PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
REGULAR/BRIEFING SESSION
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1986
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1986, AT 4:30 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.
Council Chairperson Hardwick presided at the meeting.
BRIEFING SESSION
Dick Fox, of Fox, Edwards, Gardiner and Brown, briefed the Council on the effects of the new tax law on special improvement district bondings. He explained that the state law reserve requirements were excessive in comparison to the federal law and to avoid a yield restriction he indicated that from this point on the reserve had to be limited to the amount allotted. Councilmember Kirk asked if it would cost the city more money to keep track of bonds with the new tax law. He responded that it would cost more but the increase wouldn’t be overly burdensome.
Linda Hamilton, Executive Director of the City Council Office, briefed the Council on the evening’s agenda. Councilmember Kirk was concerned with a motion that would change 300 South to “Broadway 300 South” between West Temple and Fifth East. She pointed out that the signs are already in place with the new name on them. Ms. Hamilton said that some of the signs had already been installed.
The Council discussed adopting a motion releasing $150,000 in 10th Year CDBG funds to public works for El Centro Civico Mexicano for rehabilitation of their community center. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked how much money the county had committed to contribute to the project. Brian Wilkinson, Council Staff, told Councilmember Fonnesbeck that the county had agreed to pay $66,000 to El Centro Civico Mexicano for the community center.
The Council discussed a public hearing in which the Council would obtain public comment concerning a request from Dan Lundergan that the east-west alley adjacent to his home at 926 McClelland Street be vacated according to Petition No. 400-446. Councilmember Godfrey explained to the Council that the alley should be vacated, however, there would be opposition to the proposal because Mr. Lundergan illegally closed off the alley to begin with, thereby upsetting his neighbors.
The Council discussed a public hearing in which the Council would obtain public comment concerning a request from Michael and Marianne Moffit, et al., requesting that Salt Lake City vacate an alley known as “Ashton Avenue” located between Hannibal Street and approximately 1875 East according to Petition No. 400-426. Councilmember Mabey asked if the school children in the area used the alley for access to the school. Councilmember Stoler said that very few children used the alley, therefore, the alley should be vacated.
The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 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 Councilmember Bittner conducted the meeting.
The prayer was given by Police Chaplain Clarence Fields.
The Council led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes.
Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Hardwick seconded to approve the minutes of the Salt Lake City Council for the regular meetings held Tuesday, November 4, 1986, and Thursday, November 13, 1986, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(M 86-1)
Special Recognition
Mayor DePaulis presented the November Tourism Ambassador of the Month Award to Margaret “Peg” Fitzpatrick. Mayor DePaulis said she was the assistant to the director of public relations for the University of Utah Museum of Fine Arts and in order to make the museum more hospitable she created the Sunday Afternoons in the Museum program. Each Sunday, visitors are greeted by a trained docent who can offer detailed information about the museum’s works and light refreshments are available. Ms. Fitzpatrick said that they had a wonderful museum which belonged to the State of Utah and the City of Salt Lake. She invited everyone to come and visit the museum.
(G 86-22)
PETITIONS
Petition 400-366 by the Capitol Hill Community Council.
RE: A request to rezone property located within the Capitol Hill Community, petition areas “A”, “B”, “F”, and “G”.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to set a public hearing for Tuesday, December 9, 1986, at 6:45 p.m., which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 86-312)
Petition 400-366 by the Capitol Hill Community Council.
RE: A request to rezone property located within the Capitol Hill Community, petition areas “C”, “D”, and “E”.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to set a public hearing for Tuesday, December 16, 1986, at 6:45 p.m., which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 86-313)
Petition 400-444 by Erv Wilferd and Harold Egan, Jr.
RE: A request to vacate that portion of an alley running from Richards Street west 144 feet to where it intersects a north/south alley in the block north of 2100 South Street.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to set a public hearing for Tuesday, December 16, 1986, at 6:30 p.m., which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 86-314)
Petition 400-449 by the Kroh Brothers.
RE: An ordinance recognizing the adoption of amendment 58 to the Master Annexation Policy Declaration; extending the limits of Salt Lake City to include the Kroh Annex as requested; zoning the same Commercial “C-3A” by amending the use district map as adopted by Section 51-12-1 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, as amended.
ACTION: This item was pulled from the agenda.
(P 86-283)
Petition 400-471 by the Central Business Improvement District.
RE: A request to change 300 South Street to “Broadway 300 South” between West Temple and Fifth East.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to set a public hearing for Tuesday, December 9, 1986, at 7:00 p.m., which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 86-311)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
CITY COUNCIL
#1. RE: An ordinance repealing Section 20-14-11 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, 1965, as amended, prohibiting entertainment in restaurants or public dining rooms during certain hours.
ACTION: Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Staler seconded to refer the ordinance to the Committee of the Whole, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 86-35)
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
#1. RE: The Avenues Community Master Plan Update.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to set a public hearing for Tuesday, December 9, 1986, at 6:30 p.m., which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(T 86-35)
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
#1. RE: The issuance of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds in an amount not to exceed $8,800,000 for the acquisition and renovation of an existing hotel of approximately 190 rooms located at 1659 West North Temple in Salt Lake City, Utah, by Landmark Hotel, Corp., a Kansas Corporation, or an entity affiliated therewith.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to set a public hearing for Tuesday, December 9, 1986, at 7:05 p.m., which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 86-18)
MAYOR’S OFFICE
#1. RE: A resolution supporting a bid by Salt Lake City to host the 1990 National League of Cities Convention.
ACTION: Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Hardwick seconded to suspend the rules and on first reading adopt joint Resolution 139 of 1986 resolution of the Mayor and the City Council, supporting a bid by Salt Lake City to host the 1990 National League of Cities Convention, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
DISCUSSION: Mayor DePaulis said that this would be a major event for Salt Lake City and other cities had pledged their support. He said that in 1988 the city was going to host the U.S. Conference of Mayors which would also be a major event.
(R 86-1)
#2. RE: The appointment of Lyle Knudsen and the reappointments of Edmund Allen, Peter duPont Emerson, Louis Ulrich, and Michael Stransky to the Historical Landmarks Committee.
ACTION: Without objection these appointments were referred to the consent agenda.
(I 86-21)
#3. RE: The appointment of William Cutting to fill the unexpired term of Jess Agraz on the Central Business Improvement District Board.
ACTION: Without objection this appointment was referred to the consent agenda.
(I 86-14)
#4. RE: The reappointment of Yan Ross to the Utah Air Travel Commission.
ACTION: Without objection this appointment was referred to the consent agenda.
(I 86-22)
#5. RE: The reappointments of Tom Ellison, George Nicolatus, and John Schuman to the Planning Commission.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to refer these reappointments to the Committee of the Whole for interviews, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(I 86-24)
#6. RE: The reappointments of Rendell Mabey and Virginia Walton to the Tracy Aviary Board.
ACTION: Without objection these reappointments were referred to the consent agenda.
(I 86-19)
#7. RE: The release of $150,000 in 10th Year CDBG funds to El Centro Civico Mexicano for rehabilitation of their community center.
ACTION: Councilmember Hardwick moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to remove the Council’s legislative intent regarding the release of $150,000 in 10th Year CDBG funds for the El Centro Civico expansion project to allow for the project to be put out to bid, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
DISCUSSION: Mayor DePaulis said that the funds would be released to the public works department so the project could be bid. Mr. Gallegos, on behalf of the Hispanic Community, thanked the Council and specifically Councilmember Mabey for their help with this project.
(T 86-30, T 86-10)
PUBLIC WORKS
#1. RE: Board of Equalization and Review for Special Improvement District 38-800.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adopt Resolution 137 of 1986 appointing members of the Board of Equalization and Review for Special Improvement District 200 South Street beautification curb and gutter extension 38-800, scheduling hearings and providing for notice of the hearings of the Board of Equalization and Review and providing for the availability of assessment rolls, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 86-4)
#2. RE: Board of Equalization and Review for Special Improvement District 38-750.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Hardwick seconded to adopt Resolution 138 of 1986 appointing members of the Board of Equalization and Review for Special Improvement District Curb and Gutter Extension 38-750 (noncontiguous streets), scheduling hearings and providing for notice of the hearings of the Board of Equalization and Review and providing for the availability of assessment rolls, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 84-1)
#3. RE: Official Notice of Bond Sale, Abbreviated Notice of Sale, and the Official Statement for Special Improvement Districts 40-R-6 and 38-760.
ACTION: Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to approve the Official Notice of Bond Sale and the Abbreviated Notice of Sale, the Official Statement for the $94,000 Special Assessment Bonds, Series 1986, of Salt Lake City, Utah, Special Improvement District Curb and Gutter Extension No. 38-760 (900 North, Redwood - Starcrest Street), and for the $512,000 Special Assessment Bonds, Series 1986, of Salt Lake City, Utah, Special Improvement District Concrete Replacement No. 40-R-6 (50/50 concrete replacement, non-contiguous streets), and authorize publication of the abbreviated notice of sale; and related matters, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 85-2, Q 84-5)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Redman Building IRB.
RE: A public hearing at 6:25 p.m. to consider a resolution of inducement in an amount up to $2,500,000 to finance the acquisition of land and an existing building formerly known as Redman Storage Building.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Stoler moved and Councilmember Hardwick seconded to adopt inducement Resolution 140 of 1986, to finance the acquisition of land and the existing building formerly known as Redman Storage Building located at 1240 East 2100 South, Salt Lake City, Utah, and the renovation, furnishing, equipping and general improvement of said building to be owned by Parry Development Properties, Inc., in an amount up to $2,500,000, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
DISCUSSION: John Hiskey, director of economic development, said that the project was of special importance because it would be the first project in the phase one area of the Sugar House redevelopment area. He said it had added significance by bringing in a new industry and had a good potential in terms of community impact. He explained that one issue of concern was parking, which the Incentive Review Committee considered and decided that the situation could be resolved. He said there were no other objections and he recommended approval of the project.
Rawlins Young, land use chairman of the Sugar House Community Council, said they were not opposed to the project but concerned about the project having appropriate set backs and landscaping, and were also concerned about how the parking would be handled and how the building would conform to the sign ordinance.
Councilmember Godfrey asked about the developer’s intention regarding the sign. Dr. Nancy Parry, president of Parry Development Co., explained that the sign was an identification factor for the building and would be changed to read Redman Movies and Stories. She indicated that the sign attracted the movie people and it was being used to sell their project. She said that a sign company indicated that the sign was salvageable and she said it would be fixed and painted. She showed a picture of the project and explained that the building would be renovated with rose-colored glass and have a gray cement super structure.
Councilmember Kirk asked if some of the space was already leased. Dr. Parry said that the building was already being used for film work and said they were attracting people from the East and West Coasts because Utah was a right-to-work state. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said she thought the sign was a matter for the developer to decide.
Ken Eltinge, chairman of the Sugar House Community Council, supported the proposal and the new business and revitalization it would bring to Sugar House. Brian Clifton, owner of Redman Movies and Stories, said this project would bring the film industry back to the state and it would be positive to the film community. Councilmember Stoler said this was one of the best things to happen in the area.
(Q 86-17)
Pierpont Block Redesign Plan.
RE: A public hearing at 6:30 p.m. regarding the Pierpont Block Redesign Plan illustrating how new development and infrastructure improvements could compliment private redevelopment of the block.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Hardwick seconded to direct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution to officially adopt the Block 59/Pierpont Block Redesign Plan, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
DISCUSSION: Harvey Boyd, planning and zoning, presented a drawing outlining the area which is located between 200 and 300 South and 200 West and West Temple. He said that the Preservation Strategies Committee looked at how City planning and redevelopment might be more responsive to the older buildings in this area. He said there had been quite a bit of activity on this street with the old Salt Lake High being renovated and a number of the other property owners had expressed interest in the plan.
He said the plan’s purpose and goals were to illustrate how areas within this block could possibly be redeveloped and at the same time conserve a lot of the historical and architecturally significant buildings. He said the plan also worked to further enhance and begin implementation of the West Downtown plan. He said a key feature of the plan was to maintain the small scale of existing development and as part of the plan they proposed a number of set backs that would step the buildings away from Pierpont Avenue.
He said that the city’s major role would be to coordinate and oversee the public/private improvements such as Street improvements, lighting, landscaping, and paving. He said that emphasizing the rehabilitation and conservation of this block was important to the buildings and features of the block and would allow unique development opportunities.
Mary Adamson, member of the Preservation Strategies Committee, said their initial mission was to try and coordinate in an 18-square block central business district the utilization of as many historically significant buildings as possible. He said it seemed to be fitting to utilize the city’s power to help facilitate the private sector in the development of the balance of this block. He encouraged the Council to adopt the block redesign. Stephen Goldsmith, 325 Pierpont, endorsed the plan
(T 86-31)
Petition 400-446 by Dan Lundergan.
RE: A public hearing at 6:45 p.m. to discuss the request that the east-west alley adjacent to the petitioner’s home at 926 McClelland Street be vacated.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to adopt Ordinance 89 of 1986 vacating an east-west alley running between McClelland Street part of the way to Tenth East between Ninth South and Belmont Avenue, with the condition that the vacation not be valid until the fence meets city code, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
DISCUSSION: Harvey Boyd, planning and zoning, outlined the area on a map and the location of the property owners who did not sign the petition. He indicated on the map where the petitioner had already fenced off the alley and said that city departments did not oppose the vacation but the Planning Commission was concerned that two of the properties would not have access to their rear yards if the alley was vacated. Councilmember Godfrey said that he talked to the property owner north of the alley who indicated support for the alley vacation.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck expressed her concern about the appearance of the fence which had been installed and suggested that a condition be included in the ordinance regarding the fence. Roger Cutler, city attorney, said that when the Council vacated alleys they were only vacating the public interest for ingress and egress and not affecting private rights of way and someone could contest a fence by claiming that it interfered with their easement.
Dan Lundergan, petitioner, explained that he installed the fence prematurely because the alley had been used as a means of escape for burglars. He said that after he put up the fence he submitted his petition to have the alley vacated. He said he realized the fence was illegal but was concerned about the security and safety of his property and family. He said that the alley had not been used for a number of years and felt there would be an advantage to vacating the alley.
David McKewan, 933 South 10th East, opposed the alley vacation and complained that the fence had been installed illegally and the alley couldn’t be used because of dirt and a truck which were blocking the alley. He wanted two accesses available for fire trucks since one access could possibly be blocked. Paul Andreason, 920 South McClelland, supported the vacation and said that a rape suspect had escaped down the alley. He thought the installation of a fence was a good alternative and said he felt that the fence had been effective.
Imanuel Ruegner, 917 South 10th East, opposed the installation of the fence. Joanie Taylor, 934 McClelland, did not think it was right to put up a fence illegally and said that the alley had been used before it was obstructed. John Thompson, 927 South 10th East, expressed his desire to have access from both ends of the alley and said he installed security lighting behind his property and felt this had been more effective than a fence. He said he felt the fence should be taken down and the alley restored to a useable condition.
Councilmember Godfrey said that he had met with the residents in the area and the major issue seemed to be the illegal fence and that someone would take the law into their own hands. He said that in talking with the neighbors he had learned that very few people drove through the alley when it was open because of the box elder trees. He said that the alley met the requirements for being vacated and explained that the abutting property owners, Mr. Lundergan and Mr. Andreason, agreed to the vacation and that the property to the west was an apartment complex that did not need the alley.
He said that the people living on McClelland did not use the alley for access to their garages, it was the people on 10th East. He said that Mr. Lundergan would have to pay for a dead-end sign and either grade the alley or install curb, which would depend on his being able to acquire the entire vacated portion from the other property owners. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that it would have been better for Mr. Lundergan to request the vacation prior to installing the fence but said that the alley was ineffective and did not serve a purpose. She said the alley was small and substandard and vacation of the alley would follow city policy.
Councilmember Hardwick suggested that if the debris and dirt were not removed from the alley then the responsible party should be cited by the city. Councilmember Stoler said that the Council did not condone people for breaking the law but added that residential burglaries could cause people to do a number of things for protection that they would not normally do.
(P 86-286)
Petition 400-426 by Michael and Marianne Moffitt, et al.
RE: A public hearing at 7:00 p.m. to discuss a request to vacate an alley known as Ashton Avenue located between Hannibal Street and approximately 1875 East.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent for the vote.
Councilmember Stoler moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Ordinance 90 of 1986 closing the alley rather than vacating it and directed the City Attorney to prepare quit claim deeds to transfer all of the property to the residences abutting the alley, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent for the vote.
DISCUSSION: Harvey Boyd, planning and zoning, said that the abutting property owners consented to the petition except for the Salt Lake Country Club. He explained that in earlier planning this alley had been proposed to be used as part of an open-space trail system and said there was some concern by the community council about the closure of this street. He said that none of the city departments opposed the closure.
Michael Moffitt, petitioner, said the alley was unkept and not maintained. He said it was only 10 feet wide at its widest point and was infrequently used by people in the neighborhood. He said that in the winter the snow and ice were not plowed and in the summer the alley was overgrown with weeds. He said all five residential property owners abutting the alley signed the petition and he asked that the entire width of the alley be given to the residential properties since the Country Club did not want any of the property.
Rawlins Young, Sugar House Community Council, said that the alley was useful and could possibly be used to develop the linear parkway trail system. He asked the Council not to make a decision until they had examined the potential of the trail system. Councilmember Mabey asked how this trail would be maintained and Mr. Young replied that the maintenance issue would have to be re-addressed since local neighbors could not be expected to do a city job.
Ken Eltinge, chairman of the Sugar House Community Council, said that several thousand dollars had been spent to study an urban walkway and he asked the Council to postpone action pending the outcome of the study. He agreed that maintenance was the biggest problem. Randall Young, 2325 South Wellington, supported closure of the alley and said he felt it was a hazard and created an opportunity for crime. He indicated that he had seen several incidences of unsavory conduct in the alley.
Councilmember Stoler said that he talked to the Country Club and they did not oppose closing the alley but did not want any of the property. He said that in order for this area to be used as a trail other property would have to be purchased so it could connect to 1700 East and tie into Sugar House Park. He said that city vehicles could not access the property because there were barriers in the way.
Roger Cutler, city attorney, explained that since the Country Club did not want any of the property the Council would have to close, rather than vacate, the alley and the property would have to be deeded to the abutting residential property owners.
(P 86-284)
Planning Case 626 by Randall Jensen.
RE: A public hearing at 7:10 p.m. concerning an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to uphold the Landmark Committee’s action to deny Case No. 626, requesting the use of vinyl siding in a historic district at 256 North Vine Street.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Hardwick seconded to deny the appeal, upholding the decision of the Landmark Committee, with the explanation that the intent of the Council in amending the ordinance was explicit, and is contained in the language of the revision wherein the term “prohibit” is used.
A substitute motion was made by Councilmember Kirk and seconded by Councilmember Stoler that this matter be taken under advisement to examine the ordinance. The substitute motion was later withdrawn.
The original motion made by Councilmember Godfrey and seconded by Councilmember Hardwick, to deny the appeal, was voted upon, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
DISCUSSION: Mike Stransky, chairman of the Landmarks Committee, said the applicant’s request was denied according to the ordinance since installing vinyl siding in a historic district was not appropriate and was against the law. He said that vinyl siding diminished the detailed trim on a home and was substantially more expensive than painting. He said that covering the old wood siding risked deterioration of the material underneath and he recommended that the Council deny the request.
Randall Jensen, petitioner, said that the house was built in 1891 and had been remodeled and added on to several times so the house had different kinds of sidings on it. He said that the wood was dry and cracked with splintered edges and restoration of the home would be economically impractical. Mr. Jensen asked Ernie Hansen of Reynolds Aluminum to talk to the Council about vinyl siding. Mr. Hansen showed the Council a sample of Victorian vinyl which he said was identical to the wood siding currently on the home.
He said that this vinyl product would not interfere with the decorative trim on the home and the basic looks of the home would not change. Mr. Hansen said that there was a manufacturer’s warranty for 50 years that if the appearance of the siding changed, the company would replace it. Councilmember Kirk asked Mr. Jensen if he had been aware that the ordinance prohibited the use of siding. Mr. Jensen said that the contractor had informed him of this. Mr. Hansen asked if steel siding would be prohibited.
Mr. Stransky showed a photo of the house and reiterated that the law prohibited the use of any imitation siding. He said that he saw no reason why the house could not be painted to which Mr. Jensen replied that the wood was too splintered to be smoothed enough for paint and to replace the wood siding with new wood siding would cost too much. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that she knew of no historic district in the United States which allowed siding and the use of it diminished entire neighborhoods. She said the law was amended and clarified by the Council to prohibit imitation coverings and the law was clear. She said she realized there were individual problems but the Council was talking about an entire neighborhood.
She also said that when the district was created people had a chance to voice their opinion at the public hearing and there were special obligations when people lived in a historic district. She indicated that even though Mr. Jensen may not be able to restore the home, in the future someone could unless the home was covered with siding since once the siding was applied it would be irreversible. She expressed her opinion that the Council should not vote against their own law just because it was being challenged.
Councilmember Mabey expressed his concern because he thought there could always be exceptions based on individual circumstances. He was concerned about the position Mr. Jensen was in as far as trying to maintain the home in the most economical fashion. Councilmember Godfrey indicated that when people accepted the idea of being in a historic district, they knew that restrictions would apply and he said the Council should follow their own ordinance.
Councilmember Bittner asked Roger Cutler, city attorney, if the Council could suspend the ordinance. Mr. Cutler said they were bound by the ordinance and indicated that there was an appeal mechanism to deal with extraordinary circumstances, however, he said the prohibition against imitation siding was clear. He added that the appeal mechanism was to determine if the ordinance was being properly applied by the Landmarks Committee.
He said he was not aware of a hardship escape mechanism in this ordinance and said the Council could either stand by the rigid prohibition or decide if they wanted to take the matter under advisement and consider an escape mechanism based on hardship. Councilmember Hardwick suggested that perhaps the Council needed to consider adding this mechanism to the ordinance but there was currently a law in place which should be considered in this particular matter and not whether this case was right or wrong.
Bill Schwab, planning and zoning, said that every week many people requested that they be allowed to use vinyl siding in the historic district and he said he turned them down based on the law. He told the Council if they allowed exceptions it would put him in a precarious position and would do a disservice to those people who were willing to comply.
(P 86-285)
Ambulance Rate Increase.
RE: A public hearing at 7:15 p.m. concerning an increase in the basic life support rate from $100.00 to $120.00 and the mileage rate from $5.00 to $5.50 per mile and the institution of a “paramedic ambulance transfer” rate of $240.00 per transfer for Gold Cross Services, Inc.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Stoler moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adopt Ordinance 91 of 1986 amending Section 44-7-1 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to ambulance rates and charges by increasing transportation rates to $120.00 per call, mileage rates to $5.50 per mile and establishing a paramedic ambulance transfer rate of $240.00 per transfer for Gold Cross Services, Inc., which motion carried, all members voting aye.
DISCUSSION: John Katter, business licensing, said that he performed an independent survey on 11 western United States cities and found that Gold Cross was well below other rates throughout the cities surveyed. He said the Utah Emergency Medical Services Committee considered this request from Gold Cross and they increased the basic life support rate to $120.00 and the mileage rate to $5.50. He said they also considered a rate of $240.00 for the paramedic ambulance transfer. He said that based on his survey and the decision of the EMS Committee, the licensing department had no objection to the rate increase.
Councilmember Bittner asked if the rates were within the guidelines of most insurance policies. Councilmember Fonnesbeck pointed out that last time they requested a rate increase it was because of the price of gas and she asked if the lower gas prices now had been taken into consideration. Mr. Katter said that all these factors were taken into consideration with the state and he thought they did a thorough job.
Gene Moffitt, president of Gold Cross Services, Inc., said they were regulated by the State EMS Council which was appointed by the governor and was responsible to control ambulances, including rate cases. He said the state did more than an adequate job to make sure the rates were as low as possible while maintaining the highest degree of service. He said they needed additional coverage in the southeast quadrant and wanted to increase the number of units.
He said the emergency medical service in this valley was one of the best in the United States and said that in conjunction with the fire department they responded and acted as the transporting agency. He said their response time was geared to the response time of the fire departments. He added that they also provided service to those who were unable to pay and thought the rate case was justified. B.T. Price opposed the rate increase and thought they used indirect routes in transporting patients. Bernice Cook thought the rates were outrageous and pointed out that the hospitals were on the east side of the valley which meant that those living on the west side had to pay for the extra mileage. She asked the Council to deny this request.
Councilmember Stoler asked if the cost per mile included the cost for equipment and manpower to which Mr. Moffitt said yes. Mr. Stoler said that people didn’t understand all the costs involved with the equipment and manpower and that was why a commission was set up to examine the costs. Councilmember Mabey asked about the $240.00 paramedic transfer fee. Mr. Moffitt explained that several years ago the paramedics were used to transfer critically ill patients from one medical facility to another.
He said the Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County fire departments asked Gold Cross to provide this critical transfer service so these charges were included in the ancillary charges. He said since the changes in the medicare act, the state felt this charge should be listed separately. Councilmember Fonriesbeck pointed out that the ambulance cost was not only to pay for the service when it was needed but also to pay for the convenience of having the service available.
Councilmember Bittner pointed out that the city did not charge a fee for paramedic service, the cost was paid out of the general fund, and said that most insurance companies paid for ambulance service. She also reiterated that this issue had been extensively reviewed by the state and the recommendations had to be accepted since the Council did not have the expertise in this matter.
(O 86-33)
Rick Warner UDAG.
RE: A public hearing at 7:30 p.m. concerning an Urban Development Action Grant application by Rick Warner Ford Corporation for the development of an automobile sales mall and plaza.
ACTION: Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adopt Resolution 141 of 1986 authorizing the submission of an interlocal grant application between Salt Lake City Corporation and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for an Urban Development Action Grant to Salt Lake City Corporation for the purpose of loaning said grant to Rick Warner Ford for an automobile sales mall and plaza between 700 and 800 South and 200 West and West Temple, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
DISCUSSION: Arlo Nelson, capital planning and programming, said that approval of this request would permit the UDAG application to be submitted by the end of this month and a decision would be made by January. He said the proposal was consistent with plans to revitalize downtown areas and the Incentive and Grants Review Committee approved the request. He said the Chamber of Commerce recommended unanimously for its approval. He said that the UDAG application had merit and he recommended approval. Bernice Cook indicated that this had been discussed in the community council and the neighborhood and she said most people felt good about the project. She expressed her support and was excited about the potential revenue which this project would bring into Salt Lake.
(T 86-29)
Recodification.
RE: A public hearing at 7:45 p.m. concerning the recodification of Salt Lake City ordinances.
ACTION: Councilmember Stoler moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Stoler moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Ordinance 88 of 1986 amending Chapters 1 and 2 and repealing Chapter 3 of Title 100 relating to animals and fowl; amending Chapters 2, 15, 17, and 19 of Title 2 relating to aeronautics; amending Chapter 2 of Title 6 relating to unused grave lots; repealing Title 7 relating to city courts; repealing Title 10 relating to development services; repealing Section 9-4-4 relating to itinerant entertainment; repealing Sections 14-2-1 through 14-2-7 relating to the fire department; amending Section 15-2-3.10 relating to insurance requirements for public display of fireworks; repealing Sections 17-1-5, 17-1-6, 17-1-7, 17-1-8, and 17-3-7 relating to Board of Health; repealing Chapter 1 of Title 18 and re-enacting in place thereof Section 18-1-1 and repealing Sections 4 through 13, 22 through 26 and 33 through 36 of Chapter 2, Title 18 relating to health regulations; amending Section l8-2-l4(2)(A) relating to refuse containers; amending Section 18-2-19 relating to befouling gutters and ditches prohibited; repealing Chapters 3 through 21, 23 through 25, 27, 28, 30 and 31 of Title 18 relating to miscellaneous health regulations; repealing Sections 1 through 33, 35 through 38, 41, 43, 45 through 48 and 50 through 58 of Chapter 25 of Title 18 and amending Section 18-32-6(A) relating to health regulations; amending Section 19-1-6, 19-3-15, 19-4-3 and 19-4-6 and 19-4-12 and repealing Chapter 6 of Title 19 relating to intoxicating liquors; amending Section 20-1-23 through 20-1-32 relating to business and regulatory license hearings; amending Section 20-3-11 relating to business license exemptions; amending Chapter 4 of Title 20 relating to advertising; amending Section 20-7-10 relating to examination of licensing instruments; amending Chapter 13 of Title 20 relating to private detectives; amending Chapter 14 of Title 20 relating to restaurants; amending Chapter 20 of Title 20 relating to theatres and concerts; repealing Sections 20-25-3 and 20-25-4 relating to sale of motor vehicles and closing of motor vehicle dealers on Sundays; amending Section 21-34-10 relating to costume requirements of professional dancers; amending Chapter 37 of Title 20 relating to escort services; amending Chapter 11 of Title 24 relating to city contracts; amending Chapter 12 of Title 24 relating to contracting for professional services; amending Chapters 11 and llA of Title 25 relating to personnel administration; repealing Chapter 21 of Title 25 relating to advisory boards; amending Chapter 27 of Title 25 relating to campaign financing disclosure; amending Chapter 1 of Title 26 relating to penalties for violation of ordinances; amending Title 30 relating to police department; amending Chapter 1 of Title 32 relating to offenses involving persons and public peace; amending Chapter 2 of Title 32 relating to offenses involving morals; amending Chapter 3 of Title 32 relating to offenses involving property; amending Chapter 5 of Title 32 relating to gambling and gaming; amending Chapters 1 and 2 of Title 33 relating to city-owned property; amending Chapter 3 of Title 38 relating to sidewalk regulations; amending Title 41 relating to streets and bridges; amending Title 42 relating to subdivisions and platting; amending Title 43 relating to taxicabs; amending Title 44 relating to ambulances; amending Title 46 relating to traffic rules and regulations; repealing Title 50 relating to weights, measures and petroleum; and amending Title 51 relating to zoning, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
DISCUSSION: There were no comments made regarding this ordinance. (O 86-34)
COMMENTS
#1. At the beginning of the Council meeting the Council drank a toast, with non-alcoholic champagne, in commemoration of the last City Council meeting to be held in the City Council Chambers, City and County Building, prior to the renovation of the building. Council Chairperson Hardwick said that the building was a statement of the history of Salt Lake City and he commended the efforts made towards restoration of the building. He saluted the building and looked forward to when the Council would return.
#2. Councilmember Fonnesbeck presented an award which was given to Salt Lake City by Partners for Livable Spaces naming Salt Lake as one of 16 of America’s most livable places in 1986. She said this was the first such award that had been given and would not be repeated for 5 years. She also presented a book called “The Return of the Livable City” which dealt with the 16 cities chosen as most livable and dealt with several cities given leadership awards for making drastic changes in their way of life. She said this was something to be proud of and Mayor DePaulis said this was good for Salt Lake City. He said Salt Lake received a lot of favorable and positive publicity because of this award.
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.