PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1983
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1983, AT 5:00 P.M. IN ROOM 211 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: RONALD J. WHITEHEAD ALICE SHEARER GRANT MABEY IONE M. DAVIS SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER PALMER DEPAULIS.
Council Chairman Grant Mabey presided at and conducted this meeting.
POLICY SESSION
#1. Leigh von der Esch, Council Executive Director, briefed the Council on items on the agenda. She indicated that Roger Cutler, City Attorney, had reviewed the proposed rules of procedure. He felt they were in the proper form for adoption, but stressed that the Council could not violate state law in any of the procedures it adopted and followed.
#2. Doug Carlson, Capital Planning and Programming, briefed the Council on the proposed interlocal agreement for administration of the Emergency Work Program. The Council decided on November 15 that if Jobs Bill monies were not being spent within the corporate limits of Salt Lake City, the funds should be reallocated to other projects. The state requested that the Council reconsider its decision and submitted information on where Emergency Work Program funds could be utilized within Salt Lake City. The information submitted by the state indicated that of the $200,000 appropriated by the Council for the Emergency Work Program, $160,000 could be expended within the corporate limits of Salt Lake City by the end of the fiscal year. Mr. Carlson recommended that the balance, $40,000, be placed in a contingency account for allocation to the Emergency Work Program if necessary. He said that the program could be extended through October 1984 and that the $40,000 could be expended by that time.
The policy session adjourned at 5:55 p.m.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1983, AT 6:00 P.M. IN ROOM 301 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: RONALD J. WHITEHEAD ALICE SHEARER GRANT MABEY IONE M. DAVIS SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER PALMER DEPAULIS.
Council Chairman Grant Mabey presided at and conducted this meeting.
Mayor Wilson and Roger Cutler, City Attorney, were present at the meeting.
The invocation was given by Police Chaplain Joseph Sanders.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes:
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to approve the minutes of the Salt Lake City Council for the regular meetings held Thursday, November 10, 1983, Tuesday, November 15, 1983, Thursday, November 17, 1983, and Thursday, December 1, 1983, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(M 83-1)
Special Recognition:
#1. RE: Presentation of Sister Cities awards.
Bob Springmeyer thanked the Council and Mayor for support which had been given to the Sister City program. He presented awards and gifts to various people who were responsible for promoting the Sister City program. Mr. Springmeyer also presented awards and gifts to Mayor Wilson for Salt Lake City.
PETITIONS
Petition 400-60 of 1983 by Gerald A. Corwin.
RE: Requesting that Emigration Canyon be annexed to Salt Lake City.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to reconsider the resolution accepting Annexation Petition 400-60 of 1983 (Emigration Canyon) for the purpose of City Council Review, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmembers Whitehead and Shearer who voted nay.
Councilmember DePaulis said that he wanted to readdress this issue because he was not in attendance at the meeting when this issue was previously voted upon. Mr. DePaulis said he understood that this issue required a two-thirds majority, a five to two vote. Councilmember DePaulis also explained that he was part of a group which indicated they would support a petition requesting the annexation of the entire canyon. He felt that the petition deserves acceptance so that the request can be reviewed. He stressed that adopting the resolution would not annex the canyon but merely accept the petition for review. The City Council would act upon the petition at a later time.
Councilmember DePaulis explained that the developers who participated in the original annexation request made recommendations as to what they would contribute to the annexation proposal. Various items discussed included the possibility of a fire station and some sewage system connections. Mr. DePaulis indicated that this offer was not part of the new petition request. He said that the petitioners want to be recognized since they have submitted the request with the understanding of what the Council wants. Councilmember Davis agreed with Councilmember DePaulis and felt she had a commitment to the canyon residents to accept the petition in order to review the request for annexation of the entire canyon. Ms. Davis felt the Council would be remiss if they rejected the petition and felt that it should not be rejected without a hearing.
Councilmember Whitehead said that this issue has been a question for four years and he felt that the Council had a previous opportunity to annex the canyon. Mr. Whitehead was concerned about the cost of annexing the canyon. He felt that the issue should be closed. Councilmember Mabey asked about the possibility of the developers contributing more to the annexation than they originally offered. He felt that all the Council Members were concerned with the cost of the annexation and even though the petition is accepted for review the Council may not approve the annexation.
Craig Peterson, Director of Development Services, said that the developers submitted a proposed 105-lot subdivision to the Salt Lake County Planning Commission. At this time approval of the request has been tabled. Mr. Peterson said that the developers appear to be interested in developing in Salt Lake County but if this petition is accepted they will probably indicate whether or not they are interested in participating in the annexation. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked what would happen to the subdivision review which has been given by the county if the canyon is annexed into the City.
Mr. Cutler, City Attorney, said that it would have no validity. Ms. Fonnesbeck asked at what point the developers would have vested rights with the county. Mr. Cutler said that the vesting of rights would be with the county and if the county no longer has jurisdiction to grant permits the vesting would terminate unless construction has started. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if the developers would have vested rights if they already have permits with the county. Mr. Cutler indicated it would depend on public policy. He also indicated that it would depend on what amount of development has occurred at the time annexation takes place.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck felt that it would be detrimental to have the canyon annexed but have the development occur under the county. She felt that before final review the Council should know at what point this could happen. Mr. Peterson said that the county and the City have been working in full cooperation with the county master plan, the county has reviewed City ordinances, and there appears to be some consensus on the staff level in terms of the proposed overlay zone if the property is annexed into the City. Mr. Peterson stressed that no development approval has been given by the county.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Resolution 97 of 1983 accepting Annexation Petition 400-60 of 1983 (Emigration Canyon) for purposes of City Council review, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmembers Whitehead and Shearer who voted nay.
(P 83-428)
Petition 400-90 of 1983 by Salt Lake City Corporation.
RE: Rezoning of Glendale Park near 1700 South and 1200 West (Wild Wave Pool).
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to adopt Ordinance 75 of 1983, amending Section 51-12-2 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to zoning and fixing boundaries of use districts, by rezoning property located on the south side of 1700 South in the vicinity of 1200 West from a Residential “R-2” to a Commercial “C-3A” classification, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 83-429)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
#1. RE: An ordinance amending Chapter 2, Title 2, of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, by adding Section 38 relating to cargo carrier ramp use fees at the Salt Lake City International Airport.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to schedule a public hearing for Tuesday, December 13, 1983 at 6:00 p.m. to discuss the ordinance relating to cargo carrier ramp use fees, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 83-41)
#2. RE: An ordinance amending Section 2-2-20 and 2-2-27 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to airport use fees.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to suspend the rules and adopt on first reading Ordinance 76 of 1983, amending Sections 2-2-20 and 2-2-27 of the Revised Ordinances relating to airport use fees, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 82-61)
#3. RE: An ordinance amending Sections 1, 3, and 19 of Chapter 11 of Title 51 and adding sections l9a, 19b, and 19c to Chapter 11 of Title 51 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, as amended, relating to airport restriction zones, incompatible uses, and avigation easement. Also an ordinance amending Title 5 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, by adding Chapter 18 to be entitled “Airport Sound Attenuation Requirements”. Lou Miller, Director of Airports, said that there were language changes in the original easement agreed to by the airport as a matter of compromise with the developers. Judy Lever, Assistant Attorney, was not aware of the changes and when the easement was presented for this meeting the wording had not been changed. Mr. Miller indicated that the appropriate changes have now been made. Ms. von der Esch, Council Executive Director, indicated that she received the changes from Ms. Lever late in the afternoon, however, Mr. Miller has reviewed the changes and feels comfortable with the corrections that Mr. Lever made so the Council could adopt the ordinances at this time. Councilmember Mabey felt that the Council should review the changes.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to refer the ordinance relating to airport restriction zones, incompatible uses, and avigation easement and the ordinance entitled “Airport Sound Attenuation Requirements” to a Council meeting on Thursday, December 8, 1983, for a vote, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 83-430 and O 83-40)
CITY COUNCIL
#1. RE: Rules of procedure promulgated by the Salt Lake City Council. Mr. Roger Cutler, City Attorney, pointed out that if instances arise when rules need to be suspended in order to discuss an issue and the rules are not suspended, case law is clear that the action of the Council by a majority vote would still be valid.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to adopt Resolution 98 of 1983 adopting rules of procedure promulgated by the Salt Lake City Council, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(G 83-29)
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
#1. RE: Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG) for a Triad Utah office building development on Block 84 (Devereaux block).
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to schedule public hearings for Tuesday, December 13, 1983 at 7:30 p.m. and Tuesday, January 10, 1984 at 6:15 p.m. to discuss submission of an Urban Development Action Grant application for a Triad Utah office building development on Block 84 (Devereaux Block), which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(T 83-27)
#2. RE: A resolution authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Utah State Department of Social Services for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding for administration of the “Jobs Bill” Emergency Work Program.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to approve $160,000 for the “Jobs Bill” Emergency Work Program and appropriate $40,000 to contingency, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(C 83-406)
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
#1. RE: Appointment of Mr. Howard Marcus to the Tracy Aviary Advisory Board. Without objection, Council Chairman Mabey referred the appointment of Mr. Marcus to the consent agenda for December 13, 1983.
(I 83-32)
#2. RE: Appointment of Mr. Talley Stevens to the Sugarhouse Park Authority. Without objection, Council Chairman Mabey referred the appointment of Mr. Stevens to the consent agenda for December 13, 1983.
(I 83-24)
#3. RE: Appointment of Dr. Ronald Coleman to the Civil Service Commission. Without objection, Council Chairman Mabey referred the appointment of Dr. Coleman to the consent agenda for December 13, 1983.
(I 83-31)
#4. RE: The appropriation of $35,000 from the Fiscal Year 1983-84 Contingency Fund for the Salt Lake Arts Center. Mayor Wilson explained that he met with representatives of the arts center and he is convinced that it is a valuable resource. He said that his recommendation for the appropriation is contingent on state and county participation since he feels that everyone should share the cost. Mayor Wilson said that the arts center is a centerpiece in Salt Lake City, it occupies a major building and has high prominence. Action is being taken to cut costs and change administrative procedures for a more efficient operation. Several of the board members have agreed to assume large personal obligations in behalf of the arts center.
Richard Johnston, Director of the Salt Lake Arts Center, said that the arts center has been perceived as being publicly supported but it has been privately supported since 1930. The center has the appearance of being publicly funded because of the facility in which the arts center resides. This misconception has crippled efforts to raise private funds. He also said that the economy has hurt funding since federal funds are not available and the state and private sector have reduced funding. Mr. Johnston said that management has been reorganized and staff members have been reduced. An effort has been made to reach out to the community and produce a new image about the center since in the past it has been viewed as being elitist.
Mr. Johnston presented a chart outlining the 1984 budget and said that they were asking for $100,000 from the public sector with the remainder to be raised from other sources. He also pointed out that the center has a 50-year history of raising private money but does not have a built-in fundraising mechanism like the performing arts. Mr. Johnston then outlined the benefits that the City would derive from a strong, independent arts center such as cultural enrichment, tourism, and educational advantages. Councilmember DePaulis asked what the initial response has been in the center’s attempt to raise money. Mr. Johnston indicated that the private funding sources are waiting to see what happens and the state has given positive feedback about the request for emergency and long-range funding. Mr. Johnston said that they have not met with the county yet.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that this request appeared to be for continual funding. Mayor Wilson said that he intended this to be a one-time contribution and future requests should be made each year so that the City can review the arts center and their need for funds. Ray Kingston, Chairman of the Board of Directors for the Utah State Arts Council, said that in the past the Utah Arts Council has supported the Salt Lake Arts Center and he encouraged the Council to favorably consider this request. Mr. Kingston explained that between 1976 and 1983 the State of Utah, through its arts council, has contributed $164,579 to the Salt Lake Arts Center.
The Utah State Arts Council grants and appropriates money to various community agencies throughout the State of Utah and all of these grants are usually associated with in-kind matching amounts from the community. He said that the arts council board has been concerned that there appears to be very little public support from Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County. Mr. Kingston said that in this current fiscal year the Utah Arts Council appropriated, through its grants program, $22,294. He said that the state has repeatedly contributed to the center and urged the Council to approve the request. Without objection, Council Chairman Mabey referred the request of $35,000 for the Salt Lake Arts Center to the Committee of the Whole for Thursday, December 8, 1983.
(T 83-26)
#5. RE: A resolution endorsing the $33,500,000 Salt Lake County Bond Election to be held December 13, 1983. The proposed $33,500,000 bond issue is to cover an accelerated five-year capital improvement program as well as those costs incurred directly as a result of the flooding in 1983. Barbara Woolf, Community Information Director with Salt Lake County, asked for the Council’s consideration of the resolution in support of the bond issue. She indicated that they have tried to inform the voters about the issues and are doing their best in the short period of time which is available. Councilmember Parker asked if it would be less expensive for property owners and businesses if the bond issue passes. Mayor Wilson said that with a mill increase some costs would be avoided but he felt that the average taxpayer would not be able to absorb this increase and a continuing levy would be better. Councilmember DePaulis indicated that the bond issue would enable the projects to be built soon. Otherwise the mill levy would be increased to pay for the damage caused by the flood but the capital improvement projects would wait. Mayor Wilson indicated that this bond issue is important because it addresses basic flood control and without flood control, portions of the City could be severely damaged.
Councilmember Mabey said that his constituents have indicated that they would rather have the one-time bond issue than an on-going tax. Councilmember Shearer did not feel that the Council was in a position to tell the voters how to vote since there is not necessarily a right or wrong choice. She felt that the voters should be urged to study the issue and vote the way that they think would be most beneficial to the county and to themselves. Mayor Wilson said that he understood that if there is a 6.5 mill increase this would only pay for the $13,000,000 shortfall and would not address the capital improvements as quickly as they need to be done.
Mayor Wilson felt that the Council needed to support the bond because the City needs the projects done quickly. He said that voting for the bond issue will retain the present tax structure and voting against the bond will impose a new tax. He felt that the voters needed to be aware of this and an endorsement from the Council would help. Councilmember Parker felt that not many citizens would take the time to become informed about the issues and he said that they look to a body like the Council to point the direction. Ms. Woolf said that other city councils around the valley have been approached and many have endorsed the resolution supporting the bond election.
Councilmember Shearer moved that the Salt Lake City Council urge the citizens to become informed voters about the county bond election to be held December 13 and also urge the citizens to participate. There was no second to this motion. Councilmember Shearer asked why the Council should tell the voters how to vote. Councilmember Fonnesbeck felt that passage of the bond issue would be in the best interest of Salt Lake City because the projects need to be accomplished now.
Councilmember Mabey said that if the bond issue is approved not all of the problems can be addressed before next spring. Mayor Wilson said that if our area is in a wet cycle, as has been suggested, then accomplishing the projects quickly will be helpful.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Resolution 99 of 1983 endorsing and supporting the $33,500,000 Salt Lake County Bond Election to be held December 13, 1983, and urging the support of the voters of Salt Lake City, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(R 83-19)
PUBLIC UTILITIES
#1. RE: An ordinance amending Section 37-6-2, Schedule 3, “Rates”, of the Revised Ordinances, relating to sewer service charges. Without objection, Council Chairman Mabey referred the ordinance amendment relating to sewer service charges to the consent agenda for December 13, 1983.
(O 82-65)
#2. RE: An ordinance amending Section 49-6-64 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to water meter deposits required from non-owners. Without objection, Council Chairman Mabey referred the ordinance amendment relating to water meter deposits from non-owners to the consent agenda for December 13, 1983.
(O 83-42)
#3. RE: A memorandum of understanding between Salt Lake County Water Conservancy District, Central Utah Water Conservancy District, Salt Lake City, Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City, and the Bureau of Reclamation. Adrian Pembroke, Chairman of the Metropolitan Water Board, said that the Metropolitan Water District was created to find and develop water resources and bring them into the valley. He said that without new water sources there cannot be population growth, a better economic system, and more jobs. Mr. Pembroke suggested that the Council approve the memorandum of understanding as it has been presented and disassociate it from the on-going debate about the Central Utah Project.
He indicated that if the Council could not separate this memorandum from CUP then it would be better to delay a final decision until more information can be presented because there is a great amount of confusion and misunderstanding. Mr. Pembroke explained that municipal and industrial (M & I) water is paid for, under the present understanding, by CUP. This leaves money available to be used for the Little Dell reservoir project. If the Council decides not to be associated with CUP, bonds could provide the money to pay for the M & I water of the project.
Mayor Wilson agreed that the memorandum needs to be signed. Included in the memorandum is an issue about petitioning for 20,000 acre feet of water delivery from the CUP. The Mayor understood that the memorandum of understanding does not effectuate that petition; that would have to be done under the auspices of the Metropolitan Water District. The Mayor asked if the memorandum could be signed without committing the Metropolitan Water District or the City to the 20,000 acre feet so that there would be time for review. He said that he would not want to sign this document if the City is automatically put into a position of approving CUP. Mayor Wilson said that they wanted to be qualitatively and quantitatively selective about CUP. Joe Novak, attorney for the Metropolitan Water District, suggested that the Council should not authorize the execution of the memorandum of understanding but they should approve the memorandum of understanding in concept or endorse the memorandum of understanding in concept and approve, in principle, the commitments made by the City under the memorandum. Mr. Novak said that the memorandum does not commit the Metropolitan Water District to filing a 20,000 acre-foot petition. The memo provides that before it becomes effectual, the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City would petition for Central Utah Project water. The pro-rating of the capacity in the Jordan Aqueduct system is on the basis of 2/7 - 5/7 on the assumption that the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City would petition for 20,000 acre feet. Mr. Novak said that the Metropolitan Water District has not, as of now, filed a petition with the Central Utah Water Conservancy District but it has contemplated doing so at the appropriate time.
It was Mr. Novak’s opinion that the memorandum would not stand if the Metropolitan Water District did not at some time in the future file a petition for 20,000 acre feet. The memo does provide that in the event such a petition is filed, a block notice would not be issued to the Metropolitan Water District until the year 2000 (block notice means that the Metropolitan Water District would have to start repaying its share of the costs). Mayor Wilson asked if the memo is signed would there be enough time, before the petition is filed, to review the CUP. Mr. Novak believed there would be enough time. He did not think that the memo needed to be signed because it is a statement of concepts and would not be signed as a binding agreement.
Mr. Novak said that the Metropolitan Water District Board endorsed the memo in concept and approved in principle the commitments of the Metropolitan Water District subject to negotiating acceptable agreements that would effectuate or implement the commitments of the District. These agreements would be brought back before the Board for its review and decision. He said that the only commitment by Salt Lake City under the memo is to make available to the Salt Lake County Water Conservancy District a portion of the surplus waters of Salt Lake City in Utah Lake.
Councilmember Mabey asked if by approving the memo the Council was giving the Metropolitan Water District the authority at a later date to purchase the water. Councilmember Shearer said that the District already has the authority to file for CUP water. Mr. Novak said that they are an independent board which functions independently of Salt Lake City but works closely with the City. Mr. Novak said that the memo is a cooperative effort to attempt to solve the municipal water problems in Salt Lake County. It is separate from the Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project.
It was Mr. Novak’s opinion that endorsing in concept and approving in principle the commitments under the memo would not in anyway commit the Council to the Bonneville Unit of the CUP. Councilmember DePaulis asked for an explanation as to what powers the Metropolitan Water District has to petition for the water at any time without the Council’s approval or the approval of any other governing body. Mr. Novak said that it has the authority to petition the Central Utah Water Conservancy District at any time for that water. He said that there is no present petition or agreement between Metro and the Central Utah District. It is contemplated that a 20,000 acre-foot petition would be filed and if that petition is filed then under the concepts of the memo, the Bureau and the Central Utah District would not issue a block notice to the Metropolitan Water District under the approved petition until the year 2000 unless the Metropolitan Water District elected to have the block notice issued earlier.
Mr. Novak said that the Metropolitan Water District owns 61,700 acre-feet of storage in Deer Creek Reservoir and the District has the Salt Lake Aqueduct to deliver the water. During the peak demand period, Metro is unable to deliver the water with the limited capacity in the Salt Lake Aqueduct so the purpose is to obtain, based on a 20,000 acre-foot petition, 2/7 of the capacity of the Jordan Aqueduct system which would permit the water to brought into the west side of the valley and delivered into the aqueduct system which is in place for delivery into the north west quadrant.
Mr. Novak said that the 20,000 acre feet and the 2/7 are inter-related in the sense that under the Bonneville Unit it is planned that there will be 70,000 acre feet of municipal and industrial water that will be developed for and made available to Salt Lake County as a whole. The Salt Lake County Water Conservancy District, in 1971, petitioned for 50,000 acre feet and so the remaining 20,000 acre feet is being held for the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City, if and when it decides to petition for the water.
Councilmember DePaulis asked if it was correct that the District was not being asked to petition at this point. Mr. Novak said that was correct. Mr. DePaulis asked if by exchanging the understanding to get capacity in the Jordan Aqueduct for delivery of the Deer Creek water, would they be committing to an expensive proposition in the future. Mr. Novak did not think this would be the case. He said that presently the cost of Bonneville Unit water for M & I purposes would be about $160 per acre foot; Deer Creek water costs about $40 per acre foot. This would be a consideration after the year 2000 when the projections are that the Bonneville water will be needed.
The capacity in the pipelines hinges on Metro eventually petitioning for 20,000 acre feet. Mr. Novak said that there are no deadlines as to when Metro had to petition. Councilmember Whitehead asked why they would petition for the water any earlier than it is needed. Mr. Novak said that in order to get the 2/7 capacity in the Jordan Aqueduct system the petition must be filed. Mr. Novak said that by statute Salt Lake City has a preferential right to purchase the water supply of the Metropolitan Water District at rates to be fixed by the board. If Salt Lake City does not exercise its right for the full 20,000 acre feet, then Metro could market the additional water elsewhere. Councilmember Whitehead asked who would pay for the water if it is not needed. Mr. Novak said that the water would not have to be paid for until at least the year 2000 at which time it will be needed, according to population projections. Councilmember DePaulis said that in order to get the cheaper water from Deer Creek a commitment is being made to an unknown repayment schedule. Councilmember Whitehead said that the water will he needed if projected growth takes place but if it does not there will be more water than is needed and it will be expensive. Mr. Novak indicated that in the future cost could change based on various issues.
Councilmember DePaulis asked if the Deer Creek water was needed at the present time and what the cost would be to deliver the water without the use of the Jordan Aqueduct. Mr. Hooton said that additional growth will require water from Deer Creek and without the use of the Jordan Aqueduct a new aqueduct would have to be constructed in order to adequately utilize the Deer Creek water. Mr. Hooton said that the long-range planning since the inception of Deer Creek has been with a westside delivery system through the Jordan Aqueduct system.
Mayor Wilson said that at some point a decision has to be made about whether or not the water is wanted. When this decision is made the cost cannot be insured. Mayor Wilson felt that the big question was whether or not there was time to evaluate the total water supply. Mr. Hooton said that if the City is going to continue to grow and provide an adequate water supply then some risks may have to be taken. The best guess today is that the water will be needed. In a drought year there is no question that additional water will be needed.
Mr. Hooton felt that the City was in a good position to control cost in the future because the more expensive water will be blended with low-cost water. He said that any new developed water, locally or imported, is going to cost more. He felt that they were considering a well-balanced approach to developing additional water and since 1965 the CUP has played a role in long-range planning. Councilmember Mabey suggested that the usage of the water supply could be prioritized so that the delivery system can provide the necessary water.
Councilmember DePaulis asked if the full 2/7 capacity was needed to deliver the Deer Creek water. Mr. Hooton indicated that he would not want less capacity because present usage could conceivably double. Mr. Hooton said that the biggest user on the system is the individual homeowner and their lawns and gardens. That irrigation load represents approximately 55% of the total water delivered in the system and it also provides the biggest load on the distribution system.
Councilmember Shearer indicated that more industrial users would mean more jobs and if jobs in the City are a consideration then the water supply will need to be available. Mayor Wilson felt that conservation was a consideration and a better job could be done. He thought that most growth projections are based on traditional and historical consumption patterns. He said that there were conservation elements which would allow for lawn irrigation but could also save water. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that a Blue Ribbon Committee met on capital improvements and submitted a formal recommendation that the City study the CUP and its relation to the CUP. Suggestions have also been made about holding an election. She asked if either of these two ideas would be hindered if the memorandum is approved. She also asked what would happen if the Metropolitan District petitions for the water and then later Salt Lake City decides it is unhappy with the organization or the voters vote against CUP.
Mr. Hooton said that if the voters do not authorize additional funding of the project, the project stops and there will be no M & I water developed. He felt that a Blue Ribbon Committee is necessary and a vote on the project should be supported. However, under the memorandum of understanding the City gets direct benefits now and he felt that this benefit should not be lost while the bigger problem is being solved. He thought that the voters should decide.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck presented the following four items for consideration: 1. The Salt Lake City Council’s approval and authorization to execute the memorandum of understanding does not constitute an endorsement of the Central Utah Project. 2. The Salt Lake City Council recommends that at the earliest convenience of those involved, an election be held for the approval of the supplemental repayment contract between the United States Government and the Central Utah Water Conservancy District for the issuance of additional obligation for the Central Utah Project.
3. The Salt Lake City Council also recommends that a Blue Ribbon Committee be appointed either at the state level or by the Mayor of Salt Lake City to study Salt Lake City’s involvement in the Central Utah Project and the statewide impact of said project on cost effectiveness and the delivery of municipal and industrial water. 4. The Salt Lake City Council requests that the Metropolitan Water District delay the petition for the 20,000 acre feet of water from the Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project until such a time that the election and the study are completed.
Mr. Hooton endorsed items one through three but felt that the fourth item might strike at the heart of the agreement and may impede any negotiations. Councilmember Fonnesbeck felt that the logical order was to understand the issue before the final legal document is signed. She indicated that she could approve the memorandum in good faith if she had the assurance that there was going to be other due process involved prior to the legal steps.
Mr. Hooton did not object to the items as long as they did not impede the ability to, in concept, pursue the issues incorporated into the memorandum. Councilmember Shearer reiterated that the suggestion has been made not to sign the memorandum but approve in concept and agree in principle to the memorandum. Mr. Novak felt that it would be a mistake to attach conditions to an endorsement in concept and approval in principle. He suggested that the conditions should be considered as a separate motion. Mayor Wilson agreed with this suggestion. Sarah Mikel urged the Council not to support the concept of the memorandum at this time because she felt that there were many questions remaining. She felt that approving the memorandum in concept would be viewed as symbolic approval. Hermoine Jex said that the Land Use and Natural Resource Committee of Salt Lake County and the Land Use Committee of Salt Lake City urged the Council not to adopt the memorandum but to hold public hearings. The biggest concern is associating Little Dell with the CUP.
John Miller, University and Utah Department of Economics, said that Mr. Hooton mentioned that 2/7 of the capacity of the Jordan Aqueduct was needed for the 20,000 acre feet of water currently owned in Deer Creek Reservoir. In the year 2000 another 20,000 acre feet of water will be added. Mr. Miller asked how 40,000 acre feet of water would be put into the space for 20,000 acre feet of water when the main reason for having the water is for peak demands in the summer. He felt that the possibility of having to construct another aqueduct should be examined.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Resolution 100 of 1983 endorsing in principle a memorandum of understanding between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County Water Conservancy District, Central Utah Water Conservancy District, Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City, and the Bureau of Reclamation; and ask the staff to proceed to negotiate and submit the documents to the Council indicated therein, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmembers Mabey, Fonnesbeck and DePaulis who voted nay.
Councilmember Whitehead felt that even though some Council Members did not support the passage of the resolution endorsing in principle the memorandum, they should want to support the resolution of policy declaration relating to the memorandum to endorse the four policy considerations as outlined earlier. Councilmember Shearer indicated that she had some questions and concerns about the policy considerations as presented.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Resolution 101 of 1983 setting forth policy considerations regarding the memorandum of understanding between Salt Lake County Water Conservancy District, Central Utah Water Conservancy District, Salt Lake City, Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City, and the Bureau of Reclamation, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmembers Mabey, Shearer and Davis who voted nay.
(C 83-407 and R 83-20)
COMMENTS
#1. Councilmember DePaulis said that this was his last meeting as a member of the Council and he thanked the Council for the association he had enjoyed with them. He said that he appreciated all the support which the Council had given to him and he said that the Council could count on his continued support. As a parting gift, Mr. DePaulis presented the Council with a gavel. All Council Members expressed that they would miss Mr. DePaulis and that they were glad they had an opportunity to work with him on the Council because he had contributed so much and had been such a great member. The Council Members expressed support for Mr. DePaulis in his new position.
The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.