PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1982
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1982, AT 5:00 P.M. IN ROOM 211 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: RONALD J. WHITEHEAD ALICE SHEARER GRANT MABEY IONE M. DAVIS SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER PALMER DEPAULIS.
Council Chairperson Sydney R. Fonnesbeck presided at and conducted this meeting.
POLICY SESSION
Leigh von der Esch, Executive Director of the Council, briefed the Council on items relating to the Council agenda and upcoming schedule. Jerry McClain of Arthur Young Company and Lance Bateman, Controller, discussed the audit for Fiscal Year 1981-82.
The policy session adjourned at 5:55 p.m.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1982, AT 6:00 P.M. IN ROOM 301 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: RONALD J. WHITEHEAD ALICE SHEARER GRANT MABEY IONE M. DAVIS SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER PALMER DEPAULIS.
Mayor Ted Wilson, 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.
Invocation was given by Police Chaplain Bruce Jenkins.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes:
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Salt Lake City Council for the meeting held Tuesday, November 23, 1982, and the minutes of the Committee of the Whole for Thursday, November 18, 1982 with the corrections that were received prior to the December 7, 1982 meeting which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(M 82-2)
PETITIONS
Petition 439 of 1981 submitted by Salt Lake City Corporation-Vernon Jorgensen.
#1. RE: Consider and adopt an ordinance closing a portion of Oblad Street (approximately 530 South) in Block 22 of Plat “B’ of Salt Lake City Survey between 350-400 East.
Brent Wilde, Planning and Zoning, addressed the Council and stated that at an earlier public hearing the Council had given approval for the closure and had directed the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance. Councilmember Shearer asked if there were remaining private easements. Mr. Wilde stated that there are some remaining utility easements that can be worked out between the developer and the utilities.
Mr. Wilde showed a diagram of the block redesign plan. He stated that the alternative to closing this would have been to leave Stanton/Oblad as a through street which would have caused complications for any development. He stated that the agreement is to close the street and trade for the two turn-around properties with the understanding that the developer will pay for the improvements to the turn-arounds. He stated that the cost estimate for the improvements is approximately $30,000 and the developer is prepared to negotiate the agreement.
Councilmember DePaulis suggested that the Council Members take a tour of Sego Park when it is dedicated in the spring. Mayor Wilson also suggested that Kerry Bate be recognized by the Council for his efforts in this project, possibly in conjunction with the Sego Park dedication.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Ordinance 83 of 1982, closing a portion of Oblad Street (approximately 530 South) in Block 22 of Plat “B” of Salt Lake City Survey between 350 and 400 East Streets, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 82-7)
Petition 598 of 1981 submitted by Robert Trujillo.
#2. RE: The petitioner is requesting the narrowing and vacating of a three-foot strip on the north side of Ashton Avenue.
RECOMMENDATION: Last Spring, the Council conceptually gave approval to the narrowing of Ashton Avenue from a 10-foot width to a 7-foot width abutting the Trujillo property at 2332 South 1800 East. Part of that decision was based on Mr. Trujillo’s agreement that he would construct a fence. It was the understanding of the Attorney’s Office that agreement to narrow the pedestrian lane by three feet was to enable Mr. Trujillo to construct a fence to include that property into his own residential lot. The Attorney’s Office had prepared a deed and an agreement for Mr. Trujillo’s signature that contemplated completion prior to the construction of the fence. However, Mr. Trujillo went ahead and constructed the fence, prior to signing the agreement in April. When he was required to produce a survey to demonstrate that the fence was on his property line, the survey revealed that there is a minor encroachment of three to nine inches. Basically, it is off the width of approximately the fence pole beginning on his east property line, and going west gradually extends to an encroachment of nine inches where his fence ties into an abutting fence to the west.
The representatives of the City Engineer’s Office and Planning Department have verified the encroachment which they have acknowledged as being minor and they suggest that a revocable permit be incorporated in the agreement to allow Mr. Trujillo to maintain his fence in its present location for the time being. Based on that recommendation, the agreement was revised and has been signed by Mr. Trujillo and was submitted together with the ordinance for consideration. If the ordinance meets with Council approval, it is appropriate for passage and thereafter the agreement would be appropriate for signature by the Mayor.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Ordinance 84 of 1982, narrowing and vacating a three foot strip on the north side of Ashton Avenue, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 82-9)
Petition 261 of 1982 submitted by Alvin Olsen et al.
#3. 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.
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.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck, without objection, set a date for public hearing on December 14, 1982 at 8:30 p.m. to discuss Petition 261 of 1982 requesting the vacation of an alley running approximately 145 feet north from Union Avenue (900 South) between 1200 and 1300 West Streets.
(P 82-354)
Petition 269 of 1982 submitted by Gordon Sloan (Ambassador Club).
#4. RE: Petition 269 of 1982 requesting a change of zoning for the site at 145 South 500 East, owned by the Ambassador Club, from “R-7” to Commercial “C-3A’.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Ordinance 85 of 1982, amending section 51-12-2 relating to zoning and fixing of boundaries of use districts and rezoning the Ambassador Club site at 145 South 500 East from its present “R-7” to a Commercial “C-3A” classification, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 82-265)
Petition 314 of 1982 submitted by Jean Talbot.
#5. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a public hearing on January 11, 1982 at 6:30 p.m. to discuss Petition No. 314 submitted by Jean Talbot. The petitioner is requesting that the zoning on the south side of Merrimac Avenue between West Temple and the rear of the properties facing Main Street to a depth of 150’ be rezoned from its present Residential “R-4” classification to a Residential “R-6” classification.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: The petitioner is required to pay a $50 advertising fee to the City Recorder.
DISCUSSION: The petitioner is requesting the zoning change to legalize the adult care center being operated at 1454 Richards Street. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petition and has recommended that the zoning not be changed as the “R-6” zoning would be contrary to the plan for the community and is not in keeping with the character of the district. The Planning Commission indicated that there is a need for this type of home and that homes for the elderly should be considered the same as other group homes and be allowed in residential areas.
It is therefore, the Planning Commission recommendation that Section 51-6-12 of the Zoning Ordinances be amended to include adult care group homes for elderly as a conditional use in Residential “R-3A”, “R-4’, “R-5”, and “R-5A” districts. Under the recommendation group homes would be allowed but would be limited to 12 individuals. Ms. Talbot submitted another letter, stating that she wants 16 to 20 persons and that 12 would not meet her needs. The Planning Commission reviewed her letter at their November 4, meeting and felt that their original recommendation was correct and reaffirmed their recommendation.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to set a date for public hearing of January 11, 1982 at 6:30 p.m. to discuss rezoning the property on the south side of Merrimac Avenue between West Temple and the rear of the properties facing Main Street to a depth of 150’ from “R-4” to “R-6” or to modify the text of the Zoning Ordinance to permit group homes for elderly as conditional use requiring Board of Adjustment approval in Residential “R-2”, “R-3A”, R-4’, “R-5” and “R-5A” districts and limiting the number of persons per home to 12 individuals, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 82-355)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
#1. RE: Introduction of proposed airport use fee ordinance amendment: Sections 2-2-20, 2-2-27.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider amendments to Sections 2-2-20, 2-2-27 of the Salt Lake City Code as presented.
DISCUSSION: According to the terms and conditions of the Airport Use agreement between the City and American, Delta, Frontier, PSA, Republic, Texas International, United and Western (Participating Airlines) the Airport Authority must annually adjust airline terminal rentals and landing fees at Salt Lake City International Airport. The adjustments are based upon the estimated cost of providing for the operation and maintenance of the facilities in the airfield and terminal cost centers and the allocation of the applicable portion of the investment service.
Currently, space rental is set at $35.50 per square foot per year and landing fees are $.4O per thousand pounds of certificated gross landing weight. The Airport Affairs Committee met on September 29, 1982 and approved a change in the estimate for FY 1982-83 to $35 per square foot per year for terminal space rental and $.43 per thousand pounds for landing fees. Although costs have increased in the terminal cost center because of the connector, and almost equal savings has been realized by the reduction in janitorial costs and staff also anticipates an 8% increase in the amount of total rentable space.
The estimates also include a 10% increase in operating and maintenance costs in the Airfield costs center. This in conjunction with the reallocation of investment service due to the completion of the taxiway projects, accounts for the increased landing fees. The Airport Affairs Committee recommended that the above changes be made effective January 1, 1983. Calculation and the approval of these rates and charges was approved by the Airport Authority Board on October 6, 1982. In order to provide rentals and fees for the non-participating airlines, commuters and charters, that are consistent with those established for the Participating Airlines, the current rates established by ordinance also require adjustment.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Ordinance 86 of 1982, amending Sections 2-2-20 and 2-2-27 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to Airport Use Fees, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 82-61)
CITY ATTORNEY
#1. RE: Introduction of proposed zoning ordinance amendment: Section 51-6-8.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider amendments to Section 51-6-8 of the Salt Lake City Code as presented.
DISCUSSION: The recent lawsuit by David Williams d/b/a Industrial Communications points to the fact that the City’s policy, since 1978 of leasing rather than selling telecommunications sites in the zone or park established to provide such sites for those who need one there has not been reduced to an ordinance. The proposed ordinance does this.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck, without objection, set a date for a public hearing of December 21, 1982 at 5:00 p.m. to discuss the proposed ordinance amending Section 51-6-8 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to public utilities in residential districts.
(O 82-63)
#2. RE: Approve a resolution authorizing the issuance of not exceeding $2,000,000 principal amount of Industrial Revenue Bonds of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the purpose of financing the acquisition and construction of facilities which shall be commercial, manufacturing and warehousing facilities and improvements for Alta Industries, Ltd.; authorizing the execution of a financial agreement and related documents.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Resolution 104 of 1982 authorizing the issuance of not exceeding $2,000,000 principal amount of Industrial Revenue Bonds of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the purpose of financing the acquisition and construction of facilities which shall be commercial, manufacturing and warehousing facilities and improvements for Alta Industries, Ltd.; authorizing the execution of a financial agreement and related documents, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 82-27)
CITY COUNCIL
#1. RE: Consider and approve a resolution amending the Compensation Plan for Salt Lake City Corporation Employees by increasing the annual compensation of City Council members from $8500 to $8700 and consider other alternatives relating to salaries of elected public officials.
Councilmember Parker moved to (1) include the provision for life insurance for Council Members, (2) include $100 per month for each Council Member for expenses, and (3) pick up option #5 to increase Council Members salaries to $9,000 per annum effective January 1, 1983, and then be eligible for the same pay increase that City employees will receive in FY 83/84. Councilmember Parker stated that all together this would come very close to the 21% that other City employees have received over the past three years. There was no second, therefore, the motion failed.
Councilmember DePaulis stated that it appeared that none of the alternatives were satisfactory at this time and felt that the Council should take more time to consider this issue. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that the Council did not want to make this a job that people would purposely seek because of the salaries involved. She also stated that not doing something at this point is not fair to future Council Members. Each year that it is postponed makes it politically more difficult. She suggested that it be included in with the increases that are given City employees except with a much smaller base.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to table the issue until December 16, 1982, which motion failed, Council Members Whitehead, Mabey, Fonnesbeck, and Parker voting nay, Council Members DePaulis and Shearer voting aye and Councilmember Davis abstaining.
The expense account was discussed, and it was indicated that it would be a flat rate and not a vouchered expense account. The type of life insurance was also discussed at this time.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to include an insurance policy, $100 per month for expenses per Council Member, and consider salary increases at the time the budget is considered.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to amend the motion by splitting the motion into three questions, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Davis who abstained.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to include life insurance for each Councilmember, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Davis who abstained.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded for each Councilmember to receive $100 per month, flat rate, for expenses, which motion carried, Council Members Whitehead, Mabey, DePaulis, and Parker voting aye, Council Members Fonnesbeck and Shearer voting nay, and Councilmember Davis abstaining.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to consider pay adjustments for Council Members at the time of the budget, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Davis who abstained.
(B 82-9)
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
#1. RE: Introduction of proposed amendments to Sections 51-21-8, 51-21A-11, 51-21-1(12), 51-21A-2(9), 51-24-1(74), and 51-25-1(34) of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, dealing with zoning.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider amendments to the above-named sections of the Salt Lake City Code.
DISCUSSION: This ordinance reflects the amendments desired by the City Council and Planning Commission in relationship to the conditional use criteria for retail outlets. It also does some internal housekeeping by bringing the provisions of the “B-3C” district into conformity with the “B-3” businesses in those districts to except out state liquor stores approved as conditional uses. It also amends provisions in the “C-3” and industrial “M-1” districts relating to the disbursement of adult businesses by adding an exception for liquor stores from the requirement.
Dennis Kellen, Operations Manager for the State Liquor Commission, addressed the Council, and stated that Kenneth Winn, Director of the Liquor Commission, the Assistant Attorney General and himself had reviewed the ordinance changes and understand them and are agreeable with them. Councilmember Fonnesbeck indicated that the ordinance had been rewritten to the Council’s satisfaction.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to adopt Ordinance 93 of 1982, amending Sections 51-21-8, 51-21A-11, 51-21-1(12), 51-21A2(9), 51-24-1(74) and 51-25-1(34), relating to State-owned or Operated Retail Liquor Stores Conditional Use in “B-3” District and related provisions, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 82-12)
FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
#1. RE: An ordinance amending Chapter 8 of Title 20, relating to automatic amusement devices.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Ordinance 88 of 1982, amending Chapter 8 of Title 20, relating to automatic amusement devices, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Whitehead who was absent when the vote was taken.
(O 82-49)
#2. RE: An ordinance amending Section 20-1-13 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to penalty for late payment of license fees.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Ordinance 87 of 1982, amending Section 20-1-13 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to penalty for late payment of license fees, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 82-64)
FIRE DEPARTMENT
#1. RE: Interlocal Cooperation Agreement with Salt Lake County Fire Department.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the attached Interlocal Agreement to allow Salt Lake City Fire Department and Salt Lake County Fire Department to provide joint services.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION: There is a need for the City and County Fire Departments to provide reciprocal fire protection and rescue services within a certain portion of the parties’ respective jurisdictions and to authorize the parties’ fire chiefs to enter into the attached memoranda of understanding, which establishes the type of response services and designation of initial action areas.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Resolution 105 of 1982 authorizing the execution of an Interlocal Agreement to allow the Salt Lake City Fire Department and the Salt Lake County Fire Department to provide joint services, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(C 82-669)
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
#1. RE: Municipal Solicitations Committee.
RECOMMENDATION: There is presently a vacancy on the Municipal Solicitations Committee due to the resignation of William Beadle. It is recommended that Lisa K. Buffmire be appointed to this committee.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded the appointment of Lisa K. Buffmire to the Municipal Solicitations Committee, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(I 82-1)
#2. RE: SALT LAKE HOUSING AUTHORITY.
RECOMMENDATION: On January 24, 1982, Rosemarie Rendon was officially appointed to the Housing Authority Board of Directors to complete a term of office vacated by Amy Cortese. That term will expire on October 27, 1982. The Housing Authority has informed me that Rosemarie has done an outstanding job during her tenure of just less than ten months. It is recommendation, therefore, that she be reappointed to a full five year term.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded the reappointment of Rosemarie Rendon to the Housing Authority Board of Directors for a five year term, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(I 82-18)
#3. RE: Transfer of $13,660 from the general fund contingency to the municipal affairs program budget to partially fund program and administrative costs of the Salt Lake County Council of Governments.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council consider an appropriation from the contingency fund to meet a request from the Salt Lake County Council of Governments. The purpose of the appropriation is Salt Lake City’s contribution to maintain the operation of the COG office. This request would cover operating expenses for the 1982-83 fiscal year.
DISCUSSION: COG has served as the major communication link within Salt Lake County on issues that go beyond the boundaries of respective communities. Issues such as transportation, canyons, water and federal funding have all been topics for resolve before this body. Because this request will likely continue for future years, it is recommended that beginning with the 1983-84 budget, COG submit a request for funding under the category of municipal affairs budget.
Mayor Wilson addressed the Council and stated that when this item was before the Council previously there was a good deal of confusion. He stated that the confusion came from the fact that many of the governments within the County that fund COG wanted an option to handle funding under Community Development Block Grant funds. This led COG to be portrayed as a study process, which was legitimate. However, this brought about the response that if the City is going to fund studies that the City should do the studies.
Mayor Wilson stated that this is a very important appropriation. He stated that the fund really represents the staffing of the organization, which is essentially one man, Ed Delaney, and a part-time secretary. This is a very efficient operation and this is a pro-rated contribution which is shared with other governments in the valley. The Mayor also stated that he would be agreeable with either CDBG or general fund contribution.
Councilmember Davis stated that COG has promoted the beer tax and that she understands the Mayor is basically opposed. She asked if they would be joining an organization with a majority over the City’s votes. Mayor Wilson stated that he has disagreed with the vote of COG and has abstained from the votes on the beer tax. He stated that he thought he should stay neutral and if the Council felt otherwise he would be willing to listen to their advice. He stated that COG, of course, has a right to outvote the City on this kind of an issue, but we also have the right to abstain or take a different position. Mayor Wilson stated that he wanted to invite a member of the Council to serve on COG. He also explained that the by-laws have been redefined so that a member of the Council can participate. He stated that it would be the only Council participation in the valley, but felt it would not be a problem.
Councilmember Shearer stated that she was concerned about appropriating money from a contingency fund that looks as if it would not be funded this year due to the fact that revenues are not running at a rate that will guarantee that the City will have a contingency. She stated that the state revenues appear in very bad shape also. She stated that she is opposed to any kind of extra expenditures beyond those that are absolutely necessary this year. Mayor Wilson indicated that he had copies of the Lakewood Plan issued at COG’s annual meeting for the Council to consider. Councilmember Davis recommended that the Council designate someone to serve on COG.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to approve Resolution 106 of 1982 authorizing the transfer of $13,660 from General Fund Contingency to Municipal Affairs Program Budget to partially fund program and administrative costs of the Salt Lake County Council of Government, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Shearer who voted nay.
(B 82-1l)
#4. RE: Consider and adopt an ordinance amending Section 20-3-2 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to license fees levied.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Ordinance 91 of 1982 amending Section 20-3-2 of the revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah 1965, relating to license fees levied.
(O 82-32)
PUBLIC UTILITIES
#1. RE: Consider and adopt an ordinance amending Section 37-6-2, Schedule 3 Rates, of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to sewer service charges, increasing the minimum from $2 to $4, the unit cost for sewer service from $.54 to $1.08 per 100 cubic feet and the sewer connection fee from $300 per residential equivalent to $1,000, effective January 1, 1983. All other fees and schedules to be adjusted proportionately; and adopt the 201 study.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to adopt the ordinance with the exception that the fees for new connections be increased from $300 to $500 the first year, from $500 to $700 the second year, and from $700 to $1000 the third year, and to adopt the 201 plan.
Councilmember Shearer asked if this would mean changing all of the connection fees in proportion (hotels, motels, etc.), so that everyone would get a reduced rate for the first years. Councilmember Whitehead stated that he did not want to discourage new construction, and they could not discriminate, therefore, it would mean all new connection fees. LeRoy Hooton, Director of Public Utilities, addressed the Council and stated that so far this fiscal year $194,000 has been collected in connection fees, primarily from commercial and industrial.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked how negatively this adjustment would impact the City rather than the recommended proposal of $1000 for new connections. Mr. Hooton stated that under the proposal they were predicting for next year an additional $523,000. He stated that with the adjustment that prediction would be cut approximately 2/3's. He also stated that they had taken a conservative view point on new connections in the proposal. Councilmember Whitehead stated that the adjustment would encourage developers.
Councilmember Davis stated that the $1000 fee might mean developers would build in the County rather than the City. Councilmember Shearer stated that the $1000 would not put the City at the highest rate for the County, but it would be among the highest. She also stated that she was concerned about those people coming on line paying their fair share, which is at least the $1000.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that from the public hearings the feeling is that new construction should be picking up their fair share due to the fact that because of the new construction the new plant would have to be built. Councilmember DePaulis asked about the “per residential equivalent” statement in the ordinance. Mr. Hooton stated that they use the residential equivalent as a basis for fixture units.
Councilmember Davis asked about car washes. Mr. Hooton stated that under the ordinance, the Public Utilities Advisory Board is to review charges that do not fit into the winter use pattern. The car wash owners stated that during the winter they have weepers to keep the units from freezing which distort their annual use. The Advisory Board agreed to use an annual use on that particular kind of business. The Board has a second proposal to use three months in the spring to more accurately represent use. This has not been investigated fully. Mr. Hooton indicated that the water is measured as it goes through the culinary water meter.
Mr. Hooton stated that there is an appeal process included in the ordinance, and there could be an adjustment made administratively. Councilmember DePaulis brought up the fact that economic times are bad and asked what options there are for the particular residential user who cannot meet the increases in the water or sewer charges. Mr. Hooton stated that there is presently no mechanism to handle this problem. Mr. Hooton stated that basically it is a rate schedule that the less you use the less you pay, and the more you use the more you pay. Therefore, users have a control on their utility bill. The solution for them at this time would be to conserve. Councilmember DePaulis asked about people who might have to make arrangements for their bills during this economically sensitive time. Mr. Hooton stated that under the bonding resolution the Public Utilities has to collect the water and sewer bills after a certain period of time. He also stated they would be willing to listen to any advise the Council might have regarding this.
Councilmember Parker asked if the cost of the wetland study for a new plant would be part of the $102,000,000. Mr. Hooton indicated that it was. He stated that the plan covers a two plan concept and master planning the northwest quadrant, but the rate increase before the Council at this time only covers the improvements at the existing plant as well as the preliminary studies and the land purchase for the second plant. Any other decisions can be delayed until that second plant is actually needed. He stated that the commitment at this time is not the $102,000,000, although that is the total plan estimate.
Councilmember Mabey asked if the northwest quadrant is developed in three years would the by pass line have to be used to bring it back to the main plant or would the other plant have to be built. Mr. Hooton stated that it is recommended that the decision be made at the time, depending upon the circumstances. He stated that basically they are looking at upgrading the existing plant to its maximum capacity, solving problems relating to sludge, energy, and upgrading the facility for another 20 years of service, and to do the preliminary work for the northwest quadrant as to site selection of a new treatment facility and then master plan that area as it starts developing.
Councilmember Davis asked when it was anticipated that this issue would come before the Council again for more money. Mr. Hooton stated that included in this plan is an 8% increase in operation and maintenance expenses annually, therefore, the fiscal year 1986/87 would be the next time. Councilmember Mabey asked Peter Maier if it was his opinion that we will be over building. Mr. Maier indicated that was correct. He stated that state regulations require a testing procedure that is scientifically incorrect, therefore, the data provided is worthless in the regard that the actual performance of the plant as it is now and the actual capacity cannot be determined. He stated that this procedure will be changed, especially the affluent testing procedure.
He stated that the plant actually can be penalized for treating too well. He stated that it may take five years to change. Mr. Maier stated that at the present it is very normal engineering practice to gather all the information before operation begins. Mayor Wilson stated that Mr. Maier has brought up some very valid information. He stated that there are some long term aspects that are serious and that should receive a long term policy review. He stated that this in no way lessens the need to deal with this in an affirmative manner, because the present plant has to be dealt with one way or another, and there are laws that have to be upheld.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to amend the original motion to reverse the connection fees to the original $1000, which motion failed, Council Members Whitehead, Mabey, Fonnesbeck, Davis and Parker voting nay and Council Members DePaulis and Shearer voting aye.
Councilmember Shearer indicated that she had not received a list of the capital improvement projects to be covered. Mayor Wilson stated that a list would have to be kept flexible, and indicated that a list was distributed last week, but they are far from drafting final working drawings for the plant. Councilmember Shearer stated that if the Council raises the rates without a specific list of expenditures then they may run the risk of them falling into operating costs. She stated that if revenues fall short of estimates this year, these revenues will be eaten up.
Mr. Hooton stated that he was under the impression that once the detailed engineering began, at that time the Council would have the detailed list because they have to approve the budget. He stated that they cannot use the money unless the Council allows it to be put in the budget and gives the authority for it to be used. Mayor Wilson stated that if the Council approves the rate increase it will start a process to begin a working drawing and then prior to construction the plans can be approved.
Albert Haines stated that if the rate increases are approved any revenue that accrues to the fund cannot be spent. He stated that under the terms of the fiscal procedures act no revenues can be expended unless there have been appropriations made acknowledging a revenue source and acknowledging a legitimate expenditure. He stated that neither has been done - there is no budget for the revenues upon which these rate increases are made that can be appropriated. Councilmember Shearer stated that in the budget or the ordinance it does not indicate that these particular revenues are not regular revenues. Mr. Haines stated that it does not have to because it is regulated by state law. He stated that the money will fall into a cash account.
Mayor Wilson stated that only the increment of increase will go into a retention account and the portion of the rate that has already been budgeted for the operation and maintenance of the plant will continue to go to the area that has been budgeted. Councilmember Mabey stated that if there is a salary increase in the two-year period then the rates will be increased again. Mr. Hooton stated that they have projected an 8% increase in operations and maintenance which would include salary increases if appropriate. He also stated that the Council would still have to open the budget and include this before it can be appropriated. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that for the three years that the Council has been in office, this is the one vote that they knew they were going to have to take and knew it would be one of the most difficult. She stated that it was evident what had to be done, and they had to look at the future. Councilmember Shearer stated that she did not think that the developers would pay their share with the reduced connection fees, and because she did not have a schedule for the expenditures she was opposed. Councilmember Whitehead stated that this is something that is needed in Salt Lake City.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to adopt Ordinance 92 of 1982 amending Section 37-6-2, Schedule 3 Rates, of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to sewer service charges with the exception that the fees for new connections be increased from $300 to $500 the first year, from $500 to $700 the second year, and from $700 to $1000 the third year, and to adopt the 201 plan, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Shearer who voted nay.
(C 82-56)
PUBLIC WORKS
#1. RE: Curb and Gutter Special Improvement District No. 38-535 on Non-Contiguous Streets.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the resolution approving the recommendations of the Board of Equalization for the above Special Improvement District and adopt the assessment ordinance based on assessment rolls as modified by Board of Equalization.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Property Owner Assessment Funds.
DISCUSSION: The Board of Equalization and Review for the above curb and gutter Special Improvement District convened for public hearings on November 8, 9, and 10, 1982. Members of the Board of Equalization and Review as determined by City Council were Max G. Peterson, City Engineer, Walter Miller, Deputy City Attorney, and Kathryn Marshall, City Recorder. On November 29, 1982, the Board entered its recommendations and decision. It was the recommendation and decision of the Board of Equalization and Review that the assessments listed in attachments be made and the subject district be approved for assessments.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck referred resolution approving the recommendations of the Board of Equalization for Special Improvement District #38-535 and adoption of the assessment ordinance to the Consent Agenda for January 4, 1983. Referred without objection.
(Q 82-30)
#2. RE: Ordinance revisions to increase rates for parking meter bagging, removals and use of restricted curb space.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the ordinance revisions to increase parking meter bagging and removal rates.
DISCUSSION: Current charges for removing and bagging meters for legitimate purposes are not sufficient to recoup revenue loss and manpower costs needed to process requests. The city has not previously charged for relocating restricted parking areas in metered areas which similarly results in a loss of revenue and manpower costs to perform the service. The current charges were based on a l0-cent/hour meter rate. With the new 30-cents/hour meter rate, a greater revenue loss is realized when meters are bagged or removed. Also, the manpower costs to bag, unbag, remove and reinstall parking meters have increased in recent years.
The realized revenue for FY 81/82 from meter bagging and removals was $8,365. Under the rates proposed on the following chart, which are based on revenue loss and manpower costs, it is estimated revenue would increase to approximately $16,000 for FY 82/83 should these rates take effect December 1, 1982, and $22,000 annually thereafter. Ordinance revisions to increase rates for parking meter bagging, removals and use of restricted curb space.
1. Parking Meter Bagging.
Present: Proposed:
-$5/meter/day with 7 day maximum. -$10/meter for 1st day, -$5/meter/day thereafter to 15 day maximum.
2. Parking Meter Removal.
Present: Proposed:
-$1/day/meter with $30/meter minimum charge -$30/meter minimum for up to 5 days, -$5/meter/day thereafter to 15th day, then $3/meter/day thereafter
-No meter post replacement required -Meter post replacements provided and installed by requestor to city specifications
-No fee for relocation of restricted parking areas -Charge at above meter removal rate for meters removed to temporarily relocate a restricted parking area (Ex. passenger and freight loading zones; taxicab, bus, coach and common carrier stands) when existing restricted parking area is reserved for exclusive use by requestor
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Ordinance 89 of 1982, amending Section 157 of Article 8 of the Traffic Code of Salt Lake City, Utah, relating to Parking Meter Bagging, and Ordinance 90 of 1982, amending Section 41-3-16 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to Removal of Parking Meters, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 82-62)
#3. RE: Notice of Intention for Curb and 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 in accordance with the schedule.
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 informational 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 Fonnesbeck referred the resolution declaring the intention of the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah to construct improvements on certain streets within Salt Lake City; to create Salt Lake City Curb and Gutter Extension No. 38-681 to the Consent Agenda for December 14, 1982. Referred without objection.
(Q 82-34)
#4. RE: Notice of Intention for Curb and 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 in accordance with the schedule.
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 informational 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 of this project is $63,132 over $550,000 allocated in the 82/83 ($275,000) and 83/84 ($275,000) 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, which will yield better bid prices. The two phases of this project will be bid at one 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 the 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 Fonnesbeck referred the resolution 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 on the Consent Agenda for December 14, 1982. Referred without objection.
(Q 82-35)
The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.