PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
REGULAR/BRIEFING SESSION
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1986
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1986, AT 5:00 P.M. IN ROOM 211 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: FLORENCE BITTNER THOMAS M. GODFREY GRANT MABEY ROSELYN N. KIRK SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK WILLIE STOLER EARL F. HARDWICK.
Council Chairperson Hardwick presided at the meeting.
BRIEFING SESSION
Linda Hamilton, Executive Director of the Salt Lake City Council, briefed the Council on the evening’s agenda.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded a motion for the Council to enter into Executive Session to discuss labor negotiations with the police department. Councilmembers Bittner, Mabey, Fonnesbeck, Hardwick, Godfrey, Kirk, and Stoler voted aye.
When finished, Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to conclude the Executive Session. Councilmembers Bittner, Mabey, Fonnesbeck, Hardwick, Godfrey, Kirk and Stoler voted aye.
Larry Livingston, Land Use Analyst for the Salt Lake City Council, briefed the Council on the Sugar House Neighborhood Development Plan.
The meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 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 Stoler conducted the meeting.
The Council led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes.
Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to approve the minutes of the Salt Lake City Council for the regular meeting held Tuesday, October 14, 1986, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(M 86-1)
Special Recognition
#1. On behalf of the Mayor and Council, Mayor DePaulis presented the October Tourism Ambassador of the Month Award to June Calder of the Genealogical Library. Mayor DePaulis said that Ms. Calder was in charge of the group research tours and last year arranged 60 tours with approximately 45 people in each tour; this year she had handled 61 tours. He said that groups from all over the nation felt welcome and comfortable because of Ms. Calder. Ms. Calder thanked the Mayor and Council and invited them to take a tour of the Library.
(G 86-22)
PETITIONS
Petition 400-446 by Dan Lundergan.
RE: The vacation of the east-west alley adjacent to the petitioner’s home at 926 McClelland Street.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to set a public hearing for Tuesday, November 18, 1986, at 6:45 p.m., which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 86-286)
Case No. 629 by Salt Lake County/Thomas Triptow.
RE: The appeal of Planning Case No. 629 requesting permission for exterior remodeling of the Capitol Theatre, which was denied.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to set a public hearing for Tuesday, November 4, 1986, at 7:20 p.m., which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 86-287)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
#1. RE: The allocation of $11,000 to the Children’s Museum for roof repairs.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Bittner seconded to suspend the rules and on first reading allocate $11,000 of 12th Year Community Development Block Grant Funds to the Children’s Museum for operating expenses, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(T 86-28)
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
#1. RE: The amendment of the 1986-87 budget.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to set a public hearing for Tuesday, November 4, 1986, at 6:45 p.m. concerning the amendment of the Fiscal Year 1986-87 Budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(B 86-11)
#2. RE: Holy Cross Hospital Industrial Revenue Bonds.
ACTION: Councilmember Bittner moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adopt Resolution 129 of 1986 amending Resolution 117 of 1986 which authorized the issuance and sale of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (Holy Cross Hospital of Salt Lake City), Series 1986, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 86-6)
MAYOR’S OFFICE
#1. RE: A resolution authorizing the execution of the Memorandum of Understanding between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Salt Lake Police Association.
ACTION: Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to pull this item from the agenda, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(C 86-321)
#2. RE: Noncontributory Retirement Plan.
ACTION: Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Btttner seconded to adopt Resolution 130 of 1986 authorizing the execution of documents providing for the conversion to the Public Employees Noncontributory Retirement System and incorporating all terms and conditions of the Public Employees Noncontributory Retirement Act, 49-10a-1, U.C.A., 1953, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(R 86-9)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Sugar House Neighborhood Development Plan.
RE: A public hearing at 6:00 p.m. to obtain public comment during a joint hearing of the City Council and the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City concerning adoption of the Sugar House Neighborhood Development Plan, dated September 19, 1986; and consider adopting a resolution as the Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors providing for the Redevelopment Area and consider adopting an ordinance, as the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, adopting the Sugar House Neighborhood Development Project Area Redevelopment Plan entitled, “Sugar House Neighborhood Development Plan”, dated September 19, 1986.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the joint hearing of the City Council of Salt Lake City and the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City Board of Directors, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adjourn as the City Council of Salt Lake City and convene as the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City Board of Directors, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
The minutes of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City Board of Directors are kept by the Redevelopment Agency. The Redevelopment Agency voted to continue their discussion to Thursday, October 23, 1986.
Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to reconvene as the City Council of Salt Lake City, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
DISCUSSION: Councilmember Stoler explained that the Council would be making a decision whether to earmark property taxes from future growth to be spent only in the area where they were collected; he said this was the basic concept of redevelopment. Michael Chitwood, Redevelopment Agency, distributed extra copies of the Sugar House Neighborhood Development Plan to the audience and introduced Bill Oswald, legal counsel for the Redevelopment Agency, who enumerated the legal documents required for the hearing (which are included as part of these minutes).
Mr. Chitwood then itemized the content of the proposed redevelopment plan. He called the Council’s attention to the second paragraph on page 17 which talked about the development proposals within the project area using the Planned Unit Development process to ensure comprehensive redevelopment-type activities. In reference to property acquisition he explained that before any property was acquired there were two independent appraisals done and according to policy the higher of the two appraisals would be offered.
In reference to property disposition Mr. Chitwood said that if they were required to acquire property they would first execute the new preferential treatment plan giving first rights to the present owner of the property to work with the Redevelopment Agency within the general guidelines of the redevelopment plan. He referred to page 22 which pointed out that the project would not exceed 100 acres of privately-owned land, that the Redevelopment Agency would only have the right to condemn property up to seven years, that bonding could only be done for the first 15 years, and that after 32 years there would be no tax increment. Mr. Chitwood specifically called attention to pages 26 and 27 which outlined the three phases of the project, and limitations of those phases, and he said he felt these pages listed the intent of the Redevelopment Agency Board. He said that phase three was long-range major development which might take place only after phases one and two had been completed.
On page 27 Mr. Chitwood read a paragraph stating that the willingness of the Redevelopment Agency to spend tax increment funds or other public monies which might become available to the Agency would be contingent upon the willingness of owners and tenants within the Sugar House Redevelopment Project area to spend private monies or attract private investment into the project area for the purpose of accomplishing the development objectives. In reference to the willingness of owners and tenants to invest money, Councilmember Bittner requested that the word “willingness” be changed to “substantial expenditure”. Mr. Chitwood noted this change.
David MacEwan, Booker Associates, said that in 1981 they performed a blight survey for the Sugar House Business District and the objective was to identify the presence or absence of factors which constituted a blighted area according to Utah Code. He said that the survey was conducted on a parcel by parcel basis and in addition area-wide factors were considered, such as police and fire calls and streets and transportation. Mr. MacEwan said they updated the survey recently and the update was designed to consider physical, environmental, and other conditions which did or didn’t contribute to the presence of blight.
He presented the definition of blight provided by the Utah Code and indicated that this was the definition they followed for their studies. Mr. MacEwan then presented a series of charts outlining blight conditions based on the Utah Code definition. The charts showed lots subject to being submerged in water, inadequate streets and traffic flow, obsolete lot layout, economic dislocation, deterioration, and disuse from faulty planning, environmental conditions (trash, debris, overgrowth), and structural conditions. He indicated that according to state code, the area was blighted.
Mr. Chitwood said that 40% of the buildings in the total area were identified as being deteriorated. He said the Redevelopment Agency felt that as long as the area demonstrated more than two of the blighting influences then the area was blighted, although a recent court ruling said that every structure in a project area should be blighted. He said that all of the buildings within the area were considered and they could be addressed individually before the Council.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked what the advantage was to not being declared blighted. Mr. Chitwood said that the Redevelopment Agency would not have the threat of condemnation, but he outlined benefits of being in a blighted area such as tax benefits if the property was sold to the Redevelopment Agency and cost sharing for improvements. He reiterated that the owner participation plan would give the owners first rights to work with the Agency and redevelop according to the plan.
The following people from the audience addressed this issue: Lester Reese, Sugar House Chamber of Commerce, supported the plan and said he felt this was the last opportunity to do something about Sugar House. Bill Thurman, representing the Harmon property at 1300 East 2100 South, opposed to having this property classified as blighted and said that the owners had put $175,000 in improvements. He felt that being considered a blighted area would impair business. Craig Mecham, 2188 Highland Drive, supported the plan.
John Bennion, 168 Ideal, opposed using tax money for the project and thought the improvements ought to be performed by the property owners at their cost. Ken Eltinge, Sugar House Community Council, supported the plan and said that Sugar House needed to bring back good primary tenants. Tom Richards, Granite Furniture, supported the plan and wanted the tax money to go back into Sugar House. Ralph Barrus, Barrus Pianos and speaking on behalf of Mills Publishing, supported the plan. Maurine Smith, 1993 South 11th East, requested that her property, 1987 South and 1993 South 1100 East, be taken off the list of blighted properties.
Lester Chipman, 1312 Westminster Avenue, supported the plan but suggested that the Phase 3 expansion not be considered until Phases 1 and 2 were very successful. Gene Davis, 865 Parkway Avenue, supported the plan but raised questions that he thought needed clarification: He asked if the establishment of the parking district would take place as development dictated on 2100 South or if it would be a primary target; he said that in the implementation of Phase 2 Parley’s Creek was not discussed; he asked about the criteria which would be used to determine completion of Phases 1 and 2 before Phase 3 would begin. In connection with the Phase 3 expansion he also wanted some clarification about replacement housing.
Rawlins Young, Land Use Chairman of the Sugar House Community Council, endorsed the master plan and supported the Sugar House Neighborhood Development Plan. However, he said that the Sugar House Community Council wanted other factors of the master plan implemented as well. Philip Miner, 1279 Ashton, opposed the condemnation of property. Pat Schiffman, 1264 Stringham Avenue, objected to having property in her area considered blighted and living with the threat of condemnation for 7 years.
John Schumann, vice chairman of the Planning Commission, asked the Council and the Redevelopment Agency to postpone a vote until they met with the Planning Commission to resolve some issues. Tom Elusion, member of the Planning Commission, supported the plan but suggested that there needed to be a mandatory PUD process or other implementation controls to prohibit inconsistent developments. Janice Rusack, owner of 1019-21 East 2100 South, questioned why her property was on the blight list. M. O. Clark, owner of 1019-21 East 2100 South, expressed concern about the cost to the property owners for this project. Robert Doidge, chairman of the Sugar House Blue Ribbon Committee, supported the plan. Councilmember Kirk asked if the Planning Commission was represented on the Blue Ribbon Committee and Mr. Doidge said that Peter Van Alstyne had been on the Committee.
B.T. Price, 1028 Euclid Avenue, asked the Council to be careful when making their decision. Paul Monson, Deseret Industries, generally supported the concept of redevelopment but expressed concern about not having enough prior information regarding the designation of blight and its ramifications. He also expressed concern about the cost of the redevelopment as it applied to his organization.
Public hearing registration cards were received from six people who supported the plan but did not wish to speak, and from four people who opposed the plan but did not wish to speak.
(T 86-27)
COMMENTS
John Hiskey, director of Economic Development, introduced Brigido “Jun” Simon, Jr., the Mayor of Quezon City, Philippines. He said that Mr. Simon had been mayor since the change in government and said that Mr. Simon had viewed various projects throughout Salt Lake City. Mr. Simon said he had met the Governor of Utah and the Mayor of Salt Lake City and expressed his thanks for the tour of the city which he received.
The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.