PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, APRIL 19, 1983
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, APRIL 19, 1983, AT 5:00 P.M. IN ROOM 211 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: RONALD J. WHITEHEAD GRANT MABEY SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK PALMER DEPAULIS ALICE SHEARER IONE M. DAVIS EDWARD W. PARKER.
Council Chairman Grant Mabey presided at and conducted this meeting.
POLICY SESSION
Leigh von der Esch briefed the Council on items on the agenda. She informed the members that there was an error in the legal description in the ordinance rezoning property in the Koyen petition and that the ordinance would have to be corrected and rescheduled. She also indicated that there had been an error in the legal description published for the Oquirrh/Ensign rezoning petition and that the error would have to be announced in the meeting before action could be taken. Jim Talebreza, Joe Anderson, and Duane Fuller briefed the Council on steps being taken to deal with possible flooding this spring.
The policy session adjourned at 5:55 p.m.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, APRIL 19, 1983, AT 6:00 P.M. IN ROOM 301 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: RONALD J. WHITEHEAD ALICE SHEARER GRANT MABEY IONE M. DAVIS SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER PALMER DEPAULIS.
Mayor Ted Wilson, Albert Haines, chief administrative officer, and Roger Cutler, city attorney, were present at the meeting.
Council Chairman Grant Mabey presided at this meeting.
Councilmember Ione Davis conducted this meeting.
Invocation was given by Police Chaplain Joel Moriyama.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes:
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Salt Lake City Council for the meeting held Tuesday, April 12, 1983, and for the meeting held Thursday, April 14, 1983, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(M 83-1)
Proclamation of Appreciation:
Councilmember Davis presented a proclamation of appreciation and a plaque to Representative LaMont Richards expressing appreciation for his work in the Utah State Legislature. Representative Richards thanked the Council for the honor and thanked Mayor Wilson, Dave Spatafore and the City Council Members for their hard work and participation in the legislature. Mayor Wilson expressed his appreciation and gratitude to Mr. Richards. The proclamation was not voted on at this time pending a revision.
Resolution of Appreciation:
The resolution acknowledging the contributions of Dr. Barney Clark, his family and staff of the University of Utah Medical Center was pulled from the agenda to be presented at a later time.
PETITIONS
Petition 400-26 submitted by Robert Koyen.
RE: Rezoning property located on the west side of Chicago Street and the south side of 1100 North.
DISCUSSION: Pursuant to the Council’s directive at a public meeting held March 8, 1983, the attorney’s office prepared an ordinance providing for the rezoning of property located on the west side of Chicago Street and the south side of 1100 North.
This item was pulled from the agenda.
(P 83-2)
Petition 152 of 1982 submitted by Ben A. Medina.
RE: Rezoning property located at 131 North 900 West.
DISCUSSION: Pursuant to the Council’s directive at a public meeting held February 15, 1983, the attorney’s office prepared an ordinance providing for the rezoning of property located at 131 North 900 West.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Ordinance 19 of 1983, rezoning property located at 131 North 900 West, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 82-357)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
CITY ATTORNEY
#1. RE: $8,800,000 Salt Lake City, Utah pollution control revenue bonds (Amoco Project), series 1981.
DISCUSSION: In May of 1981, the City Council of Salt Lake City issued the above referenced bonds to assist Amoco Oil Company in financing the cost of constructing an electrostatic precipitator and a vapor recovery unit at its refinery located in Salt Lake City. Except for minor work thereon, construction on those projects has been completed and the units are in service. Due to costs running significantly lower than anticipated and greater-than-expected earnings on the proceeds in the construction fund, a significant amount of bond proceeds remains in the construction fund.
Amoco Oil has recently approved certain modifications and improvements to its wastewater treatment system, in order to comply with the pretreatment ordinance adopted by the municipal council. Specifically, Amoco presently intends to renovate the API separator, rehabilitate the DAF unit, provide storm water surge capacity, install oil and grease analyzers and install a lime pit. Other expenditures may be made subsequently.
Pending proper review by Chapman and Cutler of the qualification of such expenditures for tax-exempt financing, the loan agreement for the series 1981 bonds can be amended to permit the financing of such expenditures from the proceeds remaining in the 1981 construction fund.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Resolution 29 of 1983 approving the amendment of that certain loan agreement by and between Salt Lake City, Utah, and Standard Oil Company dated as of May 1, 1981, to add other pollution control facilities to the project and to finance these facilities, and authorizing the execution of the instrument necessary to effect the amendment, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 83-9)
#2. RE: A resolution authorizing the issuance and confirming the sale by Salt Lake City, Utah, of its $80,000,000 hospital revenue refunding bonds, series 1983 (IHC Hospitals, Inc.) for the purpose of refunding in advance of their maturity the $69,750,000 Salt Lake City, Utah hospital revenue bonds, series 1983 (Intermountain Health Care, Inc.) of Salt Lake City originally issued to finance the cost of acquiring certain hospital facilities for Intermountain Health Care, Inc., within Salt Lake City, pursuant to the Utah Industrial Facilities Development Act, said refunding bonds and all obligations of the City in connection with such transaction to be payable solely and exclusively from the revenues arising from the pledge of a note of IHC Hospitals, Inc., given as security for said refunding bonds and in no event to constitute a general obligation or liability of the City or a charge against its general credit or taxing powers, authorizing the execution and delivery by Salt Lake City of a loan agreement, indenture of trust and pledge, first supplemental indenture and purchase contract in connection with such transaction, repealing all ordinances, resolutions or portions thereof in conflict with the provisions hereof; and related matters.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Resolution 30 of 1983, authorizing the issuance and confirming the sale by Salt Lake City, Utah of its $80,000,000 hospital revenue refunding bonds, series 1983 (IHC Hospitals, Inc.), and related matters, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Dick Christensen, Burrows Smith Company, said that the resolution was drafted in the round figure of $80,000,000. That has been the figure pending the finalization of the interest rate; the rate is 9.29%. With the interest rate being lower than was originally anticipated, and some of the bonds being original issue discount bonds, it has increased the size of the escrow government securities portfolio. The new par value of the bonds being issued is $82,450,000.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to amend the motion adopting Resolution 30 of 1983, by changing the $80,000,000 figure to $82,450,000, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 82-20)
CITY COUNCIL
#1. RE: Proposal for amending the solicitation, peddling, transient merchant ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION: An ordinance amending Chapter 17 of Title 20 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, as amended, by amending Section 20-17-33, 20-17-34, 20-17-35, 20-17-36, 20-17-37, 20-17-38, and 20-17-39 and by adding thereto new Sections 20-17-40, 20-17-41 and 20-17-42, relating to solicitations, peddling and transient merchants, etc.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Ordinance 20 of 1983, relating to solicitation, peddling, etc., which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 83-9)
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
#1. RE: Proposed modification to Title 5 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, which are necessary to adopt the 1982 edition of the uniform construction code.
DISCUSSION: Major revisions have been suggested to the existing codes involving a new code for shopping malls, and a new code for atrium construction. An attempt has been made to abridge as much of the language of Title 5 as possible for the purpose of simplification and elimination of unnecessary wording. The fee schedule suggested in the 1982 code is the same schedule which has already been adopted as part of the 1979 code. Fee adjustments are recommended as they relate to plumbing, electrical, and mechanical permit issuance.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Ordinance 21 of 1983, relating to Division of Building and Housing Services codes.
(O 83-12)
FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
#1. RE: Industrial revenue bond application from Molen and Richards Development Company not to exceed $1,000,000.
RECOMMENDATION: Set a date for a public hearing for May 10, 1983 at 6:30 p.m. to consider and discuss the request.
DISCUSSION: The applicant proposes to use the funds from an issuance of industrial revenue bonds to finance the construction of an office building to be constructed on the west side of 600 East between South Temple and First South.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to schedule a public hearing for May 10, 1983 at 6:30 p.m. and refer the item to the Budget! Finance Committee, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 83-10)
#2. RE: Inducement resolution for industrial revenue bonds for Select Telephone Technologies in the amount of $10 million.
DISCUSSION: The applicant proposes to use the funds from an issuance of industrial revenue bonds and a UDAG approval to finance the acquisition, equipping and improvement of existing buildings totaling approximately 315,000 square feet and related property consisting of approximately 28 acres and improvements located thereon at approximately 3880 West 1820 South, Salt Lake City. Due to the nature of the application and project, Salt Lake City personnel should be involved and/or updated on a regular basis as the financing proceeds. The public hearing on the industrial revenue bond was held April 12, 1983.
Albert Haines said that approval was recommended with a stipulation attached. Lance Bateman, city controller, indicated that there are various stipulations regarding the industrial revenue bond such as the UDAG; a commitment letter has been received for the additional funding. The City should be involved all the way through the enactment resolution, at least be informed of the financing side. Mr. Bateman said that he thought the resolution indicated that the City has final approval before the bonds are sold.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt an inducement resolution, Resolution 31 of 1983, for industrial revenue bonds for Select Telephone Technologies in the amount of $10 million, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 83-8)
PUBLIC WORKS
#1. RE: The official notice of bond sale, $300,000 special assessment bonds, series 1983, Special Improvement District, Curb and Gutter Extension No. 38-535, noncontiguous streets.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt the official notice of bond sale and schedule the bond sale on May 3, 1983, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 82-30)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Select Telephone Technologies.
RE: The Urban Development Action Grant application for Select Telephone Technologies in the amount of $4.5 million. This is in connection with the industrial revenue bond request.
A public hearing was held at 6:00 p.m. before the Salt Lake City Council to consider the request. Don Allen, law firm of Ray, Quinney & Nebeker, said that this was the second hearing regarding the UDAG application. Mr. Allen said that the IRB would not be issued unless the UDAG grant is obtained. John Powers, project architect, described the additional improvements which will be made to the facility. He said that a 20,000 square foot structure would be added to the building (two stories). The addition will be on the front elevation of the building; it will be a very high-tech looking building. Incorporated into that will be two racket ball courts, one squash court, a complete high school gymnasium, an exercise room, men’s and women’s locker rooms, bathrooms, showers, saunas and steamrooms. Four tennis courts will be added outside of the building.
A physical health and awareness program will be set up for the employees of the company. A new facade will also be added to the short part of the existing building which now houses offices; this will be a minimal portion of the budget. Mr. Powers said that it was the object of Select Telephones to make a healthier, more active environment for the employees. The existing building is a little drab. The facility will cost approximately $750,000; that will include a new entrance canopy to the building for the employees and the new facility itself. The building will be silver in appearance with bronze glass. The south side and north side of the gymnasium will be a glass sloping wall. The new structure will be tied into the existing utilities. The existing building is located at 3880 West 1820 South. Mr. Allen said that the UDAG application will not be in excess of $4.5 million; it is expected that the grant will be $4,194,000 plus another $25,000 which the City will use in administering the grant. No one from the audience spoke on this issue. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said she was concerned about the interest rate pay back, it seemed to be disproportionate to the current interest rate. Michael Mandell, consultant to the company, said that it was intended to negotiate the proposal. Financial data is being developed for the company, future financial projections, and the company will be in a tenuous financial position for the first several years of its operation so a low-interest rate was requested. But to the extent that the company becomes profitable they will be willing to negotiate the rate.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked why this was not a “flip” project (a transaction in which a transfer or refinancing of existing property takes place but in which there is no net new private investment.) Mr. Mandell said that the UDAG rules prohibit counting as private investment monies that are spent on the acquisition of existing occupied income-producing facilities. The UDAG program requires that $2.50 in private investment is spent for every dollar of requested UDAG money. In order for Select Telephone to qualify for the full $4.194 million, it is necessary that they count the acquisition cost of the building, $11.5 million, as part of the private investment.
This project is not a “flip” because it was intended by GTE that they would sell the building before Select Telephones approached them; when the facility is acquired it will be an empty building. As a condition of the purchase GTE has already agreed to relocate its employees and the operation. The renovations to the building will be substantial indicating different activities from what was originally contemplated for the building and what the use has been. There is no identity of interest between the two companies; there is no existing income strain that the company acquires as a result of this transaction.
Mr. Mandell said that Select Telephone is not acquiring an ongoing business operation, no set of employees, and no current income strain. Select Telephone is also in the process of identifying for HUD other projects that they have approved under simi1ar circumstances.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to support the UDAG application for Select Telephone, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(I 83-7)
Petition 574 of 1980 submitted by Oquirrh/Ensign Associates.
RE: The request that the area between 9th Avenue and 10th Avenue and between “E” Street and “F” Street be rezoned from its present “R-2” classification to an “R-2A” classification to allow for a planned unit development. The Planning Commission has reviewed this petition and has recommended that it be denied. It is the Planning Commission’s opinion that the petitioner’s plan is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood as it is out of scale in density, height and design. The petitioner requested a public hearing to appeal the Planning Commission decision.
A public hearing was held at 6:15 p.m. before the Salt Lake City Council to consider the petition. Mark Hafey, planning and zoning, outlined the area on a map; it is the old Ensign school block and the property is currently vacant. An “R-2A” zoning allows for one and two family dwellings on subdivided lots and also allows planned unit developments as a conditional use. This request went before the Planning Commission in August of 1982 and February of 1983 and both times a public hearing was held with the neighborhood. The plans which were presented were not in keeping with the neighborhood so the commission recommended denial. The petitioner is requesting that the Council override the Planning Commission’s recommendation. The request is to rezone the entire block but the south-east corner is designated for a library. The petitioner was not present at the meeting.
Linda Hansen, 535 4th Avenue, chairman of the Greater Avenues Community Council, opposed the zoning change. So far the zoning change has not met the neighborhood’s satisfaction that it will be compatible. The neighborhood wants the site developed and they want to work with the developer but until some major problems can be resolved the development would not be compatible. The traffic is a problem because the streets are narrow. The proposed development that the neighborhood saw was for 42 units which would increase the traffic flow. The height of the building is a concern. Most of the houses in the area are one story and a three-story building would be out of character with the neighborhood.
The density (42 units) is out of line; most of the blocks have about 24 units. The mass is a concern; the neighborhood has small individual homes and large buildings are being proposed. The developer is not concerned with site development - trying to save the trees, vegetation and hillside. The neighborhood is also concerned that the architectural styles and building materials will be compatible. Ms. Hansen stated that for all of these reasons the neighborhood recommends that the zoning change be denied until the problems are solved. Councilmember Shearer asked Ms. Hansen if she preferred development under or “R-2A”.
Ms. Hansen said that “R-2A” zoning would allow for more creative planning. The neighborhood wanted to see the “R-2A” implemented if there are some guarantees that it will meet the intention of the ordinance. The neighborhood wanted to see clustering of buildings. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that the neighborhood sees advantages to the “R-2A” because there would be the ability to use the space better and provide more open space; more innovative things could be done with this property. The primary problem seems to be with “R-2A” itself. Ms. Fonnesbeck said that she understood that “R-2A” development had to be on 2 1/2 acres and the library will take up almost 1/4 of the block. The building itself will not be a planned-unit development on 21/2 acres. Another problem is that in the past before an “R-2A” zoning change has been made the developer had to present a specific project. But the “R-2A” ordinance does not require it to be project specific. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that possibly the request could be referred back to planning and zoning with a recommendation that the “R-2A” ordinance he revised in two ways. First, reconsider the 2 1/2 acre requirement and second, reword parts of the ordinance so that it is clear what is meant by “surrounding area” and “equal densities”, etcetera.
Ms. Fonnesbeck suggested that this development wait until the ordinance is revised so requirements are clear to the architect and so that the neighborhood has some protection. Councilmember Davis asked why the 2 1/2 acre requirement had been established. Mr. Hafey said that he did not know the details surrounding the decision but he suggested that it was related to the size of the Avenues blocks. Councilmember Whitehead said the “surrounding area” requirement in the ordinance is subject to many questions such as how big an area is encompassed. This becomes a matter of judgment so it puts developer against neighborhood because each is making their own interpretation of the ordinance. At this point the intent of the ordinance is open.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that the advantage of “R-2A” for the neighborhood is that the space can be better used and the advantage for the developer is a little higher density. However, she felt that the density should never double that of an “R-2” zoning. She did not think that the ordinance made that clear and felt the “R-2A” zoning ought to have qualifications attached to it. Councilmember Shearer said that the ordinance specified 20 units. Mr. Hafey said that the ordinance also says that the density of the surrounding area will be considered. Councilmember Whitehead said that normally about five units per acre are built.
Mr. Hafey said that the minimum size building is 6,000 square feet and a duplex can be built on it but the problem of subdividing the property has to be solved. Mr. Hafey said that if the entire block was considered then 36 units could be built, based on 6,000 square foot lots, which would include the library property. Councilmember Mabey agreed with what Councilmember Fonnesbeck had suggested. Mr. Hafey said that the intent of the planned-unit development was to get better design into the project with a slight increase in the density to entice the development.
Councilmember Shearer asked how long it would take to revise the ordinance. Larry Livingston, Council office, said that the “R-2A” section of the planned-unit development ordinance is not very large and the needed revisions probably would not be too complex but revisions would still take around two or three months. Councilmember Shearer said that the petitioner applied for the zoning change July 30, 1980. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that when the plan was submitted planning and zoning gave the petitioner specific directions of changes that needed to be made. The petitioner waited 1 1/2 years and presented the same plan. Ms. Shearer said that this was partly the “R-2A” problem because there is not a requirement for a plan in the ordinance. Ms. Fonnesbeck said that if there is not a requirement for a plan the neighborhood would probably want to stay with the “R-2” zoning. Mr. Livingston said that there was a requirement for a specific plan in the “R-2A” ordinance; it is a conditional use granted by the Board of Adjustment upon recommendation of the Planning Commission. Ms. Fonnesbeck said that a plan is required but the language is vague.
Councilmember Whitehead questioned whether the project could be built because the lot is not 2 1/2 acres. Mr. Livingston said that the property owned by Oquirrh/Ensign is 1.99 acres; they could go before the Board of Adjustment and ask for a variance. Mr. Hafey said that it has always been the Planning Commission’s policy to review a plan when considering an “R-2A” zoning change. The last time the Planning Commission denied this particular request, which vote was unanimous, the Planning Commission indicated that the petitioner could resubmit the request if a plan was presented that would meet the neighborhood standards. Jennifer Harrington, 480 “F” Street, area representative to the Greater Avenues Community Council, said that she had several meetings with the developers and with the neighborhood regarding the project. The neighborhood wants development on the block and is not opposed to the concept of a zone change.
However, the neighborhood wants the development to be an asset. In order to be an asset the development needs to be compatible with the neighborhood in height, density, mass, materials, and architectural style and the design needs to be site specific. The plan presented thus far has not addressed the grade of the lot or the trees growing thereon. Ms. Harrington said that one of the benefits of the “R-2A” zone is that it allows the developer to work around some of the problems on the site. She said that to date, in their opinion, neither the neighborhood nor the Planning Commission had been shown a design which would warrant a zone change.
It is important that the developer be required to submit a site specific plan before the zone change is granted. The neighborhood feels that the intent of the “R-2A” is to allow for special creative solutions to development problems but there are questions as to whether the ordinance, as currently written, gives the necessary guarantees to the neighborhood - particularly regarding a definition of density and a mechanism to hold a development to the intent of the “R-2A” zone throughout the review process and implementation. Ms. Harrington said that the neighborhood requested that the Council uphold the Planning Commission’s recommendation to deny a zone change based upon the plan submitted. The neighborhood is anxious to work with the developer to achieve a mutually agreeable plan.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck recommended to uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to deny a zone change. Councilmember Shearer was concerned that the petitioner was not present and felt that without hearing the intentions of the developer a decision should not be made. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that at this point she could not approve rezoning because at the moment the law requires that the building parcel be 2 1/2 acres and the recommended density of the project is not in keeping with the master plan of the Greater Avenues. Councilmember Shearer said that she had not seen a plan.
Councilmember Davis said that she met with the petitioner earlier that day and the petitioner had indicated that the proposed number of units was 36 rather than 42. The petitioner also indicated that she wanted to make changes and comply with the ordinance. Councilmember Davis said that the petitioner has given her a proposal of how the units would look and their placement on the lot. Ms. Davis said that she was concerned that the petitioner was not present and did not want to take action until the Council hears from the petitioner.
Councilmember Parker did not think that the petitioner was being denied the possibility of presenting the plan at a future time and requesting the zoning change again. Mr. Parker did not think that a decision needed to be postponed. Councilmember Whitehead felt that there were legal questions that needed to be answered.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to uphold the Planning Commission decision to deny the zone change but recommended that the ordinance section regarding “R-2A” be considered for possible revision, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmembers Shearer and Davis who voted nay.
(P 83-247
Block 53.
RE: The need for Urban Development Action Grant involvement in the Block 53 project.
A public hearing was held at 6:00 p.m. before the City Council to consider this issue. Paul Mendenhall, Price Industries, briefed the Council on the proposed project. Mr. Mendenhall said that the first phase of the project consists of an office building containing approximately 279,000 square feet, 250,000 square feet will be leasable space. It will be located on the corner of 2nd East and 4th South; the building will have four stories with an eight-story tower. There will be approximately 550 parking spaces and the majority will be located on three levels beneath the building; because of excavation and possible water problems the underground parking may cost $13,000 per space. Mr. Mendenhall said that the site for the building was approximately two acres which would consist of both street and plaza improvements; the costs will be about $3,000,000. There is approximately an $11,000,000 shortfall on this phase of the project; for that reason City Council support is being requested for the UDAG grant in connection with this phase of the city center project. Councilmember Mabey asked if most of the grant would be used for underground parking. Mr. Mendenhall said that HUD does not specifically identify where the money will be spent but the developer has identified that parking is creating the need for the grant. Specifically the monies will primarily go for building construction but the need is created because of the cost of the parking.
Councilmember Mabey asked if the parking spaces would be rented. Mr. Mendenhall said that the parking has been designed to have two areas: one will be primarily for employees which will be rented and the other parking will be a validation system for in and out traffic. If the UDAG is not obtained parts of the project will have to be re-engineered so that it is more cost effective considering the rent structures of the community. Councilmember Shearer asked if the developer was investing $2.50 for every $1 of UDAG money, which is the current match. Mr. Mendenhall said that the investment was $2 for every $1; a $15,000,000 loan amount with about $7,000,000 of equity financing is anticipated above the $11,000,000 UDAG.
Doug Carlson, office of capital planning and development, said that the $2.50 match will probably be mandatory so the figures will have to be adjusted. The UDAG then would probably be about $8.5 million. Councilmember Shearer urged the Council to be supportive of UDAG applications in areas that the Council wishes to promote, like Block 53, since UDAGs are beneficial to Salt Lake City. No one from the audience spoke on this issue.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to approve the UDAG application, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(T 82-27)
CITIZEN COMMENTS
#1. Scott Davis made a presentation on the Greater Salt Lake Business District SBA 503. In July and December of 1980 the Council granted to Greater Salt Lake Business District $30,000 in seed money; the purpose was to enable the organization to get started and to apply to the Small Business Administration for certification under Section 503 of the U.S. Code. This would enable the organization to operate as a certified development company and to make SBA guaranteed loans available to small businesses. Mr. Davis said that the certification was granted on May 21, 1981. At first progress was slow but now activity has increased. The Council and the Mayor should be proud of their foresight and commitment to the small business community in helping to get this project underway. Mr. Davis said that at the request of the SBA the Greater Salt Lake Business District has expanded their operation to cover the entire state of Utah for two reasons. To make the organization economically viable and to make sure the service is available for business all over the state. In order to reflect the state-wide nature of activities the name has been changed to Deseret Certified Development Company. Mr. Davis concluded by saying that the organization has an active board of directors and is working throughout the state to help small businesses.
Kent Moon said that SBA supports the Certified Development Company and this effort and SBA will continue maximum support from the office in Salt Lake. Councilmember Shearer asked if the corporation was nonprofit and Mr. Moon said that it was. Ms. Shearer also asked what was meant by being certified by the SBA. Mr. Moon said that the Small Business Administration has been mandated by congress to overview the 503 development company program. Those development companies are to be certified in order to participate in overseeing the 503 loans that are generated and to service those loans after they are made. Mr. Davis said that the Sugarhouse beautification project is a prime candidate for their organization to work with the City and the redevelopment agency in helping those existing small businesses.
#2. Rich Marsden, qeneral manager of radio station KLRZ FM 95, submitted a request that a City park be named in honor of Dr. Barney Clark. Kip Kraddick said that the petition was initiated because of the station’s listeners requesting that something be done to honor Dr. Clark. The petition suggested that since Dr. Clark was a pioneer in the artificial heart research, Pioneer Park should be renamed to Dr. Barney Clark Pioneer Memorial Park; or name an undedicated park after Dr. Clark. Mr. Kraddick said that several hundred signatures were collected in support of the petition, the first signer was Mayor Ted Wilson. Quite a bit of media attention was also received because of this petition; Mr. Kraddick referred to a national broadcast by syndicated newsman Paul Harvey.
Mr. Kraddick said that although several hundred signatures were collected he felt that most of the Salt Lake City population would support the measure. Mr. Kraddick presented this petition to the Council for consideration. The petition was given to the city recorder and will be referred to the parks department for appropriate action. Councilmember Fonnesbeck suggested that the park on 11th Avenue could be named in Dr. Clark’s honor. It has a view of the University Hospital and it is an athletic park. She suggested that Mr. Kraddick talk with the Greater Avenues Association since they were given the responsibility to name the park. Councilmember Davis said Mr. Gust, director of parks, contacted her and requested that no immediate action be taken so that the parks department can make a recommendation.
Councilmember Davis referred this request to the committee of the whole without objection. Mr. Sean McFadden, a resident of Salt Lake County, expressed his support for this petition.
The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.