked why the Council would ever want to take an issue before the people when they could use the Municipal Building Authority. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said it would depend on which way would be cheaper and if it was an optional issue. She said each issue had individual consideration. Lance Bateman, finance director, confirmed that the essential nature of an issue had a lot to do with how it was bonded. Councilmember Horrocks asked if the Municipal Building Authority lasted in perpetuity. Mr. Larsen said it lasted until the Council dissolved the authority. Councilmember Stoler asked if the Council could prohibit the Municipal Building Authority from issuing any other bonds. Mr. Larsen said the Council could amend the articles of incorporation.
(Q 87-11)
#4. RE: The Municipal Building Authority officers and meeting schedule.
ACTION: Councilmember Stoler moved and Councilmember Horrocks seconded to adjourn as the Salt Lake City Council and convene as the Board of Trustees of the Municipal Building Authority, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Hardman who voted nay.
Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Horrocks seconded to adopt a motion electing Tom Godfrey as president and W. M. “Willie” Stoler as vice president of the Municipal Building Authority, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Hardman who voted nay.
Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Horrocks seconded to adopt a motion approving the annual regular meeting schedule of the Board of Trustees as presented in Exhibit B, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Hardman who voted nay.
Councilmember Stoler moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adjourn as the Board of Trustees of the Municipal Building Authority and reconvene as the Salt Lake City Council, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(O 87-11)
#5. RE: Mayor’s 1988 State of the City address.
ACTION: None required.
DISCUSSION: Mayor DePaulis focused his remarks on making a good city better. He said our city government continued to do well those things it was charged with doing: providing services to our citizens that helped maintain the quality of life we expected. He said making a good city better meant planning ahead to meet the challenges that would face us in the future. He listed six issues that played a critical role in the health of our city: 1. economic development, 2. the health of our downtown, 3. neighborhood stability, 4. volunteerism, 5. the role of local governments, 6. leadership; and then he discussed each one.
Until recently he said no one had gotten a handle on what economic development meant for this community so last July the Utah Economic Development Corporation was formed in order to bring meaning to the words “economic development” and to act upon that definition. He said after numerous meetings they reached the conclusions that we must expand our support of tourism, we must maximize our potential in the manufacturing and financial service industries, and we must continue to recruit new business and not forget the needs of existing business. He said last September he announced the opening of the Office of Local Business Advocacy which provided local business people a direct source for resolving problems and cutting through red tape. Regarding health of our downtown he said we were competing for economic opportunities with once-rural areas that had grown and developed. He said the economic downturn that had affected cities nationwide had left its mark on our community, resulting in closed downtown businesses and run-down areas.
He said the basic question facing us was how to turn this around and he said last week he announced the formation of a Mayor’s Executive Committee which would work in conjunction with members of a regional/urban design assistance team, sponsored by the American Institute of Architects. He said this group would develop a plan for the capital city and the entire downtown and would articulate what keeps our pulse up and what is slowing it down. Concerning the third issue, health of our neighborhoods, he said neighborhoods continued to be the lifeblood of our community. He said in October he announced the establishment of the neighborhood vitality program to assist neighborhoods in their revitalization efforts. He said this program would provide grants to neighborhoods and a training workshop for neighborhood leaders, which would discuss topics such as approaches to neighborhood advocacy and how to run effective meetings.
In regards to volunteerism, he said at the first of the year he announced the development of the Salt Lake Volunteer program in order to better involve the public with city government. Regarding issue five, the role of local governments, he said the most pressing issue for Salt Lake City was clarifying its role as a city versus that of the county. He said the unincorporated area of Salt Lake County made up the largest “hidden city” in the state. He said the city’s primary role was to provide urban services and the county’s function was to maintain the courts and jails and provide social services; but the county acted like a city and was involved in Street lighting, garbage removal, plowing streets and filling potholes.
He said the duplication of services was an unnecessary financial burden on the taxpayers and said Salt Lake City was organizing a wall-to-wall cities conference to discuss the possibilities of consolidation, annexation or incorporation and define a clear role of cities versus counties. In regards to the final issue of leadership, he said we had good leaders in our community (civic, religious, and governmental) and said a good leader was one who identified the right issues at the right time and got the right people together to resolve those issues. Through the various programs he outlined he said they had reached out to the people of our community to help identify the issues and the community had pulled together during difficult times. In summary he said we must go forward to make a good city better and plan for the future even as we worked to do well those things we were charged with doing. He said he believed 1988 would bring greater achievements.
(G 88-2)
COMMENTS
#1. The following people spoke in support of keeping the Land Use Analyst position in the City Council office: Hermoine Jex, Land Use Chairman for SLACC, Mark Lundgrun, Urban Design Coalition, Kathy Wacker, Vice Chairman, Salt Lake Planning Commission, Paul Dalrymple, 656 East 1200. South, Jim Byrne, Co-Chairman, Foothill Sunnyside Community, Virginia Walton, Vice Chairman Central City Community, Jim Webster, 938 Military Drive, Terry Becker, Chairman of the Greater Avenues, Randy Holliday, East Liberty Park Neighborhood, Ray Thomas, 1467 E. Arlington, Tony Ryder, Vice Chairman of SLACC, Randy Dixon, 726 Wall, Bernice Cook, People’s Freeway, Frank Pignanelli State Legislator, D’Arcy Dixon Pignanelli, Salt Lake Arts Council.
These citizens unanimously agreed that the Salt Lake City Council office needed the Land Use Analyst position and urged the Council not to eliminate the position. They agreed that the community needed a link to the Council and they relied on this position to be that link to help them with their land use problems. These people pointed out that the majority of the issues that came before the Council were land use issues and the common thread for the city, the community and the Council was the Land Use Analyst. Several of these people related personal situations in which the Land Use Analyst had assisted them and without his help they would not have known how to go through the process.
Mr. Byrne pointed out that one ongoing legislative responsibility was land use and a part-time council needed a full-time staff in order to deal with these issues. Mr. Webster said this position was vital for encouraging economic development and he added that because of recent changes in the planning and zoning staff this position would maintain continuity. Mr. Ryder thought it was appropriate to enlarge the Council staff but not at the expense of land use. Mr. Dixon thought if the Council eliminated this position they would send a wrong message to the neighborhoods. Ms. Pignanelli said she had talked with other mayors who were trying to create a position like the Land Use Analyst and she recommended that Salt Lake City remain a leader and not eliminate the position.
The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.