PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
REGULAR SESSION
TUESDAY, JULY 15, 1986
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, JULY 15, 1986, AT 5:00 P.M. IN ROOM 211 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: FLORENCE BITTNER THOMAS M. GODFREY GRANT MABEY ROSELYN N. KIRK SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK WILLIE STOLER EARL F. HARDWICK.
Roger Cutler, city attorney, Kathryn Marshall, city recorder, and Lynda Domino, chief deputy recorder, were present.
Mayor Palmer DePaulis was absent.
Councilmember Hardwick presided at and conducted the meeting.
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
PUBLIC WORKS
#1. RE: The deletion of St. Mary’s Drive from Special Improvement District 40-R-10.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Stoler seconded to request the attorney’s office and bond counsel to prepare agreements to be signed by the 11 protesting property owners on St. Mary’s Drive, stating that a) they request the work not to be done, b) they acknowledge and accept the liability for having the sidewalks in disrepair, and c) they acknowledge that the district will be closed without this work being done and it may be indeterminable when the city could do work in this area; also that the agreements be signed provided that a suitable arrangement can be worked out with the contractor so that there is not a confrontation between the city and the contractor which would interfere with the bonding process, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
DISCUSSION: Parviz Rokhva, engineering office, explained that there were three different options in dealing with the request to have St. Mary’s Drive removed from the district. First, the property owners could be forced to remain in the district since they protested after the protest period had ended. Second, the Council could amend the district and exclude this property as requested; or third, if legally possible, this area could remain in the district and the property owners could sign agreements requesting that the work not be done and accepting the liability.
Mr. Rokhva indicated that the City Attorney was discussing option three with Dick Fox, the bond counsel. Councilmember Fonnesbeck expressed concern about setting a precedent by removing this area from the district since the protest came in after the protest period had expired. Mark Morrison, engineering office, said that Max Peterson, city engineer, was not aware of any time in the past when an area had been let out of a district if the property owners protested after the deadline. Councilmember Kirk suggested that this issue be resolved administratively but if this did not work then the Council could take action. Mr. Rokhva indicated that if this area was removed it would not hurt the project since the protest rate would only change from 40% to 45%.
Roger Cutler, city attorney, indicated that after discussing this with Mr. Fox, they did not see a problem with having the property owners sign agreements. However, Mr. Cutler said that if the Council decided to eliminate the area from the district, Mr. Fox said there would need to be a 10-day notice and a public hearing. He said that Mr. Fox also requested that there be a consensus of the Council before he did any work. Mr. Cutler said that the contractor would have to be satisfied and fully aware that this area was being deleted.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked about the legal right of those on St. Mary’s Drive who wanted the work to be done. Mr. Cutler indicated that if the Council approved this protest then those who wanted the work would have to be subordinated to those who protested late. Mr. Rokhva indicated that temporary repairs could be made for the property owners who wanted the work. Councilmember Fonnesbeck suggested that 100% of the protesters be required to sign and some work be done for those who wanted to be in the district.
In regards to the issue of liability, Mr. Cutler said that Salt Lake City still owned the sidewalks and the city would be liable, but the property owners’ liability would be to not complain about the sidewalks not being repaired. Councilmember Kirk said that she did not want to force people to be in the district if they didn’t want to be included. Mr. Cutler indicated that there was time to amend the district before the bonds would be issued.
(Q 86-3)
The meeting adjourned at 5:45 p.m.