PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1982
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 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
Report of the Executive Director.
The policy session adjourned at 5:55 p.m.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1982, AT 5:00 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 E. Haines, Chief Administrative Officer and Roger Cutler, City Attorney, were present at the meeting.
Council Chairperson Sydney R. Fonnesbeck presided at and conducted this meeting.
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 the meeting held Tuesday, December 7, 1982 as amended which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(M 82-2)
PETITIONS
Petition 152 of 1982 submitted by Community Organization Operations Program, Inc.
Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing on January 11, 1983 at 8:15 p.m. to discuss Petition No. 152 submitted by Community Organization Operations Program, Inc. The Petitioners are requesting that property located at 131 North 900 West Street be rezoned from Residential “R-6” to a commercial “C-1” classification.
Availability of funds: The petitioner is required to pay a $50 advertising fee.
Discussion: The Planning Commission has recommended that the commercial “C-l” classification for the property on the north side of North Temple Street be extended an additional 80 feet to include the former L.D.S. Ward Building only. The parking lot would remain “R-6” classification and would have to have a conditional use granted by the Board of Adjustment. Neighbors on Laxen Court want the parking lot on the west side of the building to be fenced to preclude access to the parking lot from their street. The Board of Adjustment would require adequate fencing and buffering of the parking lot. The Petitioner has indicated that the majority of the building use would be for community type activities, but need the commercial zoning to utilize the theatre and gymnasium for other type activities. The petitioner feels that they have good neighborhood support.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to set a public hearing on Tuesday, January 11, 1983 at 8:15 p.m. to discuss Petition No. 152 of 1982 submitted by Community Organization Operations Program, Inc. requesting that property located at 131 North 900 West be rezoned from Residential “R-6” to a Commercial “C-1” classification, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 82-357)
Petition 313 of 1982 submitted by Union Pacific Railroad Company. Union Pacific Railroad Company is requesting that 200 North Street between 400 and 500 West Street be vacated to allow for full utilization for railroad operations. In exchange for the vacation of 200 North, Union Pacific proposes to retire and remove 14 of the present 22 tracks located over 300 North Street and will promptly improve the road surfaces and track crossings of the remaining eight tracks and to seek federal funding to install warning devices on the remaining eight tracks.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to set a public hearing on Tuesday, January 11, 1983 at 8:00 p.m. to discuss Petition 313 of 1982 submitted by Union Pacific Railroad Company requesting that 200 North Street between 400 and 500 West Street be vacated to allow for full utilization for railroad operations, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 82-358)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
CITY ATTORNEY
#1. Re: Petition 412 of 1980. Proposal for annexing approximately 117 acres in the general area of 2100-2400 North from 2200-2440 West originally referred to as the Millard Annexation.
Recommendation: Petition 412 of 1980 proposed the annexation of approximately 117 acres east of the airport in the general vicinity of 2100-2400 North from 2200-2440 West. This petition was originally referred to as the “Millard Annexation” but the plats now bear the name of “2100 North Properties Partnership Annex”. The Council accepted the annexation by Resolution 17 of 1981 and granted conceptual approval after a public hearing held on March 31, 1981. The City Recorder was instructed as part of the resolution to give the statutory 20-day notice to effected entities. No protests were lodged.
The Council gave conceptual approval subject to negotiation of an appropriate annexation agreement and avigation easement. While these negotiations were in process, the Airport decided to extend the runways and has negotiated to purchase under option approximately 50 acres to protect the integrity of the radar system. Because development in the 50 acres would pose problems to the operations and safety of the airport, the proposed ordinance has zoned this area to an Agricultural “A-1” district classification while zoning the remainder to Commercial “C-3A” as originally proposed. This modification is a zoning use of lesser intensity than the “C-3A” and therefore has traditionally been found to be within the scope of the original published notice.
The ordinance is in proper form. However, we must draw your attention to a risk raised by the Utah Supreme Court’s decision in PAULSEN v. HOOPER WATER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (No. 17934) filed November 12, 1982. This case which was actually decided on other factors unrelated to annexations includes gratuitous language interpreting Section 10-2-416, Utah Code Ann., to require a new policy amendment for each proposed annexation in excess of five acres.
If Judge Durham’s dicta is applied literally to this annexation, the public hearing where this annexation was reviewed in light of the Master Annexation Policy Declaration would not comply with the Court’s language. For reasons that are too lengthy to recite, we believe there are some distinctions to be argued, but the case creates obvious concerns and risk. We always suggest that the better practice is to attempt to comply to avoid risk. To comply would require preparation of a policy amendment for this 117 acres, setting a new hearing date far enough in advance to permit mailing of a new notice and the proposed amendment to all effected entities. It will also open up a new protest period.
To go forward without doing so leaves the caveat or risk that, upon challenge, the annexation could be set aside as a nullity. Such a challenge would have to occur within a year of the recording of the final ordinance and plat or the annexation would be deemed to be conclusive. Our office is not aware of any entity which opposed or is likely to oppose the annexation so the risk may be acceptable to the City. We believe that the assumption of risk is a policy decision and one for the administration and property owners to weigh against the likelihood of challenge (which may be remote), impacts of possible legislative changes, implications on financing, etc. If the administration, property owner and Council decide to proceed and assume the risk, the ordinance after passage by the Council should not be signed by the Mayor until the Agreement, Easement and final plat are also ready for signature. If they do not accept such risk, then the appropriate steps described above should be implemented.
Craig Peterson, Director, Development Services, addressed the Council stating that this ordinance is before the Council for adoption. He referred the letter submitted by the Attorney’s Office regarding the risk involved in the adoption of this ordinance, however, the City administration feels the risk would be minimal and the advantages to the airport, City and property owner outweigh the risk. Councilmember Shearer asked if the City was fully protected with regard to the avigation easement, to which Louis Miller, Acting Airport Director, stated that it was. Roger Cutler, City Attorney, stated that the avigation easement and the contract has been executed and urged the Council to adopt the ordinance.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Ordinance 95 of 1982, extending the corporate limits of Salt Lake City by annexing the “2100 North Properties Partnership Annex, zoning the same Commercial “C-3A’ and Agricultural “A-l” by amending the use district map adopted by Section 51-12-2 subject to the applicable Airport Zoning Map adopted by Section 51-11-4; and providing for an annexation agreement, and avigation easement, incorporated by reference, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember DePaulis who was absent when the vote was taken.
(P 82-359)
CITY COUNCIL
#1. RE: Consider and adopt a resolution amending the Compensation Plan for Salt Lake City Corporation Employees and ratifying the Council’s action of Tuesday, December 7, 1982 with respect to Council salaries.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Resolution 109 of 1982 amending the Compensation Plan for Salt Lake City Corporation Employees and ratifying the Council’s action of Tuesday, December 7, 1982 with respect to Council salaries, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Davis who abstained from the vote.
(B 82-9)
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
#1. RE: Consideration of an amendment to the Area 1 West Airport Master Annexation Policy Declaration and setting January 11, 1983 as the date for final adoption. Randy Taylor, Planning and Zoning, addressed the Council and stated that as a result of a recent court decision the Council is being requested to authorize distribution of an amendment to Area 1 of the Master Annexation Policy Declaration. He further stated that the Utah Boundary Commission Act requires that all cities prepare an annexation policy declaration before they annex new territories. He stated that when the act was adopted the City prepared a Master Annexation Policy Declaration representing those areas in the Master Declaration.
Mr. Taylor further stated that the recent court decision requires the adoption of an individual policy declaration for the petitioned area although the City has already adopted a Master Annexation Declaration. Mr. Taylor stated the document being considered is the Amendment to Area 1-West Airport Master Annexation Policy Declaration. He further stated that by approving the distribution of the amendment to the Salt Lake City Annexation Declaration the City can meet state requirements for a 20 day review period by the effected entities. He stated that the City did not anticipate any problems arising from the giving of this notice. Mr. Taylor stated that assuming there are no protests the Council can adopt the amendment on January 11 allowing the City to proceed with annexation.
Councilmember Shearer asked if the Boundary Commission Law mandates the services that the City must provide or be willing to provide or do they indicate how the services must be provided, to which Mr. Taylor stated that the intent of the declaration is that the question be addressed. He further stated that certain areas concerning comparison of costs of government services, the water, sewer, fire, police, planning and zoning, refuse and streets and highways must be considered and that statements must be made to the effect that the City can now or will later provide adequate servicing for the areas planned for annexation.
Councilmember Shearer asked what kinds of commitments the City is required to make to the Board of Commission regarding who is responsible for the costs of services, to which Mr. Cutler stated that the recent court decision does not change anything. He stated that the policy declaration required must be an independent policy declaration with respect to every annexation over five acres. He stated that it is just a procedural requirement stating that it is the intent of the City to provide a level of service, however financed, to bring the area to City standards. He further stated that the declaration is a kind of environmental impact and an economic impact statement of the City in the event the property is annexed.
Mr. Taylor stated that the City is not before the Boundary Commission regarding this issue and that the only way the City would go before the Boundary Commission would be if there were a protest on the annexation that would require a hearing before the commission. He concluded by stating that the City must meet the requirements of the act and the most recent interpretation of the court which requires the amendment to the Master Policy Declaration, which speaks to the services but does not require the City to commit in detail how the services will be provided. Craig Peterson stated that the Council is being asked to approve distribution of the amendment not the amendment itself; the document should be approved on January 11, 1983. Councilmember Shearer asked if private citizens were allowed to protest to the Boundary Commission, to which Mr. Cutler stated that only effected entities could protest before the Commission.
He also stated that by way of clarifying the court decision, after stating that policy declarations must be filed for annexation the court upheld the annexation as being valid, meaning that the protesting entity was not an effected entity under the statute; that the year period had passed so that it was presumed to be valid annexation and the court case was dismissed. He stated that with regard to the Millard annexation the administration is requesting that the Council annex the area notwithstanding this requirement. He stated that the Attorney’s Office does not object to proceeding with the Millard annexation because the risk is placed on the individuals requesting the annexation. However, with regard to Area 1-West Airport Annexation it is the Attorney’s recommendation to follow the new process because the area is larger.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to authorize the distribution of an amendment to the Area 1-West Airport Master Annexation Policy Declaration and set January 11, 1983 as the date for final adoption, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(W 82-10)
FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
#1. RE: Contingency fund transfer to various General Fund Departments.
Recommendation: That the City Council approve a contingency fund transfer of $35,230 to general fund departments for implementation of the executive compensation plan.
Availability of funds: Funds are available and had been set aside by the City Council during the 1982-83 budget process.
Discussion: The resolution identifies the allocations of the contingency fund to the various departments. Councilmember Shearer stated that the administration should first look to sources within the personnel budgets for the necessary $35,000 to implement the plan and if the funds are not available the Council should reconsider this item.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Resolution 111 of 1982 approving the transfer of $35,230 from the General Fund Contingency to various General Fund Departments to pay the cost of implementing the Executive Compensation Plan, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Shearer who voted nay.
(O 82-31)
PUBLIC UTILITIES
#1. RE: Consider and adopt a motion clarifying the numbering of sections in BILL 92 of 1982, Sewer Service Charges, an ordinance amending subsection (1) of Section 37-6-2 Schedule 3 RATES of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to Sewer Service Charges.
Recommendation: On December 7, 1982, the City Council adopted an ordinance amending Section 37-5-3 of the City ordinances relating to sewer use charges and rates. That ordinance was sent to the City Council from the City water department. There was a problem, however, in that draft in that it amended a provision of City ordinances that had previously been repealed when Title 37 was amended August 3, 1982. When the matter was called to our attention, we prepared a correction to the section numbers that were inadvertently cited in the ordinance. It is therefore our recommendation that the Council vote, by motion, to approve the substitution of the draft for the ordinance previously amended, in order that the changes in Section 37-5-3 of the ordinance may be published and the rates become effective as soon as possible.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to approve, by motion, the clarification of the numbering of sections in BILL 92 of 1982, Sewer Service Charges, an ordinance amending subsection (1) of Section 37-6-2 Schedule 3 RATES of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to Sewer Service Charges, and also amend appropriate City Council minutes relating thereto, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Shearer who voted nay.
(C 82-56)
PUBLIC WORKS
#1. Re: Notice of Intention for Curb & Gutter Special Improvement District No. 38-686.
Recommendation: That the Council adopt the Notice of Intention and authorize the City to proceed with advertising of the Notice of Intention.
Availability of Funds: Fiscal Year 1982/83 and 1983/84 Capital Improvement Funds and Property Owner Assessments (Special Improvement District)
Discussion: Curb and Gutter District No. 38-686 is comprised of 1300 South Street from 700 East to 1300 East. The Project will consist of the construction of curb and gutter, sidewalk, roadway and drainage facilities. Attached are information sheets and letter to abutting property owners and a schedule of events for hearings, meetings and construction of this project. It is our intent to bid the project this spring with the majority of construction to take place during the summer of 1983. The total estimated cost of the City’s portion for this project is $63,132 over $550,000 allocated in the 82/83 ($275,000) and 83/84 ($275,000) Capital Improvement Budget for this project. A request will be made to increase the 83/84 Capital Improvement Budget by $75,000 to $350,000.
The reason for requesting Notice of Intention approval for a project in excess of approved funds is to have a larger project to bid and save time. It should also be pointed out that the $275,000 82/83 funding is part of the package of Capital Improvement Projects which are contingent on the sale of surplus City property. Public Works will make a provision in our construction contract which allows for delaying the award of Phase II of the bid until after July 1, 1983 when 83/84 funds are available.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to approve Resolution 107 of 1982 declaring the intention of the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah to construct improvements on certain streets within Salt Lake City, and to create Salt Lake City Curb and Gutter Extension No. 38-686; to defray the cost and expenses of said improvement district by special assessments to be levied against the property benefited by such improvements; and to provide notice of intention to authorize such improvements and to fix a time and place of January 18, 1983 at 6:00 p.m. for protests against such improvements or the creation of the district, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 82-35)
#2. Re: Notice of Intention for Curb & Gutter, Special Improvement District No. 38-681.
Recommendation: That Council adopt the Notice of Intention and authorize the City to proceed with advertising of the Notice of Intention.
Availability of Funds: Fiscal Year 1981/82 and 1982/83 Collector Road funds, 1981/82 and 1982/83 County Flood Control Funds and Property Owners Assessments (Special Improvement District).
Discussion: Curb & Gutter District No. 38-681 is comprised of 1300 South Street from 200 East to 400 West. The project will consist of the construction of curb and gutter, sidewalk, roadway and drainage facilities. Attached are information sheets and letter to abutting property owners and a schedule of events for hearings, meetings and construction of this project. It is our intent to bid the project this spring with the majority of construction to take place during the summer of 1983. The total estimated cost of the City’s portion for this project is $3,645,564 which is $701,564 over budget. A request will be made to transfer $150,000 from 83/84 County Flood Control Funds and $450,000 from 83/84 Collector Road Funds to this project. The increase is largely associated with the box culvert storm drain.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to approve Resolution 108 of 1982 declaring the intention of the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah to construct improvements on certain streets within Salt Lake City, and to create Salt Lake City Curb and Gutter Extension No. 38-681; to defray the cost and expenses of said improvement district by special assessments to be levied against the property benefited by such improvements; and to provide notice of intention to authorize such improvements and to fix a time and place of January 18, 1983 at 6:00 p.m. for protests against such improvements or the creation of the district, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 82-34)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Curb and Gutter Extension 38-723.
Re: To consider protests against improvements or the creation of Curb and Gutter Extension 38-723.
A hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 6:00 p.m. to discuss this matter. Jerry Lyon, Engineering, addressed the Council and stated that the protests have been received and a preliminary summary has been compiled for Special Improvement District 38-723. He stated that approximately 36% of the abutting property owners were opposed to the project. He further stated that the following streets have been protested out of the project: Linden from 7th East to 8th East, Lowell from 9th East to 10th East, Princeton Avenue from McClelland to 1100 East, Wasatch Drive from 17th South to Kensington, Parkway from 1500 East to Imperial, 13th South from 23rd East to Wasatch Drive.
Mr. Lyon stated that the protests will be compiled for presentation at the next Council Committee Meeting of the Whole. Councilmember Davis stated that there are two blocks on Wasatch from 17th to Kensington that had apparently protested out, however none of the residents from one of the blocks were listed as protesting. She asked if the totals were taken from the two-block span, to which Mr. Lyon stated that both blocks were considered in the total.
Councilmember Shearer asked if they would design the project to construct blocks separately so that if, for example, block 1 had totally protested out and block 2 had one block owner that protested can the block that is in favor of the project have the benefit of curb and gutter, to which Mr. Lyon stated that in the past the Council has allowed blocks to be included similar to the example given. Councilmember Parker asked when the engineering department would know if they have sufficient funds to implement the project, to which Mr. Lyon replied that the project was funded only for design and provisions will be included in the contract to allow construction to begin after July 1, 1983. He further stated that during the next fiscal year Engineering will be asking for an appropriation. Whit Lee, 2355 East 13th South, addressed the Council stating that he is affected by the proposal which reads “...l3th South Street north side from a point 143.75 feet east of Laird Way thence east 1029.8 feet...” He further stated that he had a petition from six of the eight homeowners that would be affected by the proposal; those homeowners represents a majority of the square footage involved. He stated that the reason for the protest is to the addition of approximately six feet, as far as the street is concerned, to place a curb and sidewalk with the possibility of a sidewalk and a parkway between.
Mr. Lee stated that most of the properties there have been in existence for some time and if the project is implemented there will be a deterioration in the quality of the homes. He stated that the cost to the property owner in terms of landscaping and the proposal itself would be extraordinarily high. Mr. Lee stated that because of the quality, cost and need protest was formally filed. Councilmember Davis stated that because of the drainage problems she has noticed as the water comes down from above Wasatch on 13th South during heavy storms she was concerned about the debris that washes down from this area. She further stated that she had some concerns about constructing curb and gutter to prevent erosion of the area. Mr. Lee stated that most of the homeowners have placed gravel on the area and have little soil erosion.
Councilmember Shearer asked if there were curb and gutter on the north side, to which Mr. Lee stated that there is limited curb and gutter; along Sunset Lawn Mortuary asphalt has been built up. Councilmember Davis stated that she wanted the homeowners to understand that if the project is not approved now they will not be able to ask for curb and gutter at a later date. Mr. Lee stated that the neighborhood responded only to the extension of the proposal.
Councilmember Davis stated that a meeting should be scheduled with Mr. Lee to discuss the possibility of some drainage improvement on the north side of 13th South to include only curbing. Cal Schneller, 1061 Princeton Avenue, addressed the Council and stated that 60% of the property owners have petitioned against the proposed improvement. He further stated that existing cobblestone curb and gutter worked well during the recent flooding. He also stated that they liked the character of the cobblestone as opposed to replacing it as proposed.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that the homeowners should realize that the opportunity to make these improvements may not be available for 10 to 15 years. John Reeve, Design Engineer, addressed the Council and stated that if alterations are made parts of the streets may be left in the project. He further stated that in reviewing the written protests submitted the majority of homeowners were opposed to the construction of sidewalk, therefore if construction of sidewalk were excluded from several streets the protest level would drop allowing more streets to be improved. Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to close the public hearing and refer this matter to the Engineering Department for tabulation and recommendation to be presented at the Council Committee meeting of Thursday, December 16, 1982, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 82-32)
Petition 149 of 1982 submitted by John Kuepper.
Re: The Petitioner is requesting that the alley eastward of the intersection of Harvard Avenue and 200 East northward from Hampton Avenue be vacated.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 6:15 p.m. to discuss this matter. Craig Peterson, Director, Development Services, addressed the Council and stated that the alley was an extension of Harvard Avenue between 2nd and 3rd East. He further stated that the petitioner is asking that the alley be closed to eliminate speeding and other illegal activities in the alleyway. Mr. Peterson stated that there are two problems with closure of the alley, 1) the school board has concerns with regard to police access to view the rear of their building and 2) in order to complete the Jefferson Storm Drain Project Phase III a 36” concrete pipe will be constructed in the alley.
Mr. Peterson stated that all property owners had signed the petition to close the alley with the exception of the school board and that city staff has recommended that the alley be closed with the exception of the Public Works Department. He further stated that if the alley is closed Public Works is requesting that an easement be provided for the installation of the pipe with the restriction that no buildings may be constructed over the pipe. He further stated that if the property owners placed lawn in the alley it would have to be torn up within the next few years in order to complete the construction of the storm drain.
Mr. Peterson stated that the storm drain could be constructed on Hampton Avenue instead of Harvard Avenue, however it will cost the city an additional $68,500 because of the additional cost of construction and pipe required. He stated that the Council has three options, 1) to place a gate at the property owners expense, at either side of the alley that would close the alley on a trial basis. The proposal has been endorsed by the school board and the property owners, 2) vacate the alley with the understanding that an easement would be drafted by the City Attorney’s Office requiring the property owners to allow the installation of the 36” pipe and restricting the construction of any buildings on the site and 3) to appropriate the additional funds necessary to move the storm drain to Hampton Avenue. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked why gates would be installed on a trial basis, to which Mr. Peterson stated that the biggest problem is cars speeding through the alleyway. He stated that installing gates would prohibit the traffic and was the result of a compromise with the school board and the neighborhood in the event that the alley is not closed and an easement granted. John Kuepper addressed the Council and stated that cars speeding through the alley and other illegal activities are a problem especially on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights. He further stated that some residences have been broken into several times. Mr. Kuepper stated that the petition was signed to vacate the alley with the understanding that the property owners would never move their fences so that access could be made to those who need to use the alley to get to their property.
Mr. Kuepper stated that after the petition was filed and the $100 fee was paid the city told them about the proposed storm drain project. He stated that the residents were willing to install the gates and maintain the alley. Mr. Kuepper read from a letter written by Judy Lever, Assistant City Attorney, and stated ...‘the petitioners are trying to explore the alternatives of maintaining the alley as public property, but controlling the traffic and abuse problems by erecting fences and or gates at both ends of the alley closing off access to the public but reserving control over it for the abutting property owners and for the city. This alternative was not unacceptable to the Planning Commission if the City Council finds it appropriate after conducting an advertised public hearing...”
Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if the Salt Lake City Board of Education maintained the alley, to which Mr. Kuepper stated that they maintain the area around their 10’ fence and the residents have taken care of the rest. Mr. Kuepper read from Ms. Lever’s letter stating “...It should also be noted that the present site of the new Lincoln School does not appear to have any rights or claims to said sub-division planning, therefore by operation of law if the city’s interest were to be relinquished by vacation the entire alley would revert to the abutting property owners on the south including within the Jackson Square sub-division.”
Mr. Kuepper stated that the school board has no right to the alley. He read from a letter to Wes Dewsnup dated August 12, stating “... Please be advised that the board of education in their meeting of August 3, 1982 approving the request of William Lovelace, Chairman South Central Council, to gate the alley adjacent to the south property line of our Lincoln School. This relates to their petition No. 149. The board’s approval is based on the assumption that the gates will be at least 6’ high of chain link or similar non flammable construction.
Their approval was also conditional on the success of the project, a reduction of undesirable activities in the alley space. We somewhat share the concern of Lt. Ledford of the Salt Lake City Police Department, the gates will eliminate patrol cars from patrolling the alley. If these concerns become a reality the board would expect the gates to be removed and normal patrolling resumed.” Mr. Kuepper stated that the only time the alley has been patrolled is after residences and garages have been broken into. Councilmember Shearer asked if some residents on Hampton need access to their garages through the alley, to which Mr. Kuepper stated that three to four residences need access to the alley at all times. He further stated that one other resident uses the alley only occasionally. All the property owners have signed the petition with the understanding that the alley would be vacated, the property turned over to the petitioners and gates installed. He further stated that the residents would consult an attorney to prepare the necessary document to ensure that none of the existing fences were moved.
Councilmember Shearer asked where the gate would be located, to which Mr. Kuepper stated that the gates would be installed at Hampton and 2nd East. Councilmember DePaulis stated that the Council’s concern was the public interest in the alley. He further stated that if the alley were vacated the property would revert to the abutting property owners. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that to protect the property owners rights a restrictive covenant or easement should be prepared. Mr. Peterson stated that the administrations original recommendation was not to vacate the alley but to prepare a revocable permit, however, the administration is now recommending that the Council vacate the alley with an easement allowing the city to install the storm drain.
Roger Cutler, City Attorney, addressed the Council and stated that the Council could not re-record the easement for the storm drain but vacate that portion of the alleyways property interest that deal with the public’s right to use it as a thoroughfare. The residents could put a gate on it and would own the property for their own purposes of ingress and egress. He further stated that when the public right-of-way is vacated it does not interfere with the private right-of-way. Mr. Cutler stated that if the alley was only vacated as a roadway and reserve the easement for the purpose of the storm drain, the city would not have to go through a complicated recordation procedure. He further stated that any quit claim deed would convey only those rights of ingress and egress.
Councilmember Shearer asked what procedure would have to be followed if one of the residents blocks the private ingress or egress, to which Mr. Cutler stated that it would require a lawsuit to determine right-of-way. Councilmember Shearer asked if the Council could close the street to the public, allow it to be gated and still maintain an interest, to which Mr. Cutler stated that the city gives up their interest when the alley is closed to the public. Councilmember Shearer stated that she felt the Council should not vacate the alley. Mr. Cutler stated that if the Council could close the alley and allow the residents to install a gate subject to the city revoking the permit.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to close the alley and instruct the City Attorney’s Office to prepare an agreement allowing the residents to gate the alley without prejudicing the city’s easement and right-of-way, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 82-306)
Taxicab rate increase
Re: Consider and discuss an ordinance amending Section 43-6-1 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah 1965, as amended, relating to establishing rates for the hire of taxicabs; lower than, but not greater than 95 cents for flag drop and 10 cents for each 1/11 mile or fraction thereof.
A hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 6:30 p.m. to discuss this matter. Albert E. Haines, Chief Administrative Officer, addressed the Council and stated that the petitioners request has been reviewed and concur with the recommendation. Councilmember Parker asked if the request was submitted by one cab company, to which Mr. Haines stated that he did not know, however it would apply to all cab companies. Councilmember Mabey asked if this ordinance is approved it will allow the cab companies to request a future option of increasing the fees to $1.50 a mile, to which Mr. Haines stated that was correct.
Charlie Peck, Manager, Yellow Cab Company, addressed the Council and stated that generally only one cab company requests rate increases. He further stated that the cab company is satisfied with the proposed $1.10 rate and wanted to withdraw that request regarding the option of increasing the rates to $1.50. Mr. Peck stated that based on the average ride of approximately two miles the increase of each fare would be approximately 40 cents. He further stated that drivers average approximately 20 trips over a one year period and they would realize an $8 per day increase in wages. Mr. Peck stated that 1/8 of that amount would go to the company with the remaining 7/8's to the driver.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Ordinance 96 of 1982 amending Section 43-6-1 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, as amended, relating to establishing rates for the hire of taxicabs subject to deleting item #3 relating to the option to increase rates to $1.50, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 82-60)
Northwest Quadrant Annexation
#1. RE: Petition 94-82 (Northpoint #2), Gossner-Sheffield submitted by Stephen D. Swindle, esq. for annexation of approximately 1,490 acres of Sections 2,3,4,5,9 10 and 11 of Tis R2W, SLB&M. These irregularly shaped parcels of land are situated in the vicinity of 6400-8400 West and 0 to 700 South. The Proposed zoning is to an Industrial “M-lA” use district classification.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 6:45 p.m. to discuss this matter. Randy Taylor, Planning and Zoning, addressed the Council and outlined the area on a map known as the Gossner/Sheffield petition. He further stated that the area requested to be annexed in the Gossner/Sheffield petition is south of North Temple and just east of what is referred to as the Beneficial Annex Bulb located south of North Temple. The area is 1,490 acres in size and the first of five areas to be submitted for annexation.
Councilmember DePaulis stated that the area does not border on the Great Salt Lake and asked what the reason was for not bordering the Lake, to which Mr. Taylor stated that the decision was made to border at or near the lake, however it would be just as logical to border at the county line. He further stated that some consideration was given to the control of this environmental area but it was felt that the boundary should only extend to an area that is somewhat developable.
Councilmember Parker asked Mr. Taylor to outline on the map the areas that are considered to be agricultural and industrial within the proposed annexation of 10,079 acres, to which Mr. Taylor stated that the Gossner petition and the L.D.S. Church petition stipulated that they be annexed under manufacturing “M-1A” zoning; the Planning Commission recommended that the area north of North Temple be annexed under a holding zone “A-l” and as the Airport Master Plan is completed zoning would be changed appropriately.
Councilmember Davis asked if all petitions could be placed in a holding zone when annexed, to which Mr. Taylor stated that the Gossner petition has been worded to provide for an “Ml-A” zoning. Craig Peterson, Director, Development Services, stated that the ordinance specifies that there will be no development until the West Airport Plan is completed leaving all areas in a holding zone. Steve Swindle, representing the petitioner, addressed the Council and stated that the petition comprises approximately 1,490 acres and is bounded by South Temple on the one side to 7th South and from 6400 West to 8000 West.
He stated that this petition and all petitions considered for annexation provide a unique opportunity for the city to provide orderly and stable growth in that northwest quadrant of the valley. He further urged the Council to approve the annexation on January 11, 1983. Mr. Swindle further stated that he felt that it was critical to the property included in the petition to be zoned “M1-A’. He stated that the utilization of this property is likely to be of limited industrial growth. He concluded by requesting that the Council approve the annexation with the requested zoning.
Steven Sheffield, representing Ralph and Cora Sheffield petitioners, addressed the Council and stated that they support the statements made by Mr. Swindle. He further stated that the properties within this petition are served on the north and south by rail, is contiguous with the properties zoned “Mi-A”, and is similar in nature of property at the Salt Lake International Center. Mr. Sheffield further stated that he urged the Council to approve the annexation with the requested “M-1A” zoning.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to continue to January 11, 1983 the hearing requesting the annexation of 1,490 acres located approximately between 6200 West to 8400 West and North Temple to 700 South, which motion carried all members voting aye.
(P 82-312)
#2. Petition 180-82 (Northpoint #3)--submitted by the investment department of the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for annexation of approximately 43 acres in Section 11, Tis, R2W, SLB&M and includes land situated in the vicinity of 6000-6200 West from 700 South, south to the north line of the Western Pacific right of way. The proposed zoning is to an Industrial “M1-A’ Use district classification.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 7:00 p.m. to discuss this matter. Elliot F. Christensen, President of the Northpoint Irrigation Company and as an employee representative of the Investment Department of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, addressed the Council and stated that over the last eight months he has been actively involved in the preparation of the five petitions for annexation. He further stated that he was speaking in behalf of the Church as a signator on petitions 94 (Gossner) and 180 and 203.
Mr. Christensen stated that in 1977 the Church successfully petitioned the city to annex approximately 2000 acres of property. He further stated that the first major development activity to occur in this 10,000 acre area was in 1860. He stated that in 1862 irrigation water was diverted into the northpoint irrigation canal by President Brigham Young and Mayor Daniel H. Wells. During the later half of the 1800’s various farming plats were filed in the area and the northpoint ward was organized.
Mr. Christensen stated that activities on the property since that time have included the operation of three irrigation companies, raising of alfalfa and other grasses and grains, livestock production and grazing, duck hunting and bird refuge, a main route for Salt Lake, Garfield and Western Rail Company, and a former location of Salt Lake City sanitary landfill. Currently only one single family owner occupied residence in the annexation area. Mr. Christensen stated that with the pending completion of the new freeway through the properties, the recent installation of a new culinary water main at 7200 West and the plans for the new sewer treatment facilities the stage is set for a unique opportunity to create an entirely new community by planning and working with the interests of everyone. He stated that the 10,000 acres represents all of the city’s remaining developable land where irrigation and culinary water are plentiful, property owners are few, automobile, air and rail transportation facilities are excellent and the acreages are large enough that a major community identity can be created. Mr. Christensen concluded by requesting that the City Council and administration provide leadership to ensure that communication and cooperation take place.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to continue to January 11, 1983, the hearing requesting the annexation of 43 acres located approximately between 6000 West to 6200 West from 700 South the the north line of the Western Pacific right-of-way, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 82-313)
#3. Petition 288-82 (Gillmor-Peck)-submitted by C. Frank Gillmor and Tom Peck, et al., for annexation of approximately 3460 acres in Sections 9, 14, 15, 16,. 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, and 27 T1N R2W SLB&M. It includes an irregularly-shaped parcel generally situated in the vicinity of 700-3400 North from 4800-7600 West. The proposed zoning is for Agricultural “A-1’, with the exception of the eastern one-half of Section 25, which is proposed for Industrial “M-lA” zoning.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 7:15 p.m. to discuss this matter. Gerald Nielson, representing Frank Gillmor, addressed the Council and stated that they want to become a part of the city and he joined in the comments of Mr. Swindle and the others with regard to the opportunity for development of the city. He further stated that he enjoyed working with Randy Taylor.
Dave Handley, Vice-President of the Salt Lake International Center, addressed the Council and stated that he was in favor all of the annexations. He further stated that as both a member of the Salt Lake International staff and the Northwest Planning Committee he feels the development of the area west and northwest of the airport is contingent upon being a part of Salt Lake City. Mr. Handley stated that he wanted to go on record as supporting the annexation petition and urged the Council to approve the annexations.
Mr. Handley stated that he feels that the services, utilities and programs available through the city will enhance the area and continue to make it a desirable residential portion of the city. He further stated that a major expansion of the Salt Lake International Center would include a large residential component. He stated that the project would not be possible without the annexation of the land being considered.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to continue to January 11, 1983 the hearing requesting the annexation of approximately 3460 acres located in the T1N R2W including an irregularly shaped parcel generally situated in the vicinity of 700 North to 3400 North from 4800 West to 7600 West, which motion carried, all members voting aye
(P 82-316)
#4. Petition 203-82 (Northpoint #4)-submitted by the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for annexation of approximately 2,080 acres in Sections 16, 21, 22, 27 and 28, T1N R2W, SLB&M. It includes an irregularly-shaped parcel in the general vicinity of 700-3200 North from 6600-8000 West. The proposed zoning is to an Agricultural “A-l” holding use district classification.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 7:30 p.m. to discuss this matter. Elliot F. Christensen addressed this issue in his statements with regard to Petitions 94 and 180.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to continue to January 11, 1983 the hearing requesting annexation of approximately 2080 acres located in the T1N R2W between approximately 6400 West to 8000 West and north of 700 North to 3200 North, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 82-314)
#5. Petition 277-82 (Bothwell/Swaner)-submitted by Nielson & Senior, attorneys, for annexation of approximately 3,006 acres in Sections 17, 20, 29, 32, and 33, T1N, R2W, SLB&M. It includes an irregularly-shaped parcel generally situated in the vicinity of approximately 7400-8800 West from 0 South 9 south of I-80) to approximately 3200 North. The proposed zoning is for an Agricultural “A-l” holding use district classification.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 7:45 p.m. to discuss this matter. Thomas Monson, representing Bothwell and Swaner Company and Consolidated Realty, Inc., addressed the Council and stated that he agreed with those who have recommended that the properties be annexed, with the exception that this particular property be held in a “A-l” zoning. He further stated that the property was the furthest west of those properties proposed for annexation and therefore less susceptible of development. Mr. Monson expressed his thanks to Randy Taylor and the Planning and Zoning Department for their assistance. He urged the Council to approve the annexation.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to continue to January 11, 1983 the hearing requesting annexation of approximately 3006 acres including an irregularly shaped parcel generally situated in the vicinity of approximately 7400 West to 8800 West from South of I-80 to approximately 3200 North, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 82-315)
Compensation Plan for Salt Lake City Employees
RE: consider and approve a resolution amending the Compensation Plan for Salt Lake City employees.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 8:00 p.m. to consider this matter. Albert E. Haines, Chief Administrative Officer, addressed the Council and read a letter addressed to the Council from Mayor Wilson who was unable to attend the meeting. “This evening you will be requested to act favorably upon an executive compensation plan that incorporates the essence of an objective and defensible study by Russell Williams. We have concurred with some modifications that you requested regarding the initial submission of the Williams Study. In my opinion, none of those modifications will alter the integrity of the study.
I would most respectfully request your favorable action on this recommendation upon the conclusion of the public hearing. Since I will not be in attendance this evening, I wanted you to know of my support for this plan and amendments to the compensation plan. As you will no doubt recall, the Council, as part of formal discussions during the budget hearing and presentation of its legislative intents, concurred with the need for an executive salary study. I agreed at that time to freeze any salary adjustments for executives pending the result of that study.
You agreed to make contingency funding available to finance the implementation of the plan when completed. Our discussions are incorporated into the Council minutes of Tuesday, June 8, 1982, and your legislative intents as contained in the 1982-83 budget. Again, my sincerest thanks for your serious review of this element of the compensation plan and your positive consideration of its passage this evening. Mr. Haines stated that the public hearing was held pursuant to requirements in the Utah State Code and recommended approval of the plan and adoption of the resolution amending the compensation plan.
Councilmember Parker asked when executives would be shifted from one point on the range to another, to which Mr. Haines stated that the plan would be implemented on January 1, 1983. He further stated that part of the implementation would incorporate a 1982 performance review of the executive employees and based on the review and compliance with the recommendations of the Williams study the plan would be implemented. He further stated that performance reviews and considerations for adjustments, within the salary ranges, would occur during the budget development and evaluation process. Councilmember Parker asked if the annual review would be during the time the budget is adopted, to which Mr. Haines stated that it would either be during August or February.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye. Councilmember Whitehead stated that he felt that since the Council commissioned the study and placed $8,500 in a fund anticipating these increases he felt the Council should adopt the plan. He further stated that the study has been prepared and verified and should be adopted. Councilmember Shearer asked how many employees would be involved, to which Mr. Haines stated that the largest department involved is Finance and Administrative Services; the second and third largest respectively are Police and Public Works. Councilmember Shearer stated that the figures do not relate to the plan.
Mr. Haines stated that the figures indicate what would be required to bring the incumbents to the mid-point level as identified in the Williams study. He further stated that there are greater disparities within some departments. However a performance review will still be required. Councilmember Parker asked how many positions would be affected, to which Mr. Haines replied that a total of 36 positions plus three Deputy Fire Chiefs and four Police Majors for a total of 41 employees. Mr. Haines further stated that he did not anticipate any major adjustments for the Deputy Director positions at the airport because they were adjusted last July.
Councilmember Shearer asked what positions within the Mayor’s Office were included in the plan to which Mr. Haines stated that they would include the Chief Administrative Officer and the Executive Assistant to the Mayor. Councilmember Shearer asked what percentage of the personnel budget would be required to provide these increases, to which Mr. Haines stated less than .5%. Mr. Haines stated that the total city budget is approximately $40,000,000 which includes enterprise funds.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Resolution 110 of 1982 amending the Compensation Plan for Salt Lake City employees, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 82-31)
Sale of City Property
RE: the sale of approximately 5.15 acres of city-owned land located along Parleys Creek west of 1300 East Street and north of Wilmington Avenue, and the proposed sale of approximately .943 acres of city-owned land located at 1025 East 400 South which is west and adjacent to city-owned property which is proposed as the Faultline Gardens Park.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 8:15 p.m. to discuss this matter. Councilmember Shearer asked for an update on the UDAG grant involved in the sale of the property. Mr. Haines stated that the donation of the 1.5 acres and the additional sale are still contingent upon the final approval of the various agreements. He further stated that HUD made the approval of the UDAG grant conditional to the city donating 1.5 acres to Clark Financial Corporation and in return the city will receive an additional 2% on the UDAG amount, which is equivalent to the original property appraisal. Mr. Haines further stated that the city will receive an equity position on the property. He stated that over the 25 year repayment period for the UDAG the city will generate approximately $1,200,000. Councilmember Shearer stated that the 2% to be realized over the 25 year period is a concern because the proceeds from the sale of this property was to be used for Capital Improvements. She further stated that the money could not be used in the Capital Improvements fund. Councilmember Parker stated that he thought the UDAG had been approved. Mr. Haines stated that the city has been in contact with HUD and that they have given verbal approval of the agreement.
Craig Peterson stated that HUD was in the process of developing the contracts with the developer. Councilmember Shearer stated that Faultline Gardens was the second piece of property to be considered and that the proposal is to sell an eight-plex to the Housing Authority for rehabilitation. She further stated that the Council had suggested that the property not needed for the park area be sold, however the Council did not anticipate selling the property to the Housing Authority. Councilmember Shearer stated that there is no indication that the Sugarhouse Community Council was consulted with regard to this project. Mr. Peterson stated that the money would be coming back to the city because the Housing Authority will be paying for the units.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilinember Whitehead seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(W 82-9)
Petition 261 of 1982 submitted by Alvin Olsen et. al.
Recommendation: That the City Council grant Petition No. 261 submitted by Alvin Olsen et al. The petitioner is requesting that the alley running approximately 147 feet north from Union Avenue (900 South) between 1200 and 1300 West Streets be vacated.
Availability of funds: Not applicable.
Discussion: This petition has been reviewed by Public Works, Public Utilities, Fire, Fixed Assets, Finance, Planning Commission and the City Attorney’s Office. All departments have recommended that the alley be vacated subject to the City maintaining an easement for any utilities which may be located in the alley. The petition represents 100% of the abutting property owners, therefore, a public hearing is not required. The City Attorney’s Office has prepared the necessary vacating ordinance and is ready for adoption should you concur. Craig Peterson, Director, Development Services, addressed the Council and stated that all contiguous property owners are in agreement of the vacation of this alley.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Ordinance 97 of 1982 vacating an alley located within the second Burlington Addition Subdivision, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 82-354)
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.