May 19, 1987

PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH

REGULAR/BRIEFING SESSION

TUESDAY, MAY 19 1987

THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, MAY 19, 1987, AT 5:00 P.M. IN SUITE 300 CITY HALL, 324 SOUTH STATE.

THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: FLORENCE BITTNER THOMAS M. GODFREY GRANT MABEY ROSELYN N. KIRK SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK WILLIE STOLER EARL F. HARDWICK.

Council Chairperson Kirk presided at the meeting.

BRIEFING SESSION

#1. Linda Hamilton, City Council Executive Director, briefed the City Council on the evening’s agenda. Larry Livingston, Council Staff, reviewed for the City Council the history of Petition No. 400-515, submitted by Eugene Farley which was on the agenda to set a date for a public hearing. He indicated that the fraternities and sororities around the University were in the process of expanding into the neighborhood. He indicated that the neighborhood opposed movement into residential areas, and felt it important that the “Greeks” be put on notice of the neighborhood opposition as soon as possible. It was for this reason that the City Council was being asked to set the date for their public hearing prior to the hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission.

#2. Linda Hamilton reviewed for the City Council the order of the budgetary items scheduled for public hearing. She indicated that changes had been made to the proposed Parking Violation Fines ordinance in accordance with the Council’s direction on May 14, 1987.

The meeting adjourned at 5:55 p.m.

THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, MAY 19, 1987, 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 M. GODFREY GRANT MABEY ROSELYN N. KIRK SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK WILLIE STOLER EARL F. HARDWICK.

Mayor Palmer DePaulls, Roger Cutler, city attorney, S.R. Kivett and Margaret Mitchell, deputy city recorders, were present.

Council Chairperson Kirk presided at and Councilmember Godfrey conducted the meeting.

Police Chaplain Fields gave the invocation.

The Council led the Pledge of Allegiance.

Approval of Minutes.

Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Hardwick seconded to approve the minutes of the Salt Lake City Council for the regular meeting held Tuesday, May 12, 1987, which motion carried, all members voting aye.

(M 87-1)

PETITIONS

Petition 400-515 by Eugene W. Farley.

RE: An ordinance rescinding Section 51-14-1.(3) of the zoning ordinance which allows dormitories, fraternity or sorority houses, and boarding houses as a permitted use in a Residential “R-2” zone, within 600 feet of the boundaries of the University of Utah and of Westminster College. Rescission of the ordinance would make such existing facilities non-conforming uses, and would prohibit future additional such uses within the 600 foot boundaries.

ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Stoler seconded to set a public hearing for Tuesday, July 7, 1987, at 6:50 p.m., which motion carried, all members voting aye.

(P 87-122)

DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

AIRPORT AUTHORITY

#1. RE: A resolution for issuance of not more than $30,000,000 aggregate principal amount of weekly adjustable/fixed rate Airport Facilities Revenue Bonds, Series 1987 (Delta Air Lines, Inc. Project) of SLC and SL County, Trust Indenture, Exempt Facilities Lease Agreement, Bond Purchase Contract; execution of leases with Delta Airlines Inc. and other agreements; and related matters.

ACTION: This item was pulled from the agenda.

(Q 87-5)

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

#1. RE: An interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Utah State Department of Community and Economic Development for a grant of $53,000 for emergency shelters for the homeless.

ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Stoler seconded to adopt Resolution 52 of 1987 authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement with Utah State Department of Community and Economic Development for a grant of $53,000 for a) acquiring land and/or renovating structures for emergency shelters for the homeless, and b) renovating structures for emergency shelters for the homeless, which motion carried, all members voting aye.

(C 87-253)

#2. RE: An interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Utah State Department of Community and Economic Development for a grant of $22,292 for emergency shelters for the homeless.

ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Stoler seconded to adopt Resolution 53 of 1987 authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement with Utah State Department of Community and Economic Development for a grant of $22,292 for a) acquiring land and/or renovating structures for emergency shelters for the homeless, and b) renovating structures for emergency shelters for the homeless, which motion carried, all members voting aye.

(C 87-254)

#3. RE: An interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Utah State Department of Community and Economic Development for a grant of $52,708 for emergency shelters for the homeless.

ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Stoler seconded to adopt Resolution 54 of 1987 authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement with Utah State Department of Community and Economic Development for a grant of $52,708 for a) acquiring land and/or renovating structures for emergency shelters for the homeless, and b) renovating structures for emergency shelters for the homeless, which motion carried, all members voting aye.

(C 87-252)

#4. RE: 13th Year Community Development Block Grant Funds.

ACTION: Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Bittner seconded to hold the allocation of the money to be granted for the operation of the men’s shelter, the operation of the women’s shelter, and the new women’s/family shelter until the Mayor has an opportunity to meet with the business people in the area and review their concerns, which motion was withdrawn.

Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Bittner seconded to approve the 13th Year Community Development Block Grant funding as recommended by Mayor DePaulis for all programs with the exception of the New Hope Multi-Cultural Center and the Building Preservation Advisory System and Contingency, which motion carried all members voting aye.

Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Hardwick seconded to eliminate funding for the Building Preservation Advisory System recommended at $5,000, which motion carried, all members voting aye.

Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Hardwick seconded to reduce the 13th Year Community Development Block Grant Contingency by $5,000, leaving a contingency fund of $130,700, and fund the New Hope Multi-Cultural Center at $10,000, which motion carried, all members voting aye.

Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Bittner seconded to appropriate $130,700 to the 13th Year Community Development Block Grant Fund Contingency fund for a total 13th Year entitlement of $3,861,000, which motion carried all members voting aye.

Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Hardwick seconded to approve the following legislative intent regarding the New Hope Multi-Cultural Center: “It is the intent of the Salt Lake City Council that representatives of the New Hope Multi-Cultural Center inform the City Administration of the exact scope for the use of the allocated $10,000 in the rehabilitation of their facility prior to the release of the funds”, which motion carried, all members voting aye.

Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to approve the following legislative intent regarding Community Development Block Grant Slippage Funds: “It is the intent of the Salt Lake City Council that slippage from Community Development Block Grant Funds be allocated as follows: The first $36,000 which becomes available to the Work Activity Center to fund acquisition of a new facility; the second $40,000 which becomes available to the Children’s Museum to install landscaping and driveway improvements on 900 North Beck Street”, which motion carried, all members voting aye.

Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Bittner seconded to approve the following legislative intent regarding Community Development Block Grant money - used for purposes of Homeless Projects: “It is the Intent of the Salt Lake City Council that in appropriating $300,000 for the new Women’s/Family Shelter, the Mayor and Councilmembers will meet with the people planning the shelters and the local business people to discuss ways that the impact can be mitigated, and that the City promises to encourage and help provide those mitigating factors”, which motion carried, all members voting aye.

DISCUSSION: Stephanie Loker, capital planning and programming, said that the CDBG money was to be available to the City July 1, 1987. She said that in order for that date to be met, the application had to be prepared, routed and signed and then submitted to HUD by June 1, 1987, for their 30 day review. Councilmember Mabey asked if the money allocated for the shelters could be held in contingency. Ms. Laker said HUD would disapprove of another $375,000 in contingency. Councilmember Mabey was concerned because the local business people had not had any input and he wanted to give them the opportunity to discuss the shelter situation prior to the release of the funds. Councilmember Godfrey felt that the Council had made a fiscal commitment and should not hold up the money. Councilmember Kirk said she was on the shelter committee and that she felt a delay might indicate to MUD that the City did not want the money. She felt it was too late in the process to back out at this point. She also said private citizens had given untold hours to raise funds for the shelters and thought delays would be unfair to them. Councilmember Staler had concerns about the possibility that the Master Plan had been disregarded in selection of the shelter sites.

Mayor DePaulis explained that after the Master Plan had been adopted, the Council became concerned with the co-location of facilities, particularly around Pioneer Park, with the housing and the Indian Alcohol Walk-In Center. The Council designated certain boundaries and within those boundaries, agencies were authorized to find appropriate locations. He said the shift from the Master Plan was through Council discussion and Council action in defining areas to avoid overconcentration within Council districts.

Councilmember Hardwick said that Central City had approximately 70 social service agencies, alcohol and drug rehab centers, many more than other districts. He felt that site selections had been done carefully and they could only ask that they be selective and impact the neighborhood as little as possible. Councilmember Bittner felt that the City should be able to negotiate with the funds so that the impact on the neighborhood would be minimized, for instance, the City could require the installation of fences.

Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if there would be a problem regarding the Bacon-Davis Act and the $10,000 allocation to the New Hope Multi-Cultural Center. Ms. Loker said that it was going to cost $40,000 to rehabilitate the part of the building that was burned. She said New Hope had raised part of the money needed and they were thrilled about this $10,000 even though they were aware that there could be problems. She said that there were 2 ways to handle the situation: 1) The city could give $10,000 toward operation and they could use their operation money for the building so that no strings would be attached, however, they were not a large enough agency to have that much unencumbered operating money; 2) The City could make one discreet project of $10,000.

New Hope was working with ASSIST on the architectural items needed for rehab and they would ask ASSIST to design a $10,000 project - for instance the floor (which was the ceiling for the downstairs portion). They would be required to pay the Davis! Bacon wages on that $10,000 project. When that project ends, they could complete the remainder of the rehab with their own funds, no strings attached.

(T 87-6)

#5. RE: An allocation of $3,400 to the Crossroads Urban Center for water hookups from 12th Year Community Development Block Grant funds.

ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Hardwick seconded to suspend the rules and on first reading approve an allocation for a total of $3,400 to the Crossroads Urban Center for water hook-ups of $850 a piece for a community garden project from 12th Year CDBG funds, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent at the time of the vote.

(T 87-7)

FINANCE DEPARTMENT

#1. RE: Proposed amendments to the Fiscal Year 1986-87 Budgets.

ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Stoler seconded to set a date for a public hearing to be held Tuesday, June 2, 1987, at 7:10 p.m., to obtain public comment concerning proposed amendments to the Fiscal Year 1986-87 Budgets, which motion carried, all members voting aye.

(B 86-11)

#2. RE: An interlocal agreement between Salt Lake City and the City of Orem concerning the IHC Hospitals, Inc. IRB refunding.

ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Stoler seconded to adopt Resolution 50 of 1987, authorizing the execution of an interlocal agreement with the City of Orem concerning the IHC Hospitals, Inc. Industrial Development Revenue Bond refunding, which motion carried, all members voting aye.

(C 87-255)

#3. RE: An ordinance increasing the revenue business license fee by twenty percent and modifying the regulatory business license fee as may be appropriate.

ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Stoler seconded to set a date for a public hearing to be held Tuesday, June 2, 1987, at 7:00 p.m., which motion carried, all members voting aye.

(O 87-14)

MAYOR’S OFFICE

#1. RE: The Fiscal Year 1987/88 budget for the Salt Lake City Library.

ACTION: Councilmember Hardwick moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to accept, for public display, the Fiscal Year 1987/88 budget for the Salt Lake City Library, and set a date for a public hearing on the Library Budget for June 2, 1987, at 6:40 p.m., which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent at the time of the vote.

(B 87-4)

#2. RE: The appointment of Peter Stevens to the I-lousing Authority Board.

ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Stoler seconded to suspend the rules and on first reading approve the appointment of Peter Stevens to fill an unexpired term on the Housing Authority Board, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent at the time of the vote.

(I 87-7)

#3. RE: The reappointment of Fred Wheeler to the CBID.

ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey, without objection, referred the reappointment of Fred Wheeler to the Central Business Improvement District Board to the Consent Agenda for Tuesday, June 2, 1987.

(I 87-11)

#4. RE: The appointment of Tom Berggren to the Public Utilities Advisory Committee.

ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to suspend the rules and on first reading approve the appointment of Tom Berggren to the Public Utilities Advisory Committee, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent at the time of the vote.

(I 87-9)

#5. RE: The reappointment of Stephen Smith to the Board of Appeals and Examiners.

ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey, without objection, referred the reappointment of Stephen Smith to the Board of Appeals and Examiners to the Consent

Agenda for June 2, 1987.

(I 87-17)

PUBLIC HEARINGS

IRB IHC, Hospitals, Inc.

RE: A public hearing at 6:00 p.m. to obtain public comment on the issuance, by Salt Lake City Corporation, of Tax Exempt Revenue Bonds for IHC, Hospitals, Inc., and consider adopting a resolution approving the issuance of the bonds.

ACTION: Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.

Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Hardwick seconded to adopt Resolution 49 of 1987, approving the issuance of the bonds for IHC, Hospitals, Inc., which motion carried, all members voting aye.

DISCUSSION: No one addressed this issue.

(Q 85-20)

IRB Delta Air Lines.

RE: A public hearing at 6:00 p.m. to obtain public comment concerning the proposed issuance by Salt Lake City, Utah, of private activity revenue bonds in the aggregate face amount of not to exceed $30 million to finance the acquisition and construction of certain airport facilities to be operated by Delta Air Lines, Inc., which will be erected at the Salt Lake International Airport, and will be owned by the City and leased to the Company.

ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Stoler seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Mabey who was absent at the time of the vote.

DISCUSSION: Louis Miller, director of airports, explained the project. He said the 22.2 acre site would include an 88,000 square foot, two-story marketing/reservations/training facility to be completed by Sept. 1, 1987; a 72,800 square foot aircraft maintenance hangar to be completed by Dec. 31, 1988; a 30,000 square foot cabin service facility (warehouse/operational/office space/truck docks) to be completed by January, 1989; a 150,000 square foot parking apron; and an 800 foot extension to the common use taxiway to be completed during 1988. He said that the total cost of the facilities would be in excess of $20 million, creating 600 new jobs with an annual payroll of $12 million.

Mr. Miller said the City would execute 3 leases relating to the facilities. The first lease would be an exempt facilities lease for the hangar, cabin service facility, aircraft parking apron and the training facility portion in the marketing/reservation/training center. He said that these facilities would be financed with tax exempt special purpose Airport Revenue bonds, which were based on the credit of Delta Air Lines. He said that they were not a pledge of any Airport revenues, nor the credit of the City. He said that the second agreement would be a non-exempt facilities lease for the reservation center.

This would be financed with Airport reserves and Airport revenues for $4 million. The third lease would be a ground lease for the 22.2 acre site with Delta’s annual rent beginning at $129,000 and escalating to $433,000 in 36 years. The Airport would finance $1.5 million for site development which would be repaid to the Airport in the form of a 30 year rental at 8.75% interest and would mean $142,000 per year revenue for the Airport. Mr. Miller said that the $30 million bond was based on the full faith and credit of Delta. Delta would pay the debt service through a trustee and if something went wrong the City would own the facilities and could rent them to someone else.

The following people spoke: Jim Webster, 938 Military Drive, said he supported this item. Dave Jankowski, representative of Delta Air Lines, said that the project was good evidence of Delta’s commitment to Salt Lake City and the permanence of Delta’s presence. He said that they appreciated the City’s support.

(Q 87-5)

IRB HUISH CHEMICAL

RE: A public hearing at 6:00 p.m. to obtain public comment concerning the proposed issuance of up to $2 million of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds for Huish Chemical Project to be located at 3540 West 1987 South.

ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Staler seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.

Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Hardwick seconded to adopt Resolution 51 of 1987, authorizing and inducing the execution of a Memorandum of Agreement with Huish Chemical Company, regarding the issuance of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds not to exceed $2,000,000 for a commercial project to be located at 3540 West 1987 South, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Hardwick who was absent at the time of the vote.

DISCUSSION: No one addressed this issue.

(Q 87-8)

Fiscal Year 1987-88 Budgets.

RE: A public hearing at 6:30 p.m. to obtain public comment concerning the Mayor’s recommended budgets for Fiscal Year 1987-88.

ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Bittner seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Mabey who was absent at the time of the vote.

Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Stoler seconded to refer the budgets for Fiscal Year 1987-88 to the Committee of the Whole, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Mabey who was absent at the time of the vote.

DISCUSSION: Councilmember Godfrey pointed out that within the last two years the City had lost over $5 million in federal revenue sharing funds and over $1.2 million in sales tax. He said that the Mayor’s recommended budget included no property tax increase and the Council had three options in dealing with the budget and ensuring that the City had a balanced budget. He said they could increase property taxes, they could apply fees where necessary, and thirdly, they could reduce services to the citizens of Salt Lake City. He requested that speakers keep these three areas in mind as they discussed the budget. He said it would be helpful to the Council if speakers would not only tell what they didn’t want, but also what they would suggest to replace the funds.

The following people spoke: Sam Weller, Zions Bookstore, said that the merchants downtown had lost business, his was down about 3%, and he said that if the businesses didn’t prosper, then the City wouldn’t get the sales tax revenues. He felt that the meter rates should not be raised and neither should parking fines. He also felt that there should be more time on the meters and that out of town or rental cars should not be ticketed.

Mayor DePaulis said that the time limit on some of the meters was an issue and he said that there was an out of state program in the summer. He also said that the Transportation Division was working on ideas to lessen some of the sense of conflict in the interaction of citizens and parking enforcement personnel. Councilmember Stoler pointed out that the meter violation would not change, but the willful violation penalties were under consideration for increase, such as parking in the red zones, at fire hydrants, etc. Mr. Weller said that the City needed to be more concerned about customers coming into downtown Salt Lake.

Jack Olsen, Utah Taxpayers Association, said the budget showed a 5% increase and said that the City couldn’t heap on more taxes each year. He said that this was the 3rd year in a row for tax increases. He said he had no complaints with services, the City had a good police force, fire department and garbage collection and he was very happy with the way the city was administered. He said that there would be a property tax increase of .2 mills for the Library. He suggested that the City should be aware of the mood of the taxpayers.

He said the Taxpayer’s Association was not particularly upset about the garbage collection fee of $2.2 million, if there was an abatement for low income. He said that over the last 3 years for the average homeowner, there had been an increase of $110 (including the garbage fee) for just City purposes. Mr. Olsen said the City should say no to the Library tax if they had any influence; no to business license fee Increases; and no to parking fines and fees. Mr. Olsen said he would be willing to work with the Council. He said that he believed the Council would make the right decision and not overburden the taxpayer.

Mayor DePaulis said that last year major service level reductions were made in Police and Fire. He said this budget included $700,000 in cuts because he felt it fair to cut as well as ask for additional revenue. Mayor DePaulis agreed with Mr. Olsen as far as property taxes. He said he would like to have proposed lowering the property mill in exchange for collecting a user fee. He said that the garbage collection fee proposal did include abatements and said that most of the budget increases were at the Airport because of growth. Dave Murtha, 554 5th Avenue, said he had not seen improvements to curbs, gutters, or streets for his tax money, and for 8 years he had been asking for a gutter grate. He said he opposed sewer taxes and the garbage collection fee.

He said that it was just another tax and if something couldn’t be budgeted it should not be an addition to the budget. He said he had neighbors who were elderly or widowed and couldn’t afford their property taxes and would not be able to pay additional taxes. He said he agreed with Councilmember Bittner and felt that middle management positions should be eliminated. He said cuts should be made internally, such as cuts in fleet purchases, etc.

Mayor DePaulis said that he would inform Public Works about the problem with Mr. Murtha’s gutter. Jim Webster, 938 Military Drive, said that they did not have a very good turn-out for the annual Miller Park clean-up this year, because he was told, people felt that the City got enough of their tax dollar that they should clean up the park. Mr. Miller said that he hoped this would not be a prevailing trend. He said that he agreed with Councilmember Bittner regarding elimination of middle management positions.

(B 87-3)

Compensation Plan.

RE: A public hearing at 6:30 p.m. to obtain public comment concerning an ordinance amending Section 25-1-1 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, 1965, relating to compensation of city officers and employees, including statutory officers.

ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Stoler seconded to close the public hearing which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Mabey who was absent at the time of the vote.

Councilmember Stoler moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to refer the ordinance to the Committee of the Whole, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Mabey who was absent at the time of the vote.

DISCUSSION: No one addressed this issue.

(O 87-10)

Parking Ticket Fees

RE: A public hearing at 6:30 p.m. to obtain public comment concerning ordinances amending the Salt Lake City Parking Ticket Schedule; and adopt ordinances relating thereto.

Councilmember Stoler moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adopt Ordinance 25 of 1987 amending the Salt Lake City Parking Ticket Schedule, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Mabey who was absent at the time of the vote.

DISCUSSION: Councilmember Godfrey said this Increase was for non-meter violations, such as parking on sidewalks, parking in handicapped areas, red-zones, etc. Nick Gallenson, downtown business owner, said that businesses spent millions of dollars in advertising to get people downtown and they did not want to do anything to block their progress into town or make them unhappy, like meter fines. He said parking fines should be cut in half and more meters and angle parking installed.

Reuel Ware, president of the Downtown Retail Merchant’s Association, addressed the Council to indicate the feelings of the association, the executive committee and most of the board of directors. He said they understood the parking violation increases were only for illegal parking, not the meter violations. He said they had met with the City’s ticketing agency to discuss cutting the ticket fines and the increased rate for meters because of the perceptions of the customer towards the downtown area.

He said they were most concerned about their customer and couldn’t afford to pay additional taxes, but certainly couldn’t afford to lose those customers. He said they resisted the increase of the parking meter rates, however, if this was going to occur they requested twenty-five cent increments so that the customer only had to deal with one coin. He said that if the customer had to search for two coins, it became a double irritant. He said that although no-one liked to pay more taxes, they would not resist or fight against the increase of their business licenses by twenty percent.

He noted that this was the feeling of their executive committee and the majority of their board - not their entire board. He said that as responsible citizens they were willing to pay part of the tab. He said that they would like this not to apply to the increase in budget of the CBID, which he said appeared to be the case. Mayor Depaulis said that the summer program of not ticketing out of state cars was in progress and the rental car issue was something to be considered. Councilmember Bittner liked the idea of the twenty-five cent or one coin increase.

(O 87-11)

Parking Meter Rates

RE: A public hearing at 6:30 p.m. to obtain public comment concerning an ordinance increasing Salt Lake City parking meter rates from $.30/hour to $.60/hour.

Councilmember Bittner moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to delay a decision until Thursday, May 21, 1987, on the parking meter rates, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Mabey who was absent at the time of the vote.

DISCUSSION: Buzz Hunt, city treasurer, said that the cost difference between the $.50 and the $.60 per hour would be approximately $280,000, which would have to be absorbed or found from other revenue sources. It was decided that action could be delayed until Thursday without being critical in ordering the new mechanisms for the meters.

(O 87-12)

Garbage Collection Fee

RE: A public hearing at 6:30 p.m. to obtain public comment concerning ordinances creating an enterprise fund for garbage collection, and setting a $4.00 per month fee, and providing an abatement program.

ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Bittner seconded to close the hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Mabey who was absent at the time of the vote.

Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Bittner seconded to refer the garbage collection fee to the Committee of the Whole, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Mabey who was absent at the time of the vote.

DISCUSSION: Merrill Cook, 2989 Sherwood Drive, opposed the fee. He said that it was a regressive tax and not really a user fee. He said that it would hurt the City’s poor people. He said user fees were designed to take costs of government services that only a few people benefited from and make sure that those people paid for them, and the other people who didn’t benefit from those services didn’t have to subsidize those few.

He said that the problem with this fee was that everyone was going to have to pay. He said the general fund budget had the increases from the taxes raised last year, and also property taxes increased which raised franchise revenues. He said that if the City was unable to provide a garbage collection service through the general fund there was something wrong in City Hall because there was an $80 million general fund, and the City should be able to provide the most basic fundamental service that cities offer and that was garbage collection. Ken Eltinge, 940 Elm Avenue, addressed the enterprise portion of the garbage collection fee. He said the City should use the fee, but in a subsidized manner. He said that when it was subsidized there was better control of costs. He said that when it became an enterprise fund, you front-end load it. He said that with an enterprise fund, the $4.00 would have to be increased in order to repay the bond.

Mayor DePaulis said this issue was being explored. He said that the fee did cover the bonding mechanism and allowed the City to subsidize the enterprise fund. He said that everything was covered with the $4.00 fee except the annual trash pick-up which would still be included in the general fund. David Kiefer, 513 10th Avenue, spoke in favor of garbage collection fees. He said that user fees were good in principle because they were efficient and fair and they made the closest connection between the services received by the citizens and the costs of those services.

He said that user fees also led to effective government. He said tenants would pay more under the property tax option than they would with user fees. He said the abatement might mitigate the problem with the poor. Mayor DePaulis explained the user fee and said that presently only residences (up to tri-plex) had been receiving garbage collection, meaning that businesses had been subsidizing the residential garbage pick-up. He said that was why, philosophically, they had been trying to separate the user fee for those who received the service.

Hazel Bailey said that she had lived in SLC for 45 years, and had been pleased with the garbage collection service and wanted the annual pick-up continued. She said that she was age 77 and another $4.00 per month would be too much. She said that she was glad to hear there was an abatement, however, it was humiliating to always have to ask for abatements. She said she was very impressed by the trash collectors in the performance of their job.

(O 87-13)

Business License Fees

RE: A public hearing at 6:30 p.m. to obtain public comment concerning increasing the Salt Lake City Corporation Business License Fees by twenty percent.

ACTION: Councilmember Stoler moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to close the hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Mabey who was absent at the time of the vote.

Councilmember Stoler moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to refer the increase in SLC Business License Fees to the Committee of the Whole, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Mabey who was absent at the time of the vote.

DISCUSSION: Mayor DePaulis indicated that this would be a $10 increase.

(O 87-14)

Central Business Improvement District

RE: A public hearing at 6:30 p.m. to obtain public comment concerning an ordinance amending Section 40-2-3 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, providing that the Central Business Improvement District Tax shall be $50 per place of business plus an additional fee of $5.00 for each employee with a maximum amount of $2,000 for each place of business, and deleting reference to Section 20-3-2 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah.

Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Stoler seconded to refer the CBID tax to the Committee of the Whole, which motion was withdrawn.

Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to approve the change in the ordinance providing that the CBID tax shall be $50.00 per place of business plus an additional $5.00 for each employee with a maximum amount of $2,000 for each place of business, and deleting reference to Section 20-3-2 of the Revised Ordinances, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Mabey who was absent at the time of the vote.

DISCUSSION: Mr. Ware addressed this issue under the Parking Ticket Fee hearing.

(O 87-16)

COMMENTS

#1. Peter Henderson, owner of the Rio Grande Cafe, said he was concerned with the concentration of facilities for the homeless and indigent in the direct vicinity of his restaurant. He said this development had occurred without input of property owners in the area. He said that no one in the area was philosophically opposed to the idea of caring for those less fortunate, but said he was concerned about the impact of that kind of concentration of that specific group of people in a struggling commercial district. He said there had been new development and re-development in the area and the people in the area, paying rent and taxes, deserved to be acknowledged and listened to before decisions were made that could or would traumatically impact them. He said the issue was not whether or not we should take care of the homeless - that issue had been resolved. He said the question was could we afford to alienate the other part of the population from this particular area. Mayor DePaulis said a meeting would be scheduled with the business people in the area to discuss the matter, and he hoped to be sensitive to their concerns.

#2. Richard Thomas, Thomas Electric, said they had been in business on 200 South for 57 years. He read from page 60 of the West Downtown Master Plan, adopted by the City Council in November, 1984, concerning the over concentration of transients downtown. The Master Plan recommended “...that a gradual sensitive dispersal of agencies servicing human needs of transients take place rather than continue to concentrate such facilities within the area.”

Mr. Thomas said the aim of the master plan was to develop the area and encourage investment of the private sector so as to develop the “heart of the city” into an area that would be more attractive to business and also urban residential projects. He said the concentration of the alcohol rehab centers, mental health centers, and homeless shelters all within a 1/2 block area was not meeting the master plan’s objectives. He said he looked forward to meeting with the Mayor’s Office.

#3. Michael Zimmerman, 1408 Federal Way, spoke to the Council regarding Petition 400-515 submitted by Eugene Farley. He said they understood that setting the hearing date may prevent uses from coming into place in that area between now and the time the Council had a chance to consider whether the petition should be made into an ordinance. He said the petition would make some permitted uses, which were now there (fraternities and sororities), no longer permitted. He said it would make those presently in place non-conforming, but new ones could not move in.

He said the reason the petition was filed was that 3 new fraternities wanted to move onto a Street where they had not previously been located and bring along with them the disruption, the alcohol, the refuse and the parking problems. He said they were requesting the hearing date prior to a Planning Commission decision because they understood the fraternities were attempting to move in and establish uses before the Council and the Planning Commission had the opportunity to consider the status quo.

#4. Lois Sprunt, 1442 Federal Way, said she was not against sororities or fraternities. She said she was for better relationships. She said that she and her husband graduated from the U of Li and were part of the Greek system. She said they had lived across the street from fraternities and there were fraternities located behind their residence and for years they had been offended by the loud music, vulgar language and garbage deposited on their lawn. She said they used their driveway and backyard as a thoroughfare. She said if this use was permitted, they would be surrounded on all four sides. She requested that the Council set the date and consider what the neighbors have to say.

#5. Robert Sanders, 1419 Federal Way, read from the letter he submitted to planning and zoning, indicating that the University was responsible for governing the activities and behavior of students, including local chapter house activities of fraternal organizations. He said that the special rules governing house activities such as the expressly forbidden use of alcohol, were accompanied by the imposition of severe penalties for violations. He said the zoning ordinances had provided a variance to the regular R-2 zone allowing fraternities, sororities and rooming houses provided that the University did the supervising, placing themselves in place of parents of the students.

The University abandoned this policy of enlocal-parentus and its accompanying policing structure years ago. This left the zoning variance without any meaningful control, therefore having turned the neighbors into antagonists. He asked that the Council set the date for the hearing and put everyone on notice so they could express themselves in order for the Council to make a wise solution for the neighborhood.

#6. Pete Harmon, 74 South Wolcott, commented on what happened to an area when fraternities moved into it. He said the area was built as private homes, single family dwellings with nice yards and 2 car garages. He said when a house was turned into a fraternity house, 15-20 members became live-in members and on weekends, they had parties with 50-100 guests. The traffic created by members and their guests became intolerable.

He said there was a parking problem because of the lack of off- street parking, and during these social functions there was a great deal of coming and going between the houses and the parties often spilled into neighboring yards. The effect of all this, he said, was that it created a great deal of trash and often damage to neighboring homes and property.

Mr. Harmon said that one of the houses attempting to move to Federal Way already had a house on 1300 East and the house had fallen into such disrepair that it was shut down, which was the reason for relocation. He said this type of thing was what they were trying to avoid. He said they were trying to keep up a quality in the neighborhood which would allow them to maintain the types of lives they moved there to have.

#7. Grant Bagley, 1430 Federal Way, said he lived in the very center of the impacted area, and what they were asking for was an opportunity for consideration of the proposal without any abrupt changes which they thought would be destructive. He said that this had been a long standing situation and thought there had been significant changes in the situation over very recent years and they would like to have the opportunity to present those in full.

#8. Steve Holbrook, Greater Salt Lake Homeless Committee coordinator, spoke to some of the concerns of the neighbors in regarding shelter facilities. He said there was an informal plan between existing private non-profit agencies for co- location, coordination of services, avoiding duplication and reducing wider roaming patterns through the city of homeless persons. He said it needed to be clear, however, that in building a shelter at a currently proposed site (directly west of the St. Vincent DePaul Center) they would be replacing and closing 3 other facilities from the same general area because they were inadequate and in unsafe condition.

People have seeking facilities had done so with good faith from the informal suggestions of the City Council that they ought to look roughly between 300 West and the freeway and 100 South and 500 South. He said all of the facilities that the agencies had looked for were in properly zoned areas and had been so zoned for some time. He said there was very little retail, no residential and there were very few places in the City with these exact conditions.

Mr. Holbrook said there had been complaints about homeless in this area back to Brigham Young’s times. He said they sought not to locate on Pioneer Park because of the City’s interest in trying to utilize the park and the housing across the Street. He said on Rio Grande Avenue it would be families crossing directly across the street to St. Vincent DePaul for lunch.

He said that the problem not being addressed was the fear of the chiefly male, alcoholic, homeless person who constituted about 1/3 of the homeless population. He said that the jail was full, the detox centers were full, the rehabilitation programs were full and the shelters didn’t let a drunk person In, so these were the people who were causing the real problems and creating a problem for the rest of the homeless. He said that this was a problem that had to be dealt with.

Mr. Holbrook said there would be some new good neighbors there. The new shelter facility would be a $2.2 million project. He said that was a lot of property ownership and a commitment to that neighborhood. The new Salvation Army facility was a $2 million facility and the property had been purchased. They wanted to be good neighbors and didn’t want a run-down area. The St. Vincent facility was a $650 thousand facility that they had purchased, and they wanted this investment to make the City better.

He said it would make it easier for the City to keep track of unruly people to be in a concentrated area (police patrol, etc.) He said there were thousands of volunteers who worked for and contributed money to these agencies and they wanted to be able to be in a respectable, acceptable place. Mr. Holbrook said the problem the neighbors were experiencing was something that was there presently, before a shelter was built and all the shelter would do would be to take people off the street and inside at night. He said he understood that everyone could not be happy, but thanked the Council for their support.

He said that they had 3 real estate agents looking for sites. He said that the Salvation Army was at this location for several years, so homeless services had been delivered for many years in this area. He said that the difference was the homeless would be walking in front of the businesses concerned rather than behind as in the past.

The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.