PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, APRIL 6, 1982
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, APRIL 6, 1982, AT 5:00 P.M. IN ROOM 211 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.
Council Chairperson Sydney R. Fonnesbeck presided at and conducted this meeting.
POLICY SESSION
Leigh von der Esch, Executive Director, Office of the City Council, briefed the Council on items on the Council’s agenda. Paul Gaines, Director of Airports, briefed the Council on the goals, philosophies and priorities at the Airport. Mr. Gaines discussed the relationship of the Airport to the FAA, the airline companies, the public, etc. Mr. Gaines also discussed the existing Airport facilities and future plans for other facilities including a proposed golf course at the south end of the Airport. A discussion was held on the financing program at the Airport. Alan Blodgett discussed the differences between negotiating and bid bonding.
The Council adjourned at 5:55 p.m. to begin the Council meeting in room 301.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, APRIL 6, 1982, 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 L. Wilson and Roger Cutler, City Attorney, were present at this meeting.
Council Chairperson Sydney R. Fonnesbeck presided and conducted this meeting.
Invocation was given by Police Chaplain Alan Roden.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes:
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Salt Lake City Council for its meeting held Tuesday, March 16, 1982, as amended, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
M 82-2
PETITIONS
692 of 1977, 693 of 1977, and 376 of 1978 relating to the annexation of Emigration Canyon.
RE: City policies on major issues involved in the annexation of Emigration Canyon. In a previous Council meeting, March 16, 1982, the seven issues were discussed and changes were made. At this meeting, April 6, the Council was presented with the revised draft of the policies; a copy of this draft is on file in the Office of the City Recorder for further inspection. Larry Livingston, City Council Office, addressed the Council and reviewed the changes which have been incorporated into the new draft.
First, in the cover letter accompanying the policies, the first sentence indicating that the Council is presently considering annexation was removed. Second, on page 2 of the policy statement regarding a ceiling on new subdivision activity, the numbers indicating a ceiling on the total number of dwelling units have been removed. Third, originally Issue 5 stated that everyone would be required to hook up to water and sewer after five years if extensions were made. In order to clarify that this did not mean every person would have to ultimately hook up, the following sentence was added: “Further, extension or delivery of those services will be accomplished upon the petition for extension or delivery, and the willingness of the recipients of those serviced to bear the costs involved, through acceptable financial mechanisms.”
There will be a process whereby people decide whether or not the water and sewer services should be extended and if they are extended then the people living in that area must hook up to the extended services within five years. Fourth, there was substantial discussion on Issue 6, City policy on the road. The original statement was short and the definition was not complete enough; Mr. Livingston read the original statement, “That the level of service for the road that is considered acceptable when the canyon is fully developed will correspond to the design capacity of the road. Studies show that capacity to be level of service C with peak hours in D.”
In the new draft, this statement has been expanded to read, “With reference to the Emigration Canyon road, the policy of the City is that the traffic burden on said road shall be determined by factors of safety, comfortable movement of traffic and the design capacity of the road, as determined by standard traffic engineering practices. The intent and policy of the City is that the Emigration Canyon Road will not bear a disproportionate share of traffic when measured in comparison to other subdivision arterials in the urbanized Salt Lake City area. In evaluating these matters, the City will use the same standards as then generally applied in the City, which standard presently is the level of service “C”, with peak hours in “D”. The definition has been expanded to include factors of safety and comfortable movement of traffic as well as design capacity of the road. The Canyon road is also defined as being analogous to a subdivision arterial; the standards applied to the subdivision arterial are not permanent, the possibility exists for refinement of the standards.
Mr. Livingston further stated that the level of development in the canyon is, among other things, tied to the road. The road will be judged the same way other subdivision arterials are judged, according the accepted engineering practices. The traffic engineers have the ability to project the levels of traffic and reasonable projections as to how development will impact the road should be made. This will not only take into consideration the proposed homes in a subdivision but also recreational development.
Councilmember Shearer asked if it was possible to differentiate in levels of city services while charging the same tax load. Mr. Cutler stated that according to the annexation statute a move toward equalization of service has to be made, an area cannot be deliberately discriminated against over a long period of time. Ms. Shearer further stated that currently the canyon is paying an extra public safety levy to the County, a special service district, in addition to the regular County services. The Mayor stated that all of the unincorporated County pays special service district fees for fire, garbage, street lighting, planning and zoning and waste refuse disposal; except police which comes out of the general fund. Dean Barney, Planning and Zoning Department, stated that he felt this was a fine policy and stated that hopefully with this document the citizens will submit a request for the annexation.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded that conceptual approval be given to the seven policy statements including the cover letter from Craig Peterson, regarding the annexation of Emigration Canyon; and that inasmuch as it has taken longer than expected to generate these policies, the 90-day time period, in which a petition for annexation of Emigration Canyon should be filed, will begin April 6, 1982; this supersedes the motion of March 2, 1982 setting the deadline for June 15, the deadline for submission will now be July 6, 1982, this extension being a courtesy rather than a requirement, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
P 82-29
537 of 1981 submitted by David Bywater, et al
RE: Requesting that an east/west alley running between 1000 West and Post Street at approximately 675 South Street be vacated. Mr. Bywater has further requested that the ordinance take effect immediately instead of the usual 30 days after publication.
DISCUSSION: The petitioner has obtained the necessary consent of 100% of the abutting property owners and therefore, a public hearing is not required. This petition has been reviewed by Fixed Assets, Engineering, Transportation, Fire, Public Utilities, Planning Commission and the Law Department. They have recommended that the alley be vacated subject to retaining any and all existing rights of way or easements. The City Attorney’s Office has prepared the necessary ordinance.
Council Chairperson Fonnesbeck referred Petition 537 of 1981 to the consent agenda for April 13, 1982; referred without objection.
P 82-62
602 of 1981 submitted by Alexander M. Henricks III.
RE: Requesting that an alley between Ramona and Hollywood Avenues and between 14th and 15th East Streets be vacated. At a previous Council meeting, March 16, 1982, Petition 602 of 1981 was approved. An ordinance was since prepared to complete the vacation.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Ordinance 23 of 1982, vacating an interior 500’ portion of a 12’ east/west alley from 1400-1500 East Street, situated between Hollywood and Ramona Avenues, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
P 82-3
20 of 1982 submitted by Brickyard Associates, William Gibbons.
RE: Requesting to rezone properties occupied by the Brickyard Shopping Center from its existing “C-l” to a Commercial “C-3A” classification.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a public hearing on May 11, 1982 at 6:00 p.m. to discuss this request.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: The petitioner is required to pay a $50 advertising fee to the City Recorder.
DISCUSSION: The petitioner has requested the zoning change to expand the uses of the facility by attracting a wider variety of tenants. The zoning change will not include the Harman property facing on 13th East Street. The Planning Commission reviewed this petition on March 11, and recommended that it be approved and a public hearing he held.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to schedule a public hearing for May 11, 1982 at 6:00 p.m. to discuss Petition 20 of 1982, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
P 82-63
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
RE: Introduction of proposed Airport use fee ordinance amendments: Section 2-2-20.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider amendment to Section 2-2-20, of the Salt Lake City Code.
DISCUSSION: According to the terms and conditions of the Airport Use Agreement (AUA) between the City and American, Braniff, Delta, Frontier, Republic, Texas International, United and Western (Participating Airlines), the Airport Authority must annually adjust airlines’ terminal rentals and landing fees at the Salt Lake City International Airport. The adjustments are based upon actual costs of providing and operating the facilities as well as anticipated operating conditions for the coming fiscal year. Effective July 1, 1981, space rentals were estimated at $31.50 psf and landing fees at $.68 per M lbs.
The AUA also provides that the Airport Authority will review the estimates of terminal rentals and landing fees at mid-year and adjust the estimates to the extent required to better approximate rentals and fees for the entire fiscal year. Staff has completed a review of operating conditions for the current fiscal year (1982) and has recommended a change in the landing fee rate from the current $.68 per N lbs. to $.60 per M lbs., and that the terminal rentals remain at the original rate. The landing fee reduction is caused by a decrease in costs allocated to the airfield cost center due to the shift of work load to the roads and ground and landside cost centers during the first half of FY 1982.
Also, the landing weights were forecasted to decrease and this reduction never materialized. Staff presented this change to the Airport Affairs Committee (airlines) and received their concurrence on February 10, 1982. In order to provide rentals and fees for the non-participating airlines (Continental, Eastern, TWA and Wien), commuters and charters that are consistent with those established for the Participating Airlines, the rate established by ordinance also requires adjustment.
This change in the landing fee rate for Participating Airlines and non-participating airlines, commuters, and charters was approved by the Airport Authority Board at the regular meeting held February 23, 1982. Since this change lowers the fee it is respectfully requested that the change be made effective April 1, 1982 rather than the customary 30 days after first publication in the newspaper.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Ordinance 24 of 1982, amending Section 2-2-20 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to Airport use fees, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
O 82-20
CITY ATTORNEY
RE: Introduction of proposed traffic code ordinance amendment: Section 196 pertaining to U-turns.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider amendments to Section 196 of the Salt Lake City Traffic Code.
DISCUSSION: The City’s current ordinance regulating U-turns is in conflict with the provisions of state law. The state law provides that U-turns are generally permitted unless prohibited by sign or a traffic control device, Section 41-6-17(a)(9), (c). The City’s ordinance provides for just the opposite. The amendment eliminates the inconsistency between the two legislative enactments. Council Chairperson Fonnesbeck referred to the consent agenda for April 20, 1982, the ordinance amending Section 196 of the Traffic Code relating to limitations on U-turns; referred without objection.
O 82-21
RE: An enactment resolution for Eaton Metal Products Company for Industrial Revenue Bonding for the construction of an addition to current facilities at 844 South Chestnut, Salt Lake City, Utah. Leigh von der Esch asked Roger Cutler if the enactment resolution had been reviewed by the Attorney’s Office; Mr. Cutler replied that this paperwork had been reviewed and was satisfactory.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt an enactment resolution, Resolution 33 of 1982, authorizing the issuance of an Industrial Development Revenue Bond (Eaton Metal Products Company) in the amount of $5,000,000, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
G 82-17
RE: Ordinance amendment, Section 32-7-4, regarding curfew for minors.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider amendments to Section 32-7-4 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City.
DISCUSSION: The case, Johnson v. City of Opelousas, 658 F.2d 1065 was decided October 13, 1981. Here, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a Louisiana City night time juvenile curfew ordinance similar to Salt Lake’s. After thorough research, it was determined that Salt Lake City’s present curfew ordinance (Section 32-7-4, Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, as amended) does not meet constitutional requirements.
Generally curfew ordinances, prohibiting minors’ mere presence upon public streets or in public places, have been stricken down as unconstitutional; that fact is true even though the laws provided exceptions for minors who are accompanied by a parent or legal guardian or were involved in some legitimate business, trade, profession or occupation. The proposed ordinance, amending Section 32-7-4 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, is drafted to broaden the exceptions to meet the Johnson case rationale. For example: (1) The proposed ordinance would legalize an under age person to be on the streets after designated curfew hours if in the presence of any parent, guardian or other person having legal care and custody of said minor. The present section made it illegal for any such person to allow or permit any minor to go or be in or upon any sidewalk, street, alley or public place and provided no exception therefor. (2) The amendment would change the mere presence on a city street to a loitering standard. (3) The proposed amendment would provide certain circumstances where an under aged person would not be in violation of the curfew ordinance in the event such minor was in a restricted area after the prescribed curfew.
Thus, a minor would not be in violation of the curfew ordinance, if said under aged person was: (a) married; (b) accompanied by a parent, guardian or other adult person having the care and custody of said minor; (c) returning home from, going to or being in attendance at any religious or school function, organized dance, theater, sports event or other such associational activity; provided, however that going to or from such activity would be by a direct route and within a reasonable time of the commencement or termination of an event; (d) engaged in legitimate employment and could produce evidence of such employment (e) in a motor vehicle engaged in normal travel, while traveling to, from or through the City on an interstate trip; or (f) if such minor were within the immediate vicinity of the minor’s residence.
Considering all of these required exceptions there seems little left of the curfew prescriptions. Thus, it was the opinion of the Attorney’s Office that, in view of constitutional problems with curfew ordinances, it might be best to eliminate any curfew ordinance. However, Chief of Police Bud Willoughby stated that a curfew ordinance is very desirable in that it is an effective deterrence for juvenile crime. It is also helpful for the police to induce juveniles to get off the streets between the late and early morning hours.
For those reasons, the proposed amendment to Section 32-7-4 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, is being submitted for review and discussion. As drafted it appears to meet current constitutional standards, but careful policy review is requested. In the meantime, the police have been instructed to consult with the Attorney’s Office before arresting any juvenile for a curfew violation under present City ordinances.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Ordinance 25 of 1982, amending Section 32-7-4 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to curfew for minors, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
O 82-17
CITY COUNCIL
RE: Resolution of appreciation for Douglas L. Sorenson who is retiring as Animal Control Director for Salt Lake City. Councilmember DePaulis presented this resolution; Mr. Sorenson thanked the Council and stated it had been a pleasure working with them. The Mayor stated that Mr. Sorenson had been in one of the toughest positions in City government and he had been as great a gentleman as anyone could hope to get in the Animal Control Department. The Mayor stated that he appreciated Mr. Sorenson’s kind nature and ability to work with people.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Resolution 34 of 1982 expressing appreciation to Douglas Sorenson, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
R 82-10
RE: Resolution of appreciation for Henry M. Cummings who is retiring as Shop Foreman of Fleet Management for Salt Lake City. Councilmember DePaulis presented this resolution and asked the Mayor to convey the Council’s appreciation to Mr. Cummings for his dedication and service to the City.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Resolution 35 of 1982, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
R 82-11
RE: A resolution approving the appropriation of $110,000 from the General Fund Contingency Account for expenses relating to Salt Palace Expansion. Councilmember Shearer stated that this resolution seems to say that the City will give the County money but actually this is supposed to be an offset on their building fees. Ms. Shearer stated that she wanted to amend the ordinance by adding another paragraph at the end which says, “Be it further resolved that said contributions shall only be disbursed upon payment of such permits and other offsets and shall in no event exceed such permits and other offsets as may be billed by the City.”
Councilmember Shearer stated that the County would not get money; she stated that her concern was that it seemed as if the City was going to give the County $110,000 and they would pay for the fees. Councilmember Shearer stated that this was the amendment suggested by Albert Haines and asked Mr. Cutler if he agreed with the amendment. Mr. Cutler stated that paragraph 3A of Resolution 31, as referenced in this resolution, dealt with the question but he did not have a problem with adding this last paragraph.
Mr. Mabey stated that the County did not want to pay the fees and then be reimbursed. Mr. Cutler indicated that money can be appropriated out of the contingency account to Salt Lake County without opening the budget because it has already been appropriated; but if the County gives the City money for the fees then that money cannot be spent without appropriation; the budget would have to be reopened to appropriate the money. Councilmember Shearer stated that there would not be a monetary transaction; the transactions would probably take place as bookkeeping entries.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Resolution 36 of 1982, with the additional paragraph, approving the appropriation of $110,000 from the General Fund Contingency Account, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
R 82-9
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
RE: List of projects to be funded with 8th Year Community Development Block Grant funding. Mayor Wilson addressed the Council to discuss the Rescue Mission. Ed Brotherton, Rescue Mission Director, had informed the Council earlier in the meeting that the Mission was having difficulty serving the numbers of people needing help. The Mayor stated that he proposed that the Council consider an emergency appropriation from CD funding for $700 per month in addition to the $700 per month that the Mission receives from the General Fund.
Councilmember Shearer asked what the Mayor was recommending be contributed to the Mission from 8th Year CD funding and what he would recommend be contributed from next year’s General Fund budget. The Mayor replied that he recommended $700 per month from CD 8th Year money, for a total of $8,400; and from the General Fund budget he would recommend another $8,400 or $700 per month. Ms. Shearer asked why the total contribution was not being taken out of CD funds. The Mayor stated that the General Fund has made an ongoing historical commitment and he felt that sharing the contribution was appropriate rather than disturbing the slippage aspect of the CD funds. However, the Mayor stated that if the Council wanted the total taken from CD funds he would support that option.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck felt that the Council needed to know how much CD funding was still available. Bill Wright addressed this question. He stated that there was $195,263 in the contingency fund. Under the Emergency Housing program, $75,000 has been allocated, $5,000 of which is declared ineligible. The full $8,400 for the Rescue Mission could be allocated from the $75,000; the Rescue Mission would have to be added to the Emergency Housing program. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that there has been a recommendation that the repair of 6th East be moved from CD 8th Year and funded from previous contingency money, which would free up an additional $130,000. Councilmember Shearer asked if the Council had control over new projects funded from the contingency to which Doug Carlson replied yes.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to delete the 6th East median repair from the 8th Year CD budget and add that the Council’s intent is to fund the 6th East median repair project with previous contingency, which motion carried, all members voting aye. Councilmember DePaulis stated that the Emergency Housing project could use the ineligible $5,000 for other existing programs so why not appropriate money for the Rescue Mission as a single program. Mr. Carlson replied that the Rescue Mission could be a single project; funding from Emergency Housing was one option. Originally it was suggested to fund the Rescue Mission from Emergency Housing because the $5,000 was available. Councilmember DePaulis stated that the Rescue Mission could be added to Emergency Housing and the amount of the Emergency Housing allocation be increased. Councilmember Shearer asked if the Rescue Mission and the other Emergency Housing programs could be funded with $85,000 to which Mr. Carlson replied yes.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to add the Rescue Mission to the Emergency Housing program and increase the Emergency Housing budget to $85,000, which motion carried, all members voting aye. For a point of clarification, the Mayor stated that the total contribution of $16,800 to the Rescue Mission will be allocated from the Emergency Housing program. Councilmember Parker stated that under Planning, it is indicated that $45,000 will be used for four areas listed under Target Area Plans. Mr. Parker asked how the money will be divided; he stated that the same question applies to the Mixed Use Plans. Mr. Wright stated that the money is not divided evenly; the projects will be completed with the amount of money each requires. It was felt that the funds appropriated would be sufficient to complete the projects.
John Renteria addressed the Council to discuss the El Centro Civic Center project and stated that he hoped the Council’s judgment would be favorable towards the El Centro project. Councilmember Whitehead stated that it was felt that the El Centro people should raise the funds to complete the building plans and if the project was determined to be feasible then they should ask for 9th Year funding. Doug Carlson stated that his understanding was that there was support for this project but the Council did not want to fund $10,000 in the 8th Year; however, $150,000 would be left in the plan for construction in the 9th Year. An intent could be drafted that if the project is feasible and a match can be obtained by El Centro then the City would support the project.
Mr. Renteria stated that the $10,000 would represent a good-faith effort on the part of the City to support this project. Mr. Renteria stated that their original request was for $300,000 and the compromise was $150,000. Another member of the El Centro group addressed the Council and stated that they were asking for the $10,000 to boost morale and help start the group on their fundraising drives. Presently there is a fundraising committee and they are trying to deepen relationships with the business community; it would be good for the community to see a catalyst take place between an exchange of capital and ideas, between El Centro and the Council. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that the Council wants to know specifically what the group will be able to accomplish with $10,000; it was stated by an El Centro member that the $10,000 would be used to update the plans or the Council could determine how the money should be used. Councilmember DePaulis discussed the possibility of committing the $10,000 to the project upon the condition that the project be continued once the plans are updated. The $10,000 could then be given for the building fund and next year $150,000 will be considered for the program. Councilmember DePaulis stated that the burden was being placed on the El Centro people to show that they are committed to the project. Chris Clark, Director of Assist, addressed the Council and stated that he had looked at the plans some time ago and felt that only minor specifications needed to be changed. He stated that he also felt the existing structure needs analysis by an engineer to insure that the structural aspects are proper and construction can be continued.
Mr. Clark stated that he felt with a good set of drawings it would be easier to solicit the kind of support which is needed to help finish the project. He recommended that money be allocated for completion of the plans and have the analysis made on the existing structure. Mr. Clark felt that this could be accomplished for less than $10,000. Councilmember DePaulis indicated that when the El Centro group gets the plans updated there will $10,000 in the building fund. Councilmember Mabey stated that the plan update would have to already be paid for before the money was issued.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to add a $10,000 appropriation for El Centro Civic Center, funds to be drawn down when plans are updated, presented, and accepted for a permit; funds are to be part of the building fund, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Council Members Shearer, Davis and Parker who voted nay. Councilmember DePaulis asked the status of the contingency fund. Doug Carlson stated that the contingency had been $195,000; it was increased by $130,000 from the 6th East project, reduced by $10,000 for the Rescue Mission and reduced by $10,000 for El Centro. The new total for the contingency is $305,000.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to accept the list of projects, as published and amended, to be funded with 8th Year Community Development Block Grant funding, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
T 82-1
FIRE DEPARTMENT
RE: Memorandum of understanding and an agreement providing for mutual exchange of fire protection and rescue services between Salt Lake City and South Salt Lake.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council approve this agreement so that the two cities will be able to mutually help each other in case of emergency.
DISCUSSION: The Salt Lake City Fire Department and the City of South Salt Lake have worked out a mutually agreeable contract and it has been signed by the Mayor of South Salt Lake. It has been approved by the City legal department. Council Chairperson Fonnesbeck referred to the consent agenda for April 13, 1982, the memorandum of understanding and agreement with South Salt Lake; referred without objection.
C 82-172
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
RE: The appointments of Kern Gardner, Jess Agraz, and Mirvin Borthick to the Air Travel Commission. The term of Kern C. Gardner expired December 1, 1981, and the term of Jess A. Agraz expired February 1, 1982. Mayor Wilson recommends that Mr. Gardner be reappointed for another three-year term to expire December 1, 1984, and that Mr. Agraz be reappointed for another three-year term to expire February 1, 1985. The term of Mirvin D. Borthick expires May 16, 1982. The Mayor recommends that Mr. Borthick be reappointed for another three-year term to expire May 16, 1985.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to approve the reappointments of Kern Gardner, Jess Agraz, and Mirvin Borthick to the Air Travel Commission, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
I 82-13
RE: The appointment of L.C. Romney on the Sugar House Park Authority; Mr. Romney’s term expired November 1981. The Mayor recommends that Mr. Romney be reappointed for another five-year term to expire November 1986. The Sugar House Park Authority has unanimously approved the recommendation of Mr. Romney for another term. He has been committed to Sugar House Park for many years and has made a significant contribution to its success.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to approve the reappointment of L. C. Romney on the Sugar House Park Authority, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
I 82-12
PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT
RE: Change in ordinance covering employee appeals board elections.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider repealing Sections 25-11-4 and 25-11-5 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah and adopt Section 25-2-1.
DISCUSSION: The current ordinances covering employee appeals board elections do not meet the needs of the City under its new form of government or under the current grievance procedures as outlined in the Memoranda of Understanding. The proposed ordinance will allow the flexibility to structure elections to meet the employees’ needs as well and not tie up the administration with details and time constraints. Council Chairperson Fonnesbeck referred the ordinance amendment regarding employee appeals board elections to the Administration and the Budget and Finance Committees; referred without objection.
O 82-22
POLICE DEPARTMENT
RE: Introduction of proposed traffic code ordinance amendment, Sections 186 and 191.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider amendments to Section 186 and 191 of the Salt Lake City Traffic Code relating to left-turn lanes.
DISCUSSION: The recommendation that a new ordinance be drafted prohibiting vehicles from “driving in between the newly designated traffic separators”. Councilmember DePaulis stated that this issue had been reviewed in committee but he still had a question with Section 186(2). Mr. DePaulis read Section 186(2) and stated that he thought there had been more language after this paragraph. He also stated that after this section there are three asterisks and he wondered if there was a deletion. Mr. Cutler stated that usually the asterisks indicate the sections in between are going to remain without a change; this ordinance is amending Sections 186 and 191.
Councilmember DePaulis stated that a section of the ordinance was going to be deleted and he was not sure if the deletion had been made so he requested to meet with Mr. Cutler to clarify his question.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to table the ordinance, for the present time, amending Section 186 and 191 of the Salt Lake City Traffic Code relating to left-turn lanes, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
O 82-19
PUBLIC WORKS
RE: Special Improvement District No. 38-622, Exchange Place Beautification.
RECOMMENDATION: City Council approve the recommendation and decision which will: 1. Allow the City Council acting as a Board of Equalization and Review for this project, to accept the assessments as contained on the assessment rolls as being equitable and constituting a benefit to the properties to be assessed. 2. Send “Notice to Property Owners” and set a date for a public hearing for the purpose of raising the interest rate for abutters on the special tax assessment from 7% as outlined in the Notice of Intention to the applicable interest rate borne by the City at the time the bonds are issued. Recommend that a public meeting be held no less than 60 days from the date of this decision, City Council approve the levying of assessments for this project.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Redevelopment Agency and property owner assessment.
DISCUSSION: The Cactus/Exchange Place Beautification Project was constructed during 1979 and completed in early 1980. A Board of Equalization and Review was held with members of City Council acting on the Board on July 15, 16, and 17, 1980. Two written complaints were received from owners of property abutting this project. No other persons protested in writing or attended the hearing of the Board of Equalization and Review. The complaints concerned the property owner’s concern with the high cost of the project. It is, therefore, felt the assessments as proposed are equitable and the improvements financed constitute a benefit to the properties to be assessed. It is also felt that due to the lapse of time between construction of the project and the levying of assessments, and the corresponding increase in the interest rate, the current market rate of interest should be charged abutting property owners.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to schedule a protest hearing for May 11, 1982 at 6:30 p.m. to discuss items relating to Special Improvement District #38-622, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Q 82-3
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Ed Brotherton, Director of the Rescue Mission, addressed the Council. He stated that Salt Lake City is involved in a serious transient problem with men, women, and children. Typical transients are 1) men who are considered the “hobo” or “rail bum” types, 2) a shadow population drifting around the country going from mission to mission, these people stay for a few months and then move on, 3) those people who have been laid off from jobs in other parts of the country and come to Salt Lake looking for work because this area has a lower unemployment rate.
Mr. Brotherton displayed a graph showing the number of meals provided by the Rescue Mission since May 1 of last year. He indicated that the peak was high in October, started downward and was low in January, level in February and started upward in March; Mr. Brotherton also indicated that it is not easy to pay for these meals and he has been asked by part of his board to limit the number of meals served. He further stated that men, women, and children can eat at the Mission, men can sleep there, men, women and children can receive showers and a change of clothing; Mr. Brotherton tries to find shelter for women and children. The Rescue Mission operates on $700 per month from the City through the Community Transient Services and the rest of the money is received through donations. Mr. Brotherton said that he wanted the Council to be aware of this problem; he wanted the Council, the press, and the people in the audience to know the reason why if meals are limited. Mr. Brotherton speculated that the peaks and valleys on the graph were due to southward movement during the cold months and possibly people drifted toward their homes around the holidays. He further stated that last fall numerous people came through the Salt Lake area on their way to Wyoming, when their situation did not improve they came back to Salt Lake or Denver looking for help. The alarming thing is the number of transients from the 3rd category of people, those who have had jobs; many of these people have technical skills. In the last two or three weeks there have been a considerable number of new people along with the local regulars.
Councilmember Shearer asked if funding through CD had been considered. Doug Carlson stated that additional development activities and a certain level of operational expenses could be funded. Councilmember Shearer stated that there was no appropriation in the 8th year CD funds; Mr. Carlson replied that was correct. The Mayor stated that he will schedule a meeting with Tom Shimizu, County Commissioner, and the Governor to talk about their role in this situation. The Mayor further stated that the Rescue Mission is one of the greatest institutions that the City has ever had.
The Mission is very kind to the people and does not turn anyone away. He also stated that the City would work with Mr. Brotherton on this situation. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that money could be appropriated to the Rescue Mission from the 8th Year CD contingency fund. Councilmember Shearer felt that since the Council would consider CD funding at this meeting, this program should he considered for funding. The Mayor stated that the Rescue Mission has never asked for a huge amount of money. Mr. Brotherton stated that he did not come to ask for money at this meeting but a recommendation has been made through Community Transient Services for the upcoming year; he stated that his request for next year was $2,100 per month.
GiGi Brandt, League of Women Voters, addressed the Council. She presented the Council with copies of a new water study on the water-supply system in Salt Lake County. The League’s question was if there was enough water in Salt Lake County to meet future demands; the answer is yes but there are a lot of complications. Ms. Brandt stated that she hoped the Council would read this study so they would know what questions to ask when they attend the Council of Governments meeting.
Wes Green addressed the Council. He distributed copies of an application requesting permission to sell flowers in the downtown area. He stated that if permission is granted, flowers will be sold from a stationary cart on Main Street between South Temple and First South. Each evening and Sundays the flower cart shall be removed from its sidewalk location and secured in storage. The flower cart and the surrounding area will be kept attractive and clean at all times; the cart will be placed so it will not hinder pedestrian traffic, it will also comply with any other ordinances. The cart will be with the theme of the City. Mr. Green stated that he has lived in Europe, Chicago, and California and he has seen flowers sold on the street tastefully and successfully. He feels that this would be an asset to the City because it would be a service to the people and add flavor and character to the City. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that she did not think this idea should be limited to just flowers; she thought the idea should be expanded to include the sale of food items. She thought this would be a good way to increase the sidewalk traffic. Mayor Wilson thought that the ordinance had been changed so this type of vending could be done.
Mr. Cutler stated that the ordinance does not prohibit this type of selling; a request can be granted after a public hearing. But the problem is that there would probably be complaints from other established businesses. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that a public hearing was not required to offer other business licenses. Councilmember Whitehead stated that an exception was being made because street vendors, for one thing, do not have to have a building and he further stated that he did not want to change the ordinance but consider each request individually.
Councilmember Shearer asked if this type of request was a legislative matter. Mr. Cutler stated that there was a fine line because this would require a public hearing but it appears to be more of an executive decision. Mr. Cutler stated that this section needed to be studied and clarified. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that as the westside develops around Deveraux, this will become an issue so now would be a good time to consider this question. Councilmember Fonnesbeck suggested that Mr. Green contact the Council again in about a month.
The Mayor stated that if the Council did not establish criteria then he would have to write an administrative document and he was not sure that was his role. He further stated that precautions would have to be taken so the streets do not get congested. Mr. Cutler stated that there would be a problem of unfair competition with the day-to—day merchants who pay property taxes among other things. Councilmember Fonnesbeck reiterated that Mr. Green should contact the Council in about a month.
The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.