PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
REGULAR/BRIEFING SESSION
TUESDAY, JULY 8, 1986
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, JULY 8, 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. HAROWICK.
Council Chairperson Hardwick presided at the meeting.
BRIEFING SESSION
Brian Wilkinson briefed the Council on the evening’s agenda. Dave Patton reviewed developments in labor negotiations with the police and fire unions and indicated to the Council that only the WASCME and AFSCME units would sign at this point. Roger Cutler then reviewed for the Council what he had researched in relation to the award of the bid for SID 40-R-l0.
The briefing session adjourned at 5:55 p.m.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, JULY 8, 1986, AT 6:00 P.M. IN ROOM 301 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.
Mayor Palmer DePaulis, Roger Cutler, city attorney, Kathryn Marshall, city recorder, and Lynda Domino, chief deputy recorder, were present.
Council Chairperson Hardwick presided at and conducted the meeting.
Invocation was given by Police Chaplain Robert Blackhurst.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes.
Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to approve the minutes of the Salt Lake City Council for the regular meetings held Tuesday, July 1, 1986, and Thursday, July 3, 1986, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(M 86-1)
Special Presentations
#1. The City Council and Mayor presented Lance Bateman, director of finance, with the Award of Financial Reporting Achievement for the Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1985, from the Government Finance Officers Association. Mayor DePaulis said this award recognized excellence in financial reporting and was presented to those governmental units whose annual financial reports were judged to substantially conform to program standards. He said this was the 5th consecutive year that the award had been presented to Salt Lake City. Mr. Bateman indicated that many departments had contributed and he specifically recognized Gary Mumford and Dan Mule, finance office, for their contributions. He also thanked the Council for their support.
(G 86-24)
#2. The City Council and Mayor presented the Great Salt Lake Country’s “Tourism Ambassador of the Month” award for July to Phyllis Steorts. Mayor DePaulis enumerated her contributions and said that she was an energizing force. Ms. Steorts said it was a pleasure to be considered for this award. She also said that it was not hard to sell Salt Lake City and people frequently commented about how friendly and beautiful Salt Lake City was.
(G 86-22)
PETITIONS
Petition 400-277 of 1985 by the Sugar House Community Council and Petition 400-344 of 1985 by Dan Miller.
RE: A request that Salt Lake City rezone the property between 21st South and Hollywood Avenue and between 9th East and 11th East from a Commercial C-3” to a Residential “R-5” classification (part of the Westminster Neighborhood rezoning). Petition 400-344 by Dan Miller requested that the City Council not rezone the area.
ACTION: Councilmember Stoler moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to extend the moratorium in this area for 6 months, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 85-239 and P 85-240)
Petition 400-384 of 1985 by Perry Underwood.
RE: The request that Salt Lake City rezone property located between North Temple Street and 200 South Street and Interstate 15 and the Jordan River from Industrial “M-l” and Commercial “C-1” and “C-3” zoning districts to Industrial “M-lA”, Commercial “C-1” and “C-3A”, Business “B-3” and Residential “R-5” zoning districts; and discuss the Euclid Neighborhood Target Area Plan.
ACTION: Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Bittner seconded to adopt the Euclid Neighborhood Target Area Plan and approve the rezoning as recommended by the Planning Commission with the following modification and with the following intent: 1. Modification. That the Stanley property at 62 North 1000 West, and the Harrington property at 59 and 69 North Chicago Street, be zoned Residential “R-5” in their entirety; that the blocks bounded by I-15, 800 West, and Folsom Street be rezoned to “C-l”. 2. Intent. That the planning division proceed to create a mixed-use zoning district classification designed specifically for use in the Euclid Neighborhood and in other neighborhoods which lie along the interstate highway system and railroad system corridors and in other transition areas. A major purpose of this zoning district classification should be to enable commercial and light industrial uses to be integrated with existing residential uses in a manner so as to not disrupt the livability of the residential uses. A second purpose of the district should be to allow a transition from residential to commercial and light industrial uses to take place if and when market conditions are favorable for such a transition. The Council would like to set a target date of one year for adoption of this ordinance, with progress reports to be scheduled in three-month intervals. When this zoning tool is available for application in specific areas, the Council will then request that the Planning Commission recommend its specific application for the Euclid Area, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
DISCUSSION: Councilmember Mabey explained that the Euclid area was in a transitional-type mode and said he had been concerned about the welfare of the residents as well as the owners who wanted to sell their property. He proposed developing a mixed-use zoning district for the transitional areas in the city which would allow for integration of commercial and residential uses without disrupting the livability of the neighborhood and would allow transition to take place in an orderly manner. Councilmembers Kirk and Bittner concurred with Councilmember Mabey. Councilmember Bittner said that she was concerned with protecting the property values for those who wanted to sell as well as maintaining the quality of life for those who chose to live in the area.
(P 86-131, T 86-16)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
#1. RE: An interlocal agreement with the State of Utah, Department of Transportation regarding testing services on various bituminous materials.
ACTION: Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to adopt Resolution 93 of 1986 authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the State of Utah, Department of Transportation, for the Utah State Department of Transportation to provide testing services on the various bituminous materials used in the construction and maintenance at the Salt Lake City International Airport and Airport II, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(C 86-319)
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
#1. RE: An interlocal agreement amendment with Salt Lake County regarding data processing files.
ACTION: Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to adopt Resolution 94 of 1986 authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement amendment between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County for sharing of data processing files with Salt Lake County, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(C 84-168)
#2. RE: Industrial Development Revenue Bonds for TS 1 Partnership.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Resolution 90 of 1986 providing for the financing by Salt Lake City, Utah, of a project consisting of acquisition of land, acquisition and renovation of a portion of a building, surface parking, purchase and installation of certain machinery or equipment, improvements and related property in order that TS 1 Partnership, an Indiana Limited Partnership, may be provided with facilities to promote the general welfare and encourage the increase of industry and commerce; authorizing and providing for the issuance by Salt Lake City, Utah, of its $9,500,000 Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (TS 1 Partnership Project) which will be payable solely from the revenues arising from the pledge of a loan agreement with TS 1 Partnership; authorizing the execution and delivery of a loan agreement between Salt Lake City, Utah, and TS 1 Partnership; providing for the acquisition, financing and renovating of said project; authorizing the execution and delivery of a trust agreement and pledge; confirming the sale of said bonds to the purchaser thereof; and related matters, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 86-8)
#3. RE: Industrial Development Revenue Bonds for TS 2 Partnership.
ACTION: Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to adopt Resolution 91 of 1986 providing for the financing by Salt Lake City, Utah, of a project consisting of acquisition of land, acquisition and renovation of two buildings, a water tower, surrounding parking, purchase and installation of certain machinery or equipment, improvements and related property in order that TS 2 Partnership, an Indiana Limited Partnership, may be provided with facilities to promote the general welfare and encourage the increase of industry and commerce; authorizing and providing for the issuance by Salt Lake City, Utah, of its $9,500,000 Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (TS 2 Partnership Project) which will be payable solely from the revenues arising from the pledge of a loan agreement with TS 2 Partnership; authorizing the execution and delivery of a loan agreement between Salt Lake City, Utah, and TS 2 Partnership; providing for the acquisition, financing and renovating of said project; authorizing the execution and delivery of a trust agreement and pledge; confirming the sale of said bonds to the purchaser thereof; and related matters, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 86-9)
MAYOR’S OFFICE
#1. RE: The appointments of Dorothy Plesche, Dave Watson, and Lee Martinez to the Board of Adjustments.
ACTION: Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to approve these appointments, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(I 86-12)
#2. RE: The reappointment of Robert Springmeyer to the Board of Appeals and Examiners.
ACTION: Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to approve this reappointment, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(I 86-13)
#3. RE: The reappointments of John Williams and Fred Ball to the Central Business Improvement District.
ACTION: Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to approve these reappointments, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(I 86-14)
#4. RE: The appointment of Sylvia Wunderli to the Charitable Solicitations Commission.
ACTION: Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to approve this appointment, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(I 86-15)
#5. RE: The reappointment of Virginia Ferguson to the Golf Advisory Board.
ACTION: Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to approve this reappointment, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(I 86-16)
#6. RE: The appointment of Afton Kyriopoulos to the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board.
ACTION: Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to approve this appointment, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(I 86-17)
#7. RE: The appointment of James Webb to the Mosquito Abatement Board.
ACTION: Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to approve this appointment, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(I 86-6)
#8. RE: The appointments of F. R. Robinson and Virginia Lee to the Public Utilities Advisory Committee.
ACTION: Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to approve these appointments, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(I 86-8)
#9. RE: The reappointment of James Giauque and the appointment of Verda Mae Christensen to the Salt Lake City Library Board.
ACTION: Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to approve this appointment and reappointment, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(I 86-18)
#10. RE: The appointments of Cindy White and Jon Wennergren, and the reappointment of Jules Dreyfous to the Tracy Aviary Board.
ACTION: Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilniember Fonnesbeck seconded to approve the appointments and reappointment, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(I 86-19)
#11. RE: The appointment of Lloyd Siegendorf to the Urban Forestry Board.
ACTION: Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to approve this appointment, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(I 86-7)
#12. RE: Memorandum of Understanding with WASCME.
ACTION: Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Resolution 95 of 1986 authorizing the execution of the Memorandum of Understanding between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Western Alliance of State, County and Municipal Employees, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(C 86-320)
#13. RE: Memorandum of Understanding with the Salt Lake Police Association.
ACTION: This item was pulled from the agenda.
(C 86-321)
#14. RE: Memorandum of Understanding with the International Association of Firefighters Local 1645.
ACTION: This item was pulled from the agenda.
(C 86-322)
#15. RE: Memorandum of Understanding with AFSCME.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adopt Resolution 96 of 1986 authorizing the execution of the Memorandum of Understanding between Salt Lake City Corporation and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1004, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(C 86-323)
PARKS DEPARTMENT
#1. RE: Tracy Aviary fees.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Bittner seconded to suspend the rules and on first reading adopt Ordinance 57 of 1986 amending Section 27-4-1 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, as amended, relating to aviary fees, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
DISCUSSION: Councilmember Godfrey asked if there was a provision in the ordinance to address the situation of those who could not afford to visit the aviary on the fee days, thereby not being able to see the shows. Mark Stackhouse, Tracy Aviary education coordinator, said there was not a formal provision but said that the admission fees were very low. He said there would be a question as to how to determine who would have the fee waived and he did not think this could be administered fairly. He said they had considered offering a show or tour once a month on a non-admission day. He said that there was a need to charge a fee since the shows and programs cost a lot of money and a lot of staff time. Mayor DePaulis supported the idea of having a free show once a month. Mr. Stackhouse also indicated that he would welcome volunteers to help with the programs.
(O 86-25)
PUBLIC WORKS
#1. RE: Special Improvement District 38-724 (California Avenue).
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to suspend the rules and on first reading adopt Resolution 89 of 1986 declaring the intention of the City Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, State of Utah, to construct improvements on certain streets within said municipality consisting of improvements to roadways, curb and gutter, driveway approaches, storm drainage, utility relocations, traffic lanes, a new bridge over the surplus canal, the construction of California Avenue and all other miscellaneous work necessary to complete the improvements in a proper workmanlike manner; to create Salt Lake City, Utah, California Avenue Curb and Gutter Extension No. 38-724, to defray the cost and expenses of said improvement district by special assessments to be levied against the property benefited by such improvements; and to provide Notice of Intention to authorize such improvements and to fix a time and place for protests against such improvements or the creation of said district; and to authorize advertisement of construction bids, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 86-14)
#2. RE: Special Improvement District 40-R-l0.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to adopt Resolution 92 of 1986 accepting a bid for construction work and authorizing a construction contract with G & R Contractors for construction of improvements of Salt Lake City, Utah, Special Improvement District No. 40-R-10, providing for construction of curb, gutter, sidewalk, roadway and drainage facilities, for issuance of interim warrants and for the addition of the interest thereon to assessable costs, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 86-3)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition 400-425 of 1986 by Smith’s Food King Properties.
RE: A public hearing at 6:30 p.m. to consider rezoning property located on the south side of 8th South between Windsor Street and 9th East from a Residential “R-5A” to a Business “B-3” classification.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Ordinance 58 of 1986 rezoning an area on the south side of 8th South between Windsor Street and 900 East from “R-5A” to “B-3” pursuant to Petition 400-425 of 1986, to be effective after the building permit is requested, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
DISCUSSION: Mark Hafey, planning and zoning, outlined the area on a map and outlined adjacent property which was presently zoned Business “B-3”. He said that the property in question was presently occupied by a parking lot, 1 single-family dwelling and an 11-unit apartment but these residential units were empty. Mr. Hafey said that the Planning Commission recommended approval as long as there was not substantial opposition. He said they also recommended that the ordinance not take effect until the building permit was ready to be issued and until the landscape plans had been reviewed by the Urban Forest Board and submitted to the Planning Commission for their approval
Tom Welch, petitioner, explained that they planned to remodel the current structure and felt committed to keeping this store in the city. He said that they were going to invest $2,000,000 to remodel this store into a 62,000 square foot combination food and drug store. Mr. Welch showed a plan of the remodeled store and said it would face onto 8th South instead of 900 East. Mr. Welch said they met with the two neighborhood councils and received a favorable recommendation from each. He indicated that they had the Urban Forest Board draw a landscape plan and they accepted the Board’s recommendations; he also said that these plans had been approved by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Welch did not object to the recommendation that the ordinance be effective after the building permit had been issued. In reference to the docking area, Mr. Welch explained that at the rear of the store and along the west side of the store they would construct a block wall compatible with the store. He also said that the area would be landscaped. Dr. Ray Barton supported this project and said it was of value to the local people and the area.
(P 86-133)
Animal Control Ordinance/Wild Animals.
RE: A public hearing at 6:45 p.m. to consider an ordinance relating to wild, exotic or dangerous animals and relating to the disposition of animals held by the animal control impound facilities.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Stoler seconded to adopt Ordinance 59 of 1986 amending Sections 100-1-1(21), 100-1-22 and 100-1-27 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, as amended, relating to wild, exotic or dangerous animals and relating to the disposition of animals held by animal control impound facilities, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
DISCUSSION: Lou Lynes, animal control manager, explained that this ordinance was brought about by incidences which occurred concerning a hybrid animal. He said that there were meetings with different animal control agencies and state authorities and it was determined that there needed to be additional laws within city organizations to better define and protect the citizens from certain types of animals. He referred to a letter from Terry Saddler, director of environmental health, which stated that vaccination was not recommended for wild life and since no rabies vaccination was licensed for use in wild animals and there was no evidence that any vaccination would protect wild animals against rabies, the committee (American Veterinarian and Medical Association Committee on Rabies Control) recommended that neither wild nor exotic animals be kept as pets and that wild animals not be cross-bred to domestic dogs or cats.
He said that the American Veterinarian and Medical Association, the National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians, and the Conference of State and Territorial Epidemiologists strongly recommended the enactment of state laws prohibiting the interstate and intrastate importation, distribution, and relocation of wild animals and wild animal cross-breeds and recommended the enactment of laws prohibiting the distribution or keeping of wild animals as pets.
He said they considered cross-breeds to be wild animals. Mr. Lynes indicated that there was a vague area concerning wild animal cross-breeds. He mentioned that animals currently in the city which had not caused any problems would be allowed to stay in the city. Councilmember Kirk said that citizens had expressed concern about the definition of “wild animal”. Mr. Lynes indicated that the definition had not changed from the current ordinance but mentioned that if the Council was concerned he would meet with the City Attorney to discuss this matter.
Councilmember Godfrey said he received letters stating that in some instances hybrids had been vaccinated. Mr. Lynes indicated that there were dogs vaccinated and licensed which were listed as wolf hybrids but the American Veterinarian and Medical Association had indicated they would not certify that the vaccinations were effective.
The following people spoke about the proposed ordinance: Emily Sands, 2356 South 900 East, said she worked in a veterinary clinic and they had not had problems with wolf hybrids. She said there had not been a case of rabies in a wolf hybrid which had been vaccinated and said they were not aggressive. She said that any dog could be unpredictable Joel Campbell, 345 East Sherman Avenue, indicated that he was an owner and breeder of wolf hybrids and felt that the proposed ordinance needed further discussion and consideration.
He suggested that it would be helpful to review dog-bite statistics in both wolf hybrids and breeds such as pit bulls, Dobermans, and German shepherds. He said there was documented proof that hybrids were useful as both pets and working animals and many kennel clubs accepted them as a domestic breed. He also suggested that the rabies issue needed further discussion. Kathy Kumpfer, 1157 Garfield Avenue, said that she had raised wolf hybrids for the last six years and had found them to be good tempered animals. She said that she had seen these animals refuse to fight and they were good for search and rescue work. Ms. Kumpfer indicated that through her experience she found that her malamutes roamed and had killed her chickens whereas her wolf hybrids didn’t behave this way. She indicated that it was the goal of breeders to socialize these animals at a young age. Councilmember Bittner expressed her concern about the hybrids being handled and raised by untrained and unskilled people.
Kathryn Whitaker, 872 West 500 South, expressed her opinion that whether or not a dog was classified as being wild should have little to do with vaccination or breed. She cited personal experiences with dogs in which they had attacked people in spite of the fact that the dog was considered domestic. She indicated that in her opinion the ordinance should encompass more breeds of dogs.
Sterling Love, 379 East 1st Avenue, expressed his opinion that wolf hybrids were better natured and as predictable as other breeds of dogs. Sandra Jones, 1498 Alder Road, expressed her opinion that wolf hybrids were good dogs and behaved better than other dogs she had owned. John Simpson, Heber City, said he trained wildlife and domestic dogs were as predatory as wolves. He expressed his opinion that the wolf hybrid was a different breed which they were trying to introduce. Frank Crowe, animal control division, said that wolf hybrids were good with their family or adults but attacked children and he cited several incidences.
He said he had seen this characteristic in many cases. He expressed concern that if these animals were bred so they did not fear people then they would be extremely dangerous. He also expressed his opinion that these animals should not be subjected to urban life and he was against the idea of putting the public and the animals at risk. Mr. Crowe said that in his opinion wolf hybrids were more dangerous than Dobermans and said he considered wolf hybrids and pit bulls the two most ferocious dogs.
He indicated that pit bulls were considered domestic and other cities had been unsuccessful in outlawing them but he added that the health authorities were saying that hybrids were not domestic. He mentioned that the ordinance was not changing other than including hybrid animals. He said that the law needed clarification and he was concerned with the safety of citizens. Linda Shepherd, 1221 East Hemingway, said she owned a pet store and expressed concern about the words “wild”, “dangerous”, or “exotic” since their meaning was open to personal interpretation.
Eldon Romney, 3281 Millcreek Road, represented members of the Utah Herpetological Society and also expressed concern about the vagueness and the personal interpretation of “wild”, “dangerous”, or “exotic”. He said that if animals weren’t handled properly they could be considered dangerous and he expressed his opinion that the law should address owner responsibility rather than prohibition. He said they urged regulation where needed but urged restraint and caution when considering prohibition. Councilmember Fonnesbeck suggested that possibly a special licensing program could be established to allow exceptions for people who study such animals and are competent. Mr. Lynes indicated that this was possible but said that animal control had not been concerned with birds or reptiles unless there had been calls on nuisance situations. He said that the term “exotic” had been in the ordinance previously and they felt it needed to remain in case there was an influx of animals such as chimpanzees.
Councilmember Stoler asked if the city would be liable if they did not adopt an ordinance dealing with the situation of hybrids. Roger Cutler, city attorney, indicated that liability would not apply to the city for failure to adopt a penal statute but the owners would be liable. He said the issue was the health and safety of the public. Mr. Cutler also commented on the objections to the words “exotic”, “dangerous”, and “wild” and said that those broad words could be defined by case law on a case by case basis.
He said this language had historically been in the ordinance because it was hard to speculate on the types of animals which might be imported. Councilmember Hardwick expressed concern about exotic animals being kept as pets and said that through time certain breeds of dogs had been domesticated to a point so they were easily handled but he did not feel that wolf hybrids were at this point and he did not feel that a city was a place to accomplish that end.
(O 86-18)
Animal Control Ordinance Fee Schedule.
RE: A public hearing at 7:00 p.m. to consider an ordinance regarding impounding, redemption, and fees.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Bittner seconded to adopt Ordinance 60 of 1986 amending Section 100-1-23 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, as amended, relating to impounding, redemption, and fees, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
DISCUSSION: Lou Lynes, animal control manager, said there was one increased fee and some new fees, which he outlined. He explained that owners would be penalized, by paying a higher fee, if they continued to allow their animals to run at large. He pointed out that animal control was starting to get involved with livestock and a fee had to be developed to address this situation. He mentioned that the service charge for picking up dead animals had been included in the ordinance. No one from the audience addressed this ordinance.
(O 86-19)
Building Permit Fees.
RE: A public hearing at 7:15 p.m. to consider an ordinance amending Section 5-7-13 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to building permit fees.
ACTION: Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to continue the hearing to August 5, 1986 at 7:05 p.m., which motion carried, all members voting aye.
DISCUSSION: No one addressed this issue.
(O 86-22)
COMMENTS
#1. Jerry Mondragon, 945 West 100 South, supported the modified R-5” zoning for the Euclid Avenue neighborhood.
#2. David Nielson distributed copies of a proposed ordinance regarding a Human Rights Commission to define certain discriminatory practices as unlawful and establish a local commission to administer established conciliatory remedies. It was his opinion that there were a number of discriminatory practices in the city which were beyond the regulation of applicable federal and state laws. He indicated that this bill would begin a process whereby the city would show that it encouraged the full participation of its citizens by guaranteeing equal protection of the laws regardless of age, color, disability, marital status, national origin, race, religion, sex, and sexual orientation. He said this commission would provide another avenue of dispute resolution and asked the Council to seriously consider this bill. Councilmember Fonnesbeck indicated that she would follow up.
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.