PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1983
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 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
Leigh von der Esch briefed the Council on items relating to the agenda and meeting scheduling. Ms. von der Esch informed the Council of the addendum to the agenda regarding a resolution ratifying the action of the Council taken on Tuesday, January 25, 1983, wherein the Council approved a motion to allow Salt Lake County Housing Bonds to be sold within Salt Lake City. Jim Talebreza, Max Peterson, and John Naser briefed the Council and property owners on the alternatives involving Special Improvement District 38-681.
The policy session adjourned at 5:55 p.m.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 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 E1ARD W. PARKER PALMER DEPAULIS.
Mayor Ted Wilson, Albert E. Names, Chief Administrative Officer, and Roger Cutler, City Attorney, were present at the meeting.
Council Chairman Grant Mabey presided at this meeting. Councilmember Palmer DePaulis conducted this meeting.
Invocation was given by Police Chaplain Clifford Higbee.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes:
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Salt Lake City Council held Tuesday, February 8, 1983, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
(M 83-1)
Special Recognition:
A proclamation of appreciation was presented to Frank and Lola Lindgren who have operated the City-County Lunch for the past three years. Councilmember Parker read the proclamation which expressed appreciation to the Lindgrens for providing such quality service; a plaque was also presented to the Lindgrens.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to accept the proclamation, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
(G 83-8)
State of the City:
Mayor Ted L. Wilson presented the following statement regarding the State of the City. “It is my intent to use this State of the City report as an opportunity to review with the Council the immediate financial condition of the City, and also as an opportunity to begin dialogue with you on the long-term needs of the City in the area of capital improvements. The immediate financial concerns of the City reflect the absence of predictability in our City revenues given the impact of the recession on our local economy. While in the long term I am concerned that if Salt Lake City is to retain its preeminent role in attracting businesses, jobs, and housing opportunities to further enhance our tax base and assure the economic viability of our community, the City must begin a major capital improvements effort to not only provide the infrastructure for expansion, but to repair and restore many existing elements of our roadways, drainage systems and other components of our existing infrastructure.
The present fiscal year has been one of the most difficult in recent memory in terms of predictability and reliability of revenue sources. We have experienced the impact of the national recession and we have also met with legal challenges to several of our revenue sources. Although revenues appear to be lower than projected, it is the assessment and projection of the administration that the City will finish the year in the black. This will indeed require the close monitoring of the expenditure side of the budget and if required, the implementation of hiring and expenditure controls similar to those enacted in previous years.
In highlighting some of the major revenue sources of the City there is a sense of cautious optimism in some areas and concern in others. For example, although the sales tax shows a sizeable variance of $542,825, this figure shows improvement from the first quarter variance of $399,222. Had the sales tax continued the trend of the first quarter, the variance could well have reflected a figure of $700,000 or greater. Additionally the informal reports we have received from the state suggest that Christmas sales did improve and will be reflected in our receipts at the end of March. It is our assessment that the overall performance of the sales tax will be stronger than our earlier projections, and that the revenues will come very close to our budget estimate. The franchise tax is likewise showing a variance of $416,590 and there are several factors to consider in estimating the year-end revenues from this source. Although there is normally a seasonal fluctuation in the revenue flow of this tax, we are concerned that the unseasonably warm temperatures of the past month could impact revenues. Further, there are some preliminary indications that the legal settlement with a major utility, Mountain Bell, is having a greater than anticipated impact on revenues.
Therefore, I have directed the finance department to begin an audit of the franchise tax to assure that the revenues realized by the City are correct. Once completed, this information will he provided to the Council for your review. Interest income is one revenue source in which we anticipate a significant revenue shortfall. As you are aware, during previous fiscal years the City realized unprecedented interest yield on its investments. However, since August of 1982, there has been a steady decline in interest rates paid on deposits and our investments have reflected that decline. The City has surveyed numerous financial institutions and economic experts to attempt to project interest yields for the balance of the 1982-83 fiscal year.
All of the projections indicate that our yields will likely remain below a double digit figure. In anticipation of this continued decline, our City Treasurer has implemented a laddered approach to the City’s investment portfolio. This approach spreads maturities out evenly over the next six months. This means that if rates go down the City will have locked in some higher rates, and if rates go up the City will have investments maturing to take advantage of the higher rates.
At the present time, revenues from licenses are performing slightly better than our original estimate. Of course, a note of caution is the legal challenge to the hotel and innkeeper’s tax. The outcome of that lawsuit could have significant impact and we will keep the Council advised of future developments. Thus, in total our crystal ball for the balance of the present fiscal year and our projections as we approach the 1983-84 budget are somewhat uncertain. It is our hope that some of the early indications of economic recovery will continue and that our legal and legislative efforts on the hotel and innkeeper’s tax and sales tax will prove successful. These developments will have a significant impact on our coming budget year.
Looking toward the 1983-84 budget year and beyond, it is my assessment that another area of major concern and an area that deserves our increased attention is the enactment of a meaningful capital improvements program in the City. I re-emphasize the statement which I made in the Five Year Capital Improvement Program budget, that of the $3.4 million prescribed for capital improvements in 1982-83 from general funding sources, only $253,500 was actually allocated from the general fund. The remaining 3.15 million was conditional and subject to the sale of surplus City property. Obviously, the City cannot continue selling its property to finance its capital needs. It is further obvious that our operating budgets will continue to compete for the dollars essential to an effective capital improvements program. A program must be established independent of the normal demands placed on our general fund. There are several alternatives available to us and I believe it is critical that we begin the process of reviewing these alternatives. In recent discussions with members of the Council and department heads, proposals have included the establishment of a separate mill levy for capital improvement projects, or revising the use of Community Development Block Grant funds to focus primarily on such projects. Or, perhaps, a combination of these measures could be employed.
However, in reviewing the projects and dollar amounts in the five-year plan and in reflecting on the serious flooding of this past September and the increase demands of our citizens for improvements to roads and sidewalks, we must also review the potential for a major bonding effort. There are projects on our five-year plan that are essential to the continued quality of life and vitality of our community. At our present rate of expenditure, many of these projects will not see implementation in the next ten years.
This is perhaps one of the most opportune times for the City to place bonds. At present the City is virtually free of any bonded indebtedness and there is advantage to the City in reducing the cost of debt service with the current lower interest rates. Construction bids are likely to be at the lowest level in several years and because nearly all of these projects would be constructed by the private sector, there would be a positive impact on the construction industry which has experienced high levels of unemployment. All of these factors are extremely favorable to the consideration of a bonding proposal.
Therefore, in the interest of moving this issue forward, and recognizing the need of our citizens to participate in the development of such a plan, I am proposing that the administration and the City Council appoint a Citizen’s Blue Ribbon Task Force to begin the process of prioritizing the City’s capital improvement needs and reviewing the funding alternatives available to us. I would suggest that the task force be given a time frame of 90 days to complete their review and to formulate a recommendation. I would propose that the task force be comprised of seven members selected by the Council and six members selected by the Mayor. The administration will provide staffing and technical support assistance to the group.
I believe this is a program of the highest priority, and that we should begin the process of appointments to the task force immediately. There is only false economy in ignoring these pressing needs and the costs will continue to escalate and further hamper our budgeting efforts if a program is not implemented. I would urge your favorable consideration of this request and look forward to the results of this effort.”
PETITIONS
Petitions 94, 180, 203, 277, and 288 of 1982.
RE: The Northwest Quadrant Annexation #2.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the proposed annexation ordinance.
FISCAL IMPACT: This action does not effect immediate fiscal impact upon the City since development is some time away. It is the City’s intention to address areas of fiscal concern, as preliminary plans for development materialize over the next few years.
DISCUSSION: An annexation ordinance for Northwest Quadrant #1 was approved by the City Council on Tuesday, February 1, 1983. That ordinance is set to publish following final approval of plats. The proposed annexation ordinance for Northwest Quadrant #2 attaches to the area annexed by the Council last Tuesday. The proposed ordinance also contains a provision which would effect an amendment to the “Salt Lake City Council District and School Precinct Boundary Map” to include the annexed territory.
Randy Taylor, planning and zoning department, said that adoption of this ordinance was the final action needed on the Northwest Quadrant Annexation; he said that the area to be annexed was the Gillmor property. Mr. Taylor outlined the area on a map and said that the zoning would be Agricultural “A-l”.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Ordinance 9 of 1983, regarding the Northwest Quadrant Annexation #2 and zoning, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 82-312 through (P 82-316)
Petition 152 of 1982 submitted by Community Organization Operations Program.
RE: That property located at 131 North 900 West be rezoned from Residential “R-6” to Commercial “C-l” classification.
DISCUSSION: The planning commission has recommended that the Commercial “C-1” 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 he needs the commercial zoning to utilize the theatre and gymnasium for other type activities. The petitioner feels that he has good neighborhood support. In a previous meeting, February 8, 1983, the City Council held a public hearing to discuss this request. Councilmember Whitehead said that last year CD funds were given to this project and the Council should allow the use of the building for that purpose. The use will be restricted because of the conditional use attached to the parking lot.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to affirm the decision of the planning commission and recommend that the Commercial “C-1” classification for the property on the north side of North Temple be extended an additional 80 feet to the north to include the ward building only with the parking lot to remain “R-6”, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded that the Council urge the board of adjustment to consider the residents in the neighborhood by providing adequate fencing or other protection from the parking lot so that traffic will not impact the residential area of the block, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 82-357)
Petition 400-6 of 1982 submitted by Beehive Lodge No. 407.
RE: Requesting that property located at 659 North 300 West be rezoned from its present “C-l” classification to a “C-3” classification.
DISCUSSION: A “C-1” classification permits a fraternal society but does not permit the issuance of a Class “B” liquor license. The petitioners have requested this zoning change so they can be issued the Class “B” liquor license. The planning commission reviewed this petition and it is their recommendation, by a split vote, that the petition be denied and the property maintain its present zoning for the following reasons: 1. A “C-3” or a “C-3A” classification is inconsistent with the present land use on this block frontage. 2. The reclassification to a “C-3” or “C-3A” classification would be inconsistent with the master plan for the area, which calls for the stabilization of the area and a diminishing of any strip zoning.
3. There must be some rationale for commercial zoning and the placement of liquor establishments and there are other adequate “C-3” and “C-3A” zoned areas where such use may take place. In a previous meeting, February 8, 1983, the City Council held a public hearing to discuss this request. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that this was a difficult decision because she felt the petitioners were caught in a set of circumstances beyond their control. The owner-of-record of this piece of property was notified by the City about the downzoning but the information was not passed on to the petitioners who bought the property on contract. Ms. Fonnesbeck said that she felt bad about how this was handled before the planning and zoning commission but legally there were no problems. She said it was difficult for her to support the rezoning for several reasons. First, she feels it would be bad zoning to have one parcel in this strip of land zoned “C-3”; second, she believes in the master plan and to change the zoning would defeat the purpose of the master plan; and finally the residential characteristic of the neighborhood is still strong and has not gone commercial as it was once thought would happen. Ms. Fonnesbeck concluded by saying that the area was not in opposition to the club, they were just opposed to allowing the use of liquor in the area.
Councilmember Whitehead said that this was a difficult situation and his vote would not mean that he was against one side or the other. He said that he was concerned with the best use of the property. Councilmember Shearer said that based on the field trip the Council took to the area, she felt the change would be inconsistent with the present land use on the block.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to affirm the planning commission recommendation and deny the petition request, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 83-1)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
CITY ATTORNEY
#1. RE: License fee review ordinance: Section 20-3-12.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council consider amending Section 20-3-12 of the City ordinances.
DISCUSSION: City ordinances permit administrative review of individual license fees imposed by the City to insure that such fees are equitable and in all respects appropriate. The proposed ordinance amends City ordinances pertaining to such review by: 1. Updating provisions to account for the City’s change of government; 2. Clarifying language; and 3. Removing outdated references to other provisions of ordinance, which unduly restrict the scope of review. Roger Cutler, city attorney, said that this ordinance applies to a claimed burden on interstate commerce. If a taxpayer claims that there is a burden on interstate commerce, he/she petitions the City for an abatement and proves how it is an unconstitutional burden; to the extent that it is a burden the Mayor has to power to abate the tax.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Ordinance 10 of 1983, amending Section 20-3-12 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to review of license fees imposed by the city, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 82-59)
FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
#1. RE: Industrial revenue bond application: Commercial Security Bancorporation.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider the approval of an inducement resolution for an industrial revenue bond for Commercial Security Bank (CSB), in the amount of $4,000,000, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the City Attorney approve the resolution as to form. 2. That the application meet all necessary financial requirements of the City. 3. That Commercial Security Bancorporation (CSB) pay the established non-refundable fee for processing.
DISCUSSION: The applicant proposes the purchasing of land and construction and equipping of a building to house the centralized operation of CSB and its subsidiaries at approximately 1920 West North Temple. The proposed project would consolidate certain activities currently located in two counties. At a previous meeting, February 8, 1983, the City Council held a public hearing to discuss this issue. Councilmember Shearer said that this request was considered before the budget committee and was given a favorable recommendation. She said that this would not be a retail business but would bring the data processing functions into one location. Ms. Shearer said that this would result in a number of new jobs.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Resolution 11 of 1983, inducement resolution, for an industrial revenue bond for Commercial Security Bank in the amount of $4,000,000, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 83-2)
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
#1. RE: Amendment to Chapter 2, Title 38 of the Salt Lake City ordinances.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the proposed sidewalk and curb and gutter replacement ordinance.
FISCAL IMPACT: The ordinance amendment is a prelude to the proposed creation of improvement districts to effect the curb and gutter replacement program throughout the City.
DISCUSSION: A sidewalk and curb and gutter replacement ordinance has previously been approved by the City Council. However, in light of the recommendations from the planning department, an amendment to the sidewalk replacement ordinance is proposed to incorporate these recommendations. Specifically, the planning department has found and reported a significant benefit differential between commercial and residential properties which receive improvements to their abutting curbs, gutters and sidewalks under an improvement district. The proposed ordinance would recognize the differential in the rates to be assessed to commercial and residential properties within improvement districts. Councilmember Shearer said that this issue concerns the assessment of curb and gutter work. The planning department was asked to study the benefits received from having curb and gutter and sidewalk repaired and/or replaced; a letter has been submitted which contains this information (the letter, dated February 2, 1983, was made a part of the minutes of this meeting by being filed in the Office of the City Recorder).
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Ordinance 8 of 1983, amending Chapter 2 of Title 38 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, as amended by Ordinance No. 65 of 1982, relating to repairs and replacement of sidewalks and curb and gutters, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 83-7)
POLICE DEPARTMENT
#1. RE: Introduction of proposed traffic code ordinance amendment, Section 46-114-4, relating to no-fault insurance requirements.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider amendment to Section 46-114-4 of the Salt Lake City traffic code.
DISCUSSION: This is a recommendation that the present ordinance be amended prohibiting any person to operate a motor vehicle anywhere within the corporate limits of Salt Lake City, knowing that the owner does not have security in effect as required by the Utah No-Fault Insurance Act. This bill does not guarantee payment if vehicles are involved in accidents; it only makes it a criminal violation to fail to carry proper insurance.
Councilmember DePaulis referred this proposed ordinance amendment to the consent agenda for March 1, 1983; referred without objection.
(O 83-6)
PUBLIC WORKS
#1. RE: Notice of Intention for Concrete Replacement Special Improvement District No. 40-R-5.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council adopt the Notice of Intention, authorize the City to proceed with advertising of the Notice of Intention in accordance with the schedule and authorize the City Engineer to proceed with advertising for construction bids.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Fiscal Year 1982-83 capital improvement funds and property owners’ assessments (special improvement district).
DISCUSSION: Concrete Replacement District No. 40-R-5 is comprised of target area streets, St. Mary’s Way and various City non-contiguous streets. The project will consist of removal and reconstruction of deteriorated curb and gutter, sidewalk, driveways and recessed parking areas and construction of wheelchair ramps and drainage facilities. It is the intent to bid the project the spring of 1983 with the majority of construction to take place during the summer of 1983. Provisions will be established in the creation of the special improvement district where, if a high number of protests are received from a specific location in the district, that area could be deleted. If considerable protests are received from the commercial properties in the target area, it could be removed from the district leaving the St. Mary’s area and the various non-contiguous residential sign ups throughout the City in the district.
The total estimated cost of the City’s portion for this project is $371,991.75 which is $71,991.75 over the $300,000 allocated in the 82/83 capital budget for concrete replacement special improvement district. The additional funds are needed to cover the City’s portion for St. Mary’s Way. Providing portions of the district are not protested out, additional funds will have to be allocated to cover the extra cost. Councilmember Shearer said that the non-contiguous streets included in this project have been requested for improvement by the property owners. Councilmember Davis asked Mr. Talebreza to explain what he meant by “considerable protests” as stated in his letter of February 2, 1983. Mr. Talebreza said that the Council would define “considerable”.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to adopt Resolution 12 of 1983, declaring the intention of Salt Lake City to construct improvements on certain streets, to create Concrete Replacement Special Improvement District No. 40-R-5, to defray the cost and expenses of said improvement district by special assessments to be levied against the property benefited, and to provide notice of intention to authorize such improvements and to fix a time and place for protests against such improvements or the creation of said district, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 83-4)
#2. RE: Creation of Curb & Gutter Special Improvement District No. 38-681.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council adopt the resolution creating Curb and Gutter Special Improvement No. 38-681 and authorize the city to proceed with advertising of the construction bids 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. Because of the protests, objections and unwillingness of the property owners between 200 West and 300 West on 1300 South to participate in the project, it is recommended that this section be eliminated from the improvement district. The storm drain box culvert, roadway widening and surfacing would be completed but concrete curb and gutter and sidewalk would not be installed. An asphalt berm would be provided to maintain drainage.
If individual property owners between 200 and 300 West wish to have the improvement installed, they would have to petition the City to be included in the district and be responsible for the cost of the improvements. It is the 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 $3,872,569. Jim Talebreza, director of public works, said that the protest rate for the entire project was 51%; however, if the area between 200 West and 300 West is deleted then the protest rate is 31%. Mr. Talebreza recommended that the Council adopt the resolution creating the district and leave off the block between 200 and 300 West. If those property owners decide later that they want curb and gutter then they can request an amendment to the ordinance.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Resolution 13 of 1983 creating Salt Lake City Curb and Gutter Extension No. 38-681, authorizing construction of improvements as set forth in the notice of intention which is amended by deleting the block between 200 and 300 West of curb and gutter improvements, and proceeding with the advertising of construction bids, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 82-34)
SALT LAKE CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY
#1. RE: Resolution finding and declaring that there is a need for the Housing Authority of the County of Salt Lake to exercise its powers within Salt Lake City by undertaking therein one or more programs for the financing of multifamily housing; and approving the exercise of such powers. Councilmember DePaulis said that this issue was dealt with at the meeting held January 25, 1983 but the Council now needs to adopt the resolution declaring the need for the county housing authority to use financing in the City for multifamily housing.
John Hiskey, executive assistant to the Mayor, said that the housing authority board requested that this be considered in the context that it would allow both county monies and City monies to be available for use in the City for the housing project. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if City money would be used in the county; Mr. Hiskey said that the City money would only be used in the City.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Resolution 14 of 1983 finding and declaring that there is a need for the Housing Authority of the County of Salt Lake to exercise its powers within Salt Lake City by undertaking therein one or more programs for the financing of multifamily housing; and approving the exercise of such powers, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(R 83-3)
The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m.