PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, AUGUST 3, 1982
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 3, 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 Councilmember Edward W. Parker conducted this meeting.
POLICY SESSION
The schedule for the upcoming month was discussed. The Council cancelled the meeting scheduled for August 17 and the Committee meeting scheduled for August 19 (due to Employee Appreciation Day). The Council discussed upcoming conferences that may require several of the Councilmembers to travel out of town: Council Chairperson Fonnesbeck will attend the NAHRO conference in October. The Redevelopment Agency has made a reservation for one other Councilmember. She asked that any interested Councilmember make arrangements to attend.
Councilmember Whitehead will travel to Seattle for the All American Cities competition. Several Councilmembers expressed concern that time be scheduled for briefings following trips so traveling members could report to the Council about their trips. Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded that staff prepare a report on what trips have been taken in the past year, the purpose of each trip, and the total cost of each trip; included in the motion is permission for Councilmember Whitehead to travel to Seattle at the Council’s expense, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Davis who voted nay.
The Council discussed the policy regarding alley vacation. Councilmember Shearer pointed out that if more vacations are approved, remaining alleys should be better maintained and not ignored. The adoption of the policy should not be construed by any city department to absolve the city of its responsibility to maintain city-owned alleys.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt a policy to vacate all unused alleys and to waive the fee for vacations fitting into this category, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Leigh von der Esch discussed the addendum regarding the Kimball Apartments. Larry Livingston indicated that the ordinance was in order but that it should not be published until all signatures have been obtained. The Council discussed a request from the Housing Authority for a letter supporting their efforts to obtain financing for maintenance work on Housing Authority units. The Council directed Ms. von der Esch to obtain other information before they give their support. The Council discussed the Employee Appreciation Day scheduled for August 19. They cancelled their committee meetings so they would be able to attend.
The Council discussed the annual trash pick-up. Councilmember Parker indicated that the pick-up is now three weeks behind schedule. Ms. von der Esch indicated that Joe Anderson had crews work overtime on July 31 and will have them work overtime on August 7. They hope to he on schedule again by August 13. Councilmember Shearer requested that a letter be sent to the Administration requesting a report on the possibility of contracting with private companies for next year’s pick-up.
Ms. von der Esch discussed the Council retreat. It is tentatively scheduled for either September 11 or September 18 at the Homestead. Ms. von der Esch briefed the Council on items appearing on their agenda.
The policy session adjourned at 5:55 p.m.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 3, 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.
Albert Haines, Chief Administrative Officer and Roger Cutler, City Attorney, were present at this meeting.
Mayor Ted Wilson was absent from the meeting.
Council Chairperson Sydney R. Fonnesbeck presided at and Councilmember Edward Parker conducted this meeting.
Invocation was given by Police Chaplain Michael McOmber.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes:
On page 10 of the minutes from July 20, 1982, the name of Mr. Nickerson was incorrectly spelled and therefore corrected.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to approve the minutes, as amended, of the regular meeting of the Salt Lake City Council for the meeting held Tuesday, July 20, 1982, and to approve the minutes of the Committee of the Whole meeting held Thursday, July 22, 1982, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(M 82-2)
PETITIONS
Petition 124 of 1982 submitted by Franklin Financial.
RE: The petitioner is requesting that property at 150 North Main Street be changed from its present “R-5” zoning classification to a “C-1” zoning classification. The petitioner is requesting the zoning change to allow the already converted Kimball Apartments, which is a residential condominium, to be used as a shared ownership condominium. A shared ownership or time-share condominium is viewed as a hotel and not a permitted use in the Residential “R-5” district.
Councilmember Parker stated that this request was approved at a previous meeting and the item before the Council is the formal ordinance adopting the change. Mr. Parker stated that the City Recorder’s Office needed to be instructed that this ordinance was not to be published until all necessary “Consent and Subordination” documents have been signed and received. Merlyn Ranks, Vice-President of Franklin Financial, addressed the Council and indicated that the only signature lacking was that of John Eyre. The interest outstanding represented by the one individual share is diminimus in terms of the interest already represented. However, Mr. Eyre has indicated that he will sign the necessary paperwork upon his return to Salt Lake this week.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Ordinance 56 of 1982, rezoning the northern portion of the Kimball Apartment site from “R-5” to “C-l”, to be effective upon the date of first publication; however, publication is to be held until all necessary “Consent and Subordination” documents are signed and received, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 82-140)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
CITY ATTORNEY
RE: A resolution authorizing the sale of Industrial Revenue Bonds for Airco, Inc. Project, Series 1982 of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, in the amount of $3,060,000. This is to finance facilities for use by the Temescal Division of Airco, Inc. in the assembly and manufacture of electrode beam and cathode sputtering vacuum equipment. The facilities will be located in Salt Lake City. Councilmember Davis asked Mr. Cutler if the indemnification form had been filed. Mr. Cutler stated that agreement had not been reached on the indemnification language but substantial progress is being made. Mr. Cutler stated that this IRB could be approved by the Council subject to approval by the City Attorney’s Office. Councilmember Davis also asked the location of this building. David Black, Operations Manager, stated that the facility has already been built; the company is in the process of installing equipment. The location is 5725 Harold Gatty Drive, in the Salt Lake International Center. Mr. Haines stated that the inducement resolution was passed long ago and the item before the Council is for authorization to issue the bonds.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Resolution 75 of 1982 authorizing the sale of Industrial Revenue Bonds for Airco, Inc. Project, Series 1982 of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, in the amount of $3,060,000, subject to approval by the City Attorney’s Office, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 82-28)
RE: Proposed theatre and concert ordinance amendment: Sections 20-20-22 through 20-20-25.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider amendments to Sections 20-20-22 through 20-20-25 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965.
DISCUSSION: This ordinance amendment was drafted pursuant to the Mayor’s concerns after problems occurred in Cincinnati over seating arrangements at a concert. The amendment as been submitted to the police, fire and licensing departments and is ready for Council action.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Ordinance 57 of 1982, amending Chapter 20 of Title 20 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to theatres and concerts by adding new sections 22, 23, 24, and 25, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 82-45)
RE: An ordinance amending the Salt Lake City Traffic Code prohibiting hazardous extensions on the sides of vehicles.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Ordinance 58 of 1982, amending Article 9 of the Traffic Code of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, by adding a new section 181.3 regarding limitations on widths of vehicles, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 82-42)
RE: An amendment to Chapter 1 of Title 32 of city ordinances by amending Section 32-1-5 and adding 32-1-5.1.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider amendments to Chapter 1 of Title 32 of the Salt Lake City ordinances.
DISCUSSION: The two proposed companion ordinances have been drafted in order to assist the enforcement personnel in discharging their official duties. Section 32-1-5 clarifies the offense of interfering with an officer and now includes all enforcement personnel of the city, not just police officers and firefighters. Section 32-1-5.1 is a new ordinance, patterned after the state law, designed to punish persons who willfully obstruct the criminal justice system by aiding and assisting criminal suspects to avoid apprehension, prosecution, or conviction.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Ordinance 59 of 1982, amending Section 32-1-5 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to interfering with an officer; and adopt Ordinance 60 of 1982, amending Chapter 1 of Title 32 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, by adding a new section 32-1-5.1 relating to obstruction of justice, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 82-39)
RE: Proposed traffic code ordinance amendment: Section 46-6-104 pertaining to driving or being in control of a vehicle with a blood alcohol level of .10% or greater.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider enacting a new section 104 to the Salt Lake City Traffic Code.
DISCUSSION: This ordinance is intended to supplement Section 105 of the Traffic Code, “Driving under the Influence”. The ordinance would make it unlawful for persons having a blood alcohol content of .10% or greater to drive or be in control of a vehicle. The ordinance, patterned after Section 46-6-44, Utah Code Annotated, will grant the police department and the city prosecutor greater leeway in charging individuals in traffic cases involving alcohol; the proposed ordinance establishes an objective standard which, in many cases, would be easier to enforce.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Ordinance 61 of 1982, amending Article 6 of the Traffic Code of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, by adding a new section 104 relating to driving with blood alcohol content of .10% or higher, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 82-24)
RE: Amendment of section 46-6-109, alcoholic beverages in motor vehicle.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider amendment to Section 46-6-109 of the Salt Lake City Code.
DISCUSSION: The prosecutor’s division of the City Attorney’s Office has reported a need to conform the city’s ordinance of “Drinking in or about an auto” to the state law which was recently passed. This ordinance conforms city laws to the new state law. It will allow prosecutions to proceed smoothly without encountering technical motions which claim the state pre-empted the city’s ordinance. The intent of the new ordinance remains the same as the intent of the prior ordinance and will be used in the same manner.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to refer the proposed ordinance amending Section 46-6-109 of the Salt Lake City Code to the Public Safety Committee, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 82-46)
CITY COUNCIL
Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that Salt Lake City has been notified that the city is to receive a Certificate of Conformance and Financial Reporting from the Municipal Finance Officers Association. The Certificate of Conformance is the highest form of recognition in the area of governmental financial reporting and its attainment represents a significant accomplishment by a government and its management. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that to her knowledge this was the first time Salt Lake City had received this recognition. Albert Haines stated that two years ago the city set a goal to achieve the requirements to receive the Certificate of Conformance.
Mr. Haines stated that he was addressing a letter to the Council about this award and his letter outlines some of the standards and requirements that the city has had to meet. He further stated that he was particularly appreciative of Lance Bateman’s work, his accounting staff, and the auditors from Arthur Young who have supported and encouraged the city to continue in this effort. Dave Lamb, Arthur Young and Co., stated that the recognition comes from the Municipal Finance Officers Organization which is the organization for finance officers throughout the United States.
The requirements are more than those that are required by generally accepted accounting principles for disclosure; there is an intent to make reporting between cities more comparable. Mr. Lamb stated that the city was very progressive in trying to meet new accounting requirements. The city has contracted with Arthur Young to perform an audit under OMB circular A-l02 attachment P, which will combine an audit of all of the grants into one audit and will cover some grants that have never been audited before. This will also look at controls generally over the whole federal grant process.
Councilmember Shearer congratulated all those who have been actively involved in this Certificate of Conformance. She stated that the Council is delighted that Salt Lake City has received this recognition. At this time, Mr. Haines also presented Salt Lake City’s first annual report and stated that he has addressed a letter to the Council and the Mayor regarding this report. He felt that this represented a significant step forward. It is a more comprehensive approach to what is happening in the city beyond merely looking at the finances. He extended his appreciation to all of those who participated in the development of this report. Mr. Haines stated that such items has a corporate annual report and the conformance certificate have and will continue to have a positive impact, particularly in Salt Lake City’s ratings and ability to maintain the high financial standing the city has on Wall Street. These achievements also show a high level of professionalism to other corporate entities.
FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
RE: Industrial Revenue Bond application: Alta Industries.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider the approval of an inducement resolution for an Industrial Revenue Bond for Alta Industries in the amount of $3,500,000. The following conditions have been met: 1. That the City Attorney approve the resolution as to form. 2. That the application meet all necessary financial requirements of the city. 3. That Alta Industries pay the established non-refundable fee for processing.
DISCUSSION: The applicant proposes to acquire and construct warehousing to replace facilities now located on the northeast corner of North Temple and 4th West, which they have outgrown.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt an inducement resolution, Resolution 76 of 1982, for Industrial Revenue Bonds for Alta Industries in the amount of $3,500,000, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 82-27)
OFFICE OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT PLANNING
RE: City Council approval is requested for 8th Year (1982-83) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding for Wasatch Front Regional Council Planning Studies.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council approve the expenditure of $13,660 from 8th Year CDBG funds for planning studies to be completed by the Wasatch Front Regional Council.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Sufficient funds exist in the 8th Year CDBG contingency budget for this project.
DISCUSSION: The Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) has requested a small CDBG appropriation from the four CDBG entitlement jurisdictions in Salt Lake County for the purpose of completing relevant county-wide planning studies. Briefly, the WFRC proposes to complete three planning studies at a total cost of $42,686, with compensation broken down as follows: Salt Lake County 54% $23,050, Salt Lake City 32% $13,660, Sandy City 7% $ 2,988, West Valley City 7% $ 2,988. Total $42,686.
Study #1 - GROWTH PROJECTIONS
The Wasatch Front Regional Council will prepare a 20-year projection of population, households and employment. The projection will be documented in a technical report which will give the projections in five-year increments, give a projection for surrounding areas, and document the procedures and assumptions used in preparing the projection. Specific areas for which projections will be made include Salt Lake City and six sub-areas within the City, West Valley City, Sandy City, and Salt Lake County with six sub-areas of the County. The projections will be consistent with Regional and County projections and will be developed in cooperation with local planners from each jurisdiction. The projections are necessary to address issues including housing needs, economic development, and planning for orderly growth.
Study #2 - DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC AGENCY POLICY GUIDELINES FOR THE WASATCH CANYON AREAS OF SALT LAKE COUNTY.
Written policy guidelines for canyon management agencies to consider in adopting their individual policies will be developed and distributed to affected governmental agencies and other interested parties. Options for preserving vital portions of the canyons from further development by transferring property from private to public (or quasi-public) ownership will be studied and specific recommendations generated. Existing comprehensive development plans for the more heavily utilized canyon areas will be reviewed to determine if they are still adequate for balancing recreational, watershed, game habitat and flood control needs. While the Salt Lake Canyon Advisory Committee will continue to be the main forum for the discussion of canyon related issues and problems, consideration will be given to the creation of a permanent mechanism for coordinating ongoing policy development.
Study #3 - STUDY OF POTENTIAL FOR SHARED FACILITIES AND SERVICES BY SALT LAKE COUNTY GENERAL PURPOSE GOVERNMENTS.
The WFRC will identify the potential for increasing joint use of local government facilities and services. Current examples of cooperative arrangements with Salt Lake County and other areas will be documented. Barriers to further joint usage will be identified as well as suggested methods for overcoming barriers. A report containing specific recommendations and a plan of action will be developed for consideration by local government implementing agencies. If legislative authority beyond what is available in the State’s Interlocal Cooperation Act (UCA 11-13-1-26) is required to implement recommendations, proposed legislation will be drafted.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to refer the request for 8th Year CDBG funding for Wasatch Front Regional Council Planning Studies to the Committee of the Whole, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(T 82-22)
RE: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding of mixed-use housing program (Artspace) administrative expenses.
DISCUSSION: On April 6, 1982 the City Council approved the Mixed-Use Housing Project for 8th Year (1982-83) CDBG funding with a total budget of $225,000. As represented by Artspace, Inc., a local non-profit organization, the project involves the rehabilitation and conversion of warehouse space located on Pierpont Avenue into studio housing for artists. Artspace, Inc. has approached the city with a request to fund their program administration out of the CDBG appropriation.
Previous to receiving the CDBG award from the city, Artspace did not have paid staff to administer their program. However, Artspace now claims that a full time Executive Director and related office expenses are necessary for their program to continue. Because Artspaces’s administrative costs were not represented in the project description when the Council approved the project, Council approval of this request is necessary.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that since there is not an appropriation involved she felt this item could be approved. She stated that normally when CD funding is approved there has been a long series of hearings and the Council knows how the money will be spent; she felt this was a line-item matter. Councilmember Shearer stated that since this was the first time the matter had appeared before the Council she felt it should be referred, as is the custom.
Councilmember Davis stated that when she voted for the project she understood it was for the building and not administrative costs. Councilmember Fonnesbeck indicated that administrative costs have been paid on other projects. Councilmember Davis felt that if this is the case the Council should know at the time the project is presented that money will be used for administrative costs.
Leigh von der Esch addressed the Council and stated that Artspace has been trying to get a tax-exempt status so they can receive the pledges that they have had from other individuals and organizations; the pledge money was to override the administrative costs. Because the tax-exempt status did not come through on a timely basis, Artspace is asking to use part of the $225,000 for the administrative expenses they are now incurring; once they get a tax-exempt status they will use pledge money for those costs and the other money will go back into the project. Ms. von der Esch stated that they would have a difficult time continuing the project without the tax-exempt status. Stephen Goldsmith, Artspace Inc., addressed the Council and stated that Artspace Inc. should not have a problem getting a tax-exempt status.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to refer the request by Artspace Inc. to the Committee of the Whole, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmembers Whitehead, Mabey, and Fonnesbeck who voted nay.
(T 82-23)
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
RE: Appointment of City Treasurer.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council confirm the appointment of Cheryl D. Cook as City Treasurer effective August 9, 1982.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: This appointment will fill a vacant authorized position.
DISCUSSION: Ms. Cook was selected through a process consisting of an oral board comprised of five individuals, both from inside and outside of city government, and interviews with Mayor Wilson and Albert Haines. Based upon the unanimous recommendation of the oral board and the personal interviews with Ms. Cook, Mayor Wilson appointed her to the position of City Treasurer. Therefore, inasmuch as the position of City Treasurer is a statutory officer requiring Council confirmation, it is requested that Ms. Cook be confirmed as City Treasurer. Councilmember Shearer stated that she thought the Council should have an opportunity to talk with Ms. Cook in committee before the appointment is confirmed.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to refer the appointment of Ms. Cook to the Committee of the Whole on August 5, 1982, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(I 82-19)
RE: Planning and Zoning Commission.
RECOMMENDATION: Appoint John Schumann, Tom Ellison, and Elizabeth Burns to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
DISCUSSION: When new members were added to the Planning and Zoning Commission last year, three of them were appointed to one-year positions in order to stagger the terms of commission members. These one-year appointments came due July 1, 1982. Chris Johnson, Tom Ellison, and Elizabeth Burns are the three members whose terms expired at the beginning of July. Mr. Johnson has requested that he not be considered for reappointment because of his busy schedule. However, Mr. Ellison and Ms. Burns have been active and enthusiastic members of the Planning and Zoning Commission and want to be reappointed to another term. Therefore, it is recommended that John Schumann, Vice President of Investments for Surety Life Insurance Company, be appointed to a four-year term on the Planning and Zoning Commission along with Mr. Ellison and Ms. Burns. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that she wanted to meet Mr. Schumann and she thought his appointment should be sent to committee; she felt the reappointments could be approved.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to refer the reappointments of Mr. Ellison and Ms. Burns to the consent agenda for August 10, 1982 and refer the appointment of Mr. Schumann to the Land Use Committee, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(I 82-20)
POLICE DEPARTMENT
RE: Proposed ordinance amendment relating to drug paraphernalia: Section 32-8A-l.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider amendment to Section 32-8A-1 of the Salt Lake City Code.
DISCUSSION: The recommendation that Section 32 be amended by adding a new section 8A to include the purpose of the amendment, which is to discourage the use of narcotics by eliminating paraphernalia designed for processing, ingesting, or otherwise using a controlled substance. Also, to define “Drug Paraphernalia” and considerations in determining whether an object is drug paraphernalia. Councilmember Shearer asked Mr. Cutler if this differs from the state statute and if not why is the city passing this ordinance.
Mr. Cutler replied that state laws are not enforceable by cities unless there is an appointment from the county attorney for someone to act as a special county attorney. The drug paraphernalia law has been patterned after and implements the drug paraphernalia law of the state but it is adopted as a city ordinance so it can be enforced through city enforcement procedures. Mr. Cutler further stated that in those cases where the police select to charge as a city offense, it would be a misdemeanor; if they choose to use a greater penalty available under state statute they would have to file with the County Attorney’s Office.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Ordinance 62 of 1982, amending Title 32 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, by adding a new chapter 8A thereto relating to drug paraphernalia, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 82-41)
PUBLIC UTILITIES
RE: Amending Title 37 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to ordinances and including an industrial pretreatment program.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider adopting amended Title 37 and Pretreatment Program to control the discharge of industrial waste into the city’s sanitary sewer and treatment system.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: It is recommended that a $20 permit be established for 400 potential industrial dischargers to cover the unbudgeted permit costs that will be incurred during FY 1982-83 and that $107,680, that will be reimbursed from EPA for the pretreatment study, be reallocated to construct monitoring manholes, installing automatic samples and other costs related to initiating the pretreatment program. All other costs to implement the program are included in the FY 1982-83 budget.
DISCUSSION: As required by the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Public Law 92-217) and as a condition of Salt Lake City’s NPDES Discharge Permit No. UT-0021725, the city is mandated to enact an ordinance for the regulation and control of industrial discharges that enter the city’s sanitary sewer and treatment system, in accordance to Part 403 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Pursuant to that requirement, Title 37 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to sewers has been amended to include the industrial pretreatment program including discharge limitations, sampling, monitoring, enforcement procedures and penalties.
The basic document entitled “Wastewater Control Ordinance/Rules and Regulations” was developed by all the sewer agencies within Salt Lake County in order to provide a county-wide ordinance regulating wastewater control that would uniformly control industrial discharges. The amended portions of Title 37 reflect changes necessary to make the city’s ordinance consistent with the county’s other sewer agencies. LeRoy Hooton, Director of Public Utilities, addressed the Council and stated that subsequent to the public hearing letters were sent to 93 affected industries informing them of the proposed ordinance. 15 firms obtained copies of the ordinance and the department received approximately 20 calls inquiring about this ordinance. No adverse feedback was received relative to the ordinance.
Councilmember Nabey moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Ordinance 53 of 1982, amending Title 37 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to sewers, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(C 82-46)
PUBLIC WORKS
RE: An ordinance amending Chapter 2 of Title 38 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to repairs and replacement of sidewalks and curb and gutters.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council schedule a public hearing and adopt the revisions in Chapter 2 of Title 38.
DISCUSSION: Recently, due to settlement complaints on the east bench area and during the design of a sidewalk Special Improvement District in the downtown target area, it has become apparent that both sidewalks and curb and gutters need to be replaced concurrently. In 1981, the City Council enacted an ordinance amending Chapter 2 of Title 38, relating to repairs and replacement of deteriorated sidewalks and curb and gutters. The amendment contains provisions defining defective sidewalks and procedures to be followed for replacement and allocation of replacement costs.
This ordinance was used to set up last year’s Sidewalk 50/50 Project in residential areas. The residences and the city shared the replacement cost equally. Apartment houses, businesses and multiple dwelling units paid the total cost. Realizing that curb and gutter is an itegral part of the problem, the main deterrent is Section 38-2-9 of this ordinance. It indicates that curb and gutter replacement costs “shall be borne by the city, subject to availability of funds”. The availability of funds is limited, to say the least, but the problem of deteriorated sidewalk and curb and gutter is great.
There are two ways to go, either continue as in the past, slipping further behind and open to increasing liability, or amend Section 38 to include curb and gutter replacement cost allocations to those being used for sidewalk replacement. Residences would pay 50% and businesses and multiple dwelling units would pay 100% of the replacement costs. Only deteriorated curb and gutter that has become a health or safety hazard or is interconnected to sidewalk replacement would be reconstructed. By changing the ordinance, city funds would be stretched, property owner’s property value would be increased, and the city’s liability would decrease.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to schedule a public hearing for August 10, 1982 at 6:15 p.m. to discuss the ordinance amending Chapter 2 of Title 38 relating to repairs and replacements of sidewalks and curb and gutter, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 82-47)
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Nephi Kemmethmueller, K & E Construction Company, addressed the Council. He stated that in July the city made a list of all those who can work on municipal areas of construction, in regards to sidewalks, curb and gutter, approaches, etc. In order to be on the list the company has to be bonded. For a small company, such as K & E, it is impossible to be bonded because it is hard to keep the necessary liquid assets in a bank for the bonding company. Mr. Kemmethmueller stated that in the past, K & E Construction Company has done work for Salt Lake City. He proposed a recommendation stating that the size of the job should determine bonding requirements. He stated that jobs of $100,000 or up should be bonded, jobs from $l0,000-60,000 perhaps could be bonded but also the company record should be considered, and jobs under $10,000 should not require a performance or surety bond but the record of the company should be considered. Mr. Kemmethmueller asked the Council to reconsider these bonding requirements and see if there could be a justification in changing this rule, especially in this depressed economy. He indicated that the ordinance, Chapter 5 of Title 41, stated that a bond should be posted but this was never really enforced and now it has been enforced.
Mr. Kemmethmueller also mentioned what he felt to be excessive fees charged for small jobs. Mr. Haines indicated that the bonding requirements are determined by administrative decisions from the Public Works Department. Councilmember Mabey stated that bonding assures that the concrete will be installed properly and also assures that a claim will not be placed on the homeowner if the company goes bankrupt. Roger Cutler stated that there were three issues being raised.
The first issue is that companies should be allowed to work on city projects whether or not they are bonded contractors under the state statute; the second issue deals with performance and liability bonds, these can be waived under the present ordinance but generally bonds have been required on projects over $1,500 to protect the homeowner and city; the third issue is the fees that the city charges to allow the work to be done, these fees are set by ordinance.
Mr. Haines stated that he felt some of the points raised were worth pursuing and he stated that he was willing to meet with Mr. Kemmethmueller, Mr. Talabreza, and a representative from the attorney’s office to discuss these issues. Mr. Haines stated that he would report back to the Council. He also stated that administration is in the process of a management review of the excavation fees.
The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.