PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1982
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 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 N. DAVIS SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER PALMER DEPAULIS.
Council Chairperson Sydney R. Fonnesbeck presided at this meeting.
Councilmember Ronald J. Whitehead conducted the meeting.
CONSENT AND POLICY
The Council’s budget retreat has been scheduled for Saturday, February 20, 1982, at 8:30 a.m. The budget process, committee structure, and miscellaneous business items will be discussed. Packets will he provided by Thursday. Councilmember Mabey discussed the Union Pacific matter with the Council. Bill Barrett will ask several questions that should be answered by Union Pacific prior to the granting of a franchise.
Councilmember Mabey addressed the subject of the one-man-one-car policy of the Police Department. He has received calls protesting this policy and feels the Council should issue a press release stating that the decision was administrative and that as the legislative branch the Council had nothing to do with the implementation of the policy. Councilmember DePaulis asked Roger Cutler about potential insurance problems that may arise from the use of the vehicles outside the city.
Mr. Cutler indicated that his office was not contacted prior to the implementation of the policy, and that there are some questions that should be answered about insuring the vehicles and city liability. Several Council Members also raised concerns about the parity between the Police and Fire Departments that has been promised and whether this policy breaks parity. Leigh von der Esch addressed the Council on items that would be on the agenda for their consideration later in the meeting.
The Council adjourned at 5:55 p.m. to begin the Council meeting in room 301.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 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 N. DAVIS SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER PALMER DEPAULIS.
Mayor Ted L. Wilson and Roger Cutler, City Attorney, were present at this meeting.
Council Chairperson Sydney R. Fonnesbeck presided at this meeting.
Councilmember Ronald J. Whitehead conducted the meeting.
Invocation was given by Police Chaplain Frank Jacobsen.
Pledge of Allegiance.
From City Council:
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Salt Lake City Council for its meeting held Tuesday, February 9, 1982, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
M 82-2
PETITIONS
186 of 1981 submitted by Union Pacific Railroad.
RE: The request for Salt Lake City Corporation to grant a franchise to Union Pacific Railroad for the purpose of constructing new trackage in the area of South Temple and 600 and 700 West to facilitate train movement in the train-yard area.
Councilmember Mabey stated that considerable time has been spent considering this request and since the hearing in January this item has been thoroughly discussed. Mr. Mabey requested that the City Council delay a decision on the petition until questions are answered and some conditions are met relating to the franchise. Mr. Mabey stated that in the interest of the citizens of Salt Lake City he believed the delay was justified. Councilmember Mabey further stated that the residents of Council District 1 and 2 have seen their neighborhoods deteriorate due to the presence of the railroads.
He stated that he realizes the contributions the railroads have made to the commerce in our city and state yet he believes the assistance given to the railroads has been overgenerous and at the expense of the neighborhood residents. He further commented that the residents have put up with noise, pollution, and isolation long enough and hopefully these problems will be corrected in the future. Mr. Mabey stated that he felt the requests are fair and hope that they will be received by the railroad in a spirit of cooperation.
William Barrett, City Council attorney, addressed this issue. Mr. Barrett stated that it appears there are specific concerns that Councilmember Mabey and Councilmember Whitehead have and also there are specific concerns which the residents have. Mr. Barrett stated that a situation exists where the railroad has asked for a franchise yet they have not offered anything in return for the franchise. Mr. Barrett asked who would maintain the crossings; would it be the responsibility of the railroad. He stated that concerns were voiced with respect to schools and children coming and going to school; apparently this issue has been raised but not pursued. Another concern was that the tracks are apparently separated by some distance; will the tracks eventually be put in a position where they are closer. Will something be done about the number of trains going by and the traffic stopped because of this; there was also some concern with respect to the noise ordinance.
Mr. Barrett stated that these issues need to be discussed with the citizens who will be impacted by this franchise. Mr. Barrett stated that there was an interest in the existing franchises and copies of these franchises were requested. Steve Goodsell, representing Union Pacific, stated that this franchise application was filed almost a year ago. He further stated that anytime information has been requested it has always been promptly supplied. Mr. Goodsell addressed the comment about the city not receiving anything in return for the franchise by stating that Union Pacific and Western Pacific had indicated some time ago to pay $50,000 each to construct predictor signals at 900 West.
It was also indicated that the crossovers that are approximately at the 9th - 10th West area would be moved beyond Orange Street; this would be a tremendous benefit to the city. Mr. Goodsell stated that the maintenance of the crossings is covered by statute. He further stated that there was concern about one school at approximately 9th or 10th South and about 7th or 8th West. Union Pacific is proposing that the traffic be reduced on that segment of track so it will be a safer place for the school children in that area; that was a concession discussed with the City Council and the Public Works Department.
The concern about the tracks being separated has been addressed on numerous occasions; it would cost over $1 million just to relocate the tracks. Union Pacific has met with various bodies endeavoring to raise money to move the tracks but have been unable to raise money. As far as noise is concerned regarding train operations, it has been pre-empted; it is covered by federal law. Mr. Goodsell further stated that copies of franchise information requested by the City have been provided. He continued by stating that Union Pacific feels their proposal will benefit the city; they are concerned that the project is becoming more and more expensive and may be placed in jeopardy by a delay.
Councilmember Whitehead stated that he believed the railroad was responsible for maintaining the crossings and was concerned about how these crossings are presently maintained. Mr. Whitehead stated that scheduling of trains has been discussed with the railroads so that the people attending high school do not have to cross through trains. He further stated that the cooperation being discussed was regarding old problems not the new items. Mr. Whitehead stated that the concern was how the crossings are maintained and ensuring they will be maintained after railroads are given franchises. He further stated that the Council has not presently received copies of the franchises. Mr. Goodsell stated that these copies were provided at the request of Ray Montgomery, Assistant City Attorney; however, only a few had been requested. Mr. Whitehead suggested that Union Pacific be given a letter outlining the Council’s requests.
Councilmember DePaulis asked if the franchise is granted is there a commitment to a decrease of train traffic by the school when the predictors are put in at the crossing, or would it increase if necessary. Mr. Goodsell replied that the connector track would bring this traffic in and Union Pacific would do what they could to divert rail traffic during specified school hours. But nothing can be done at this point because there is no other track for the trains to use. Mr. Irion from Union Pacific reiterated what Mr. Goodsell had previously said.
Councilmember DePaulis asked if the crossover will facilitate quicker train movement; he also said that the presumption is that there will be more trains. Mr. Goodsell stated that the number of trains is fixed and stated that the question is how the trains will be moved. If they can be moved faster then there is less of a delay at the crossings and they are not blocking the crossings. He further stated that because of the depressed economy train movement is down but when the economy picks up so will the train movement.
Mr. DePaulis asked that if there is a fixed number of trains what is the incentive to do the crossover. Mr. Goodsell replied the incentive is to move freight in the most expeditious manner; this is beneficial to Union Pacific and the city. There are currently two sets of tracks in the area but they are not interconnected so trains are not moving on them as efficiently as they could.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to delay a decision on Petition 186 of 1981 until further information and commitments are received from Union Pacific, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
P 82-4
648 of 1981 submitted by Mitch Godfrey.
RE: Petition 648 submitted by Mitch Godfrey.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a public hearing on March 9, 1982, to discuss the request that property on the southeast corner of 7th North and Redwood Road be rezoned from Residential “R-2A” to a Business “B-3”.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Mr. Godfrey has paid the $50.00 advertising fee.
DISCUSSION: This petition has been reviewed by the Planning Commission who recommends that the zoning be changed and a hearing held. The petitioner has requested the zoning change so he can build a convenience grocery store with gas pumps on the property.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to schedule a public hearing on March 9, 1982 at 8:00 p.m. to discuss Petition 648 of 1981, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
P 82-15
OTHER CITY BUSINESS
FROM CITY ATTORNEY
RE: An ordinance amending Title 24 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965 as amended, by amending Chapters 5 through 11 relating to municipal government. Councilmember Shearer stated that the ordinance which had been previously submitted needed to be rewritten in order to be updated and streamlined.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to refer this ordinance to the Budget Committee and include this item on the Council agenda for March 2, 1982, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
O 82-1l
FROM CITY COUNCIL
RE: A resolution relating to appointments of various city department heads. Councilmember Shearer presented the resolution. Councilmember DePaulis asked the Mayor if the Council approves the resolution as read does that approve department heads that were already in their positions prior to the time that the Council began functioning. The Mayor stated that he assumed the way the resolution was read that it would call for a vote of the Council on them as a group and he had no objection.
Councilmember DePaulis continued by stating that when this item was discussed in committee he thought that the Council was going to approve the department heads that were appointed after the Council took office and agree with the appointment of the others as part of the move of government from the old to the new system. The Mayor felt that there did not need to be a separation and the resolution could be approved as it stands; he stated that the only time he would argue is if the Council chose to disapprove someone.
Mr. DePaulis wondered about the power of the Council to approve prior department heads to which the Mayor replied that it was academic unless the Council chose to sever one of the department heads and not approve them.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Resolution 23 of 1982, relating to appointments of various city department heads, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
R 82-5
RE: Resolution of Appreciation honoring George S. Eccles, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of First Security Corporation. Councilmember Whitehead presented this resolution.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Resolution 24 of 1982 honoring George S. Eccles, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
R 82-6
FROM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
RE: A proposed ordinance allowing State Retail Liquor Stores in any business or commercial districts as a conditional use.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a public hearing on April 13, 1982 at 6:00 p.m. to discuss the proposed ordinance allowing State Retail Liquor Stores in any business or commercial districts as a conditional use.
DISCUSSION: Several years ago in an effort to control the location of adult bookstores the City amended the zoning ordinance of Salt Lake City prohibiting any business in a “B-3” or a “C-1” district if the business caters exclusively to adults and excluded persons under the age of 18. Similar restrictions were made in the other commercial and industrial districts of Salt Lake City if they were located within a three block radius of any school or church. Provisions were made excluding licensed restaurants and premises licensed to sell beer, however no provision was made for liquor stores.
This has made it so that it is impossible to locate any state owned or operated liquor store in any business, commercial or industrial districts, except for a few isolated locations. The proposed ordinance will allow State Retail Liquor Stores in any business or commercial district as a conditional use. All proposed stores and their individual locations would have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. This will add more control over the locations of liquor stores than existed before but will not prohibit them as is the case now.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to schedule a public hearing on April 13, 1982 at 6:00 p.m. to discuss the proposed ordinance allowing State Retail Liquor Stores in any business or commercial district as a conditional use, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
O 82-12
FROM FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
RE: Industrial Revenue Bond application by Hermes Associates.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider an application for Industrial Revenue Bonding by Hermes Associates for the construction of an office complex on the northwest corner of First South and Fifth East. Councilmember Mabey reiterated statements made in previous meetings about the need to establish a criteria regarding the rezoning of an area and later approval of an Industrial Revenue Bond. A draft of additional criteria was distributed addressing this problem. Mr. Mabey felt that if the Hermes request was not approved the Council would be discriminating against them since zoning was not part of the previous criteria.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked how Mr. Mabey’s new criteria differed from the current system. Mr. Mabey stated that this new criteria establishes a format so that if at the time zoning is changed it is not mentioned that an IRB may be requested later, then the application may be denied. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked what the relationship was between asking for a zoning change and asking for an IRB. She further stated that there may be vast areas that are incorrectly zoned.
Councilmember DePaulis stated that this particular area generally conforms to the Master Plan which calls for high density residential. He stated that there needs to be a workable policy that does not discriminate but lets people know at the beginning that if they’re asking for rezoning that does not make sense with the Master Plan, particularly in a residential area, then their future IRB application may be denied. Councilmember Fonnesheck stated that Mr. Mabey’s draft supports the Housing Policy; she feels that by voting for Hermes would be in direct violation of that Housing Policy.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to reconsider the Industrial Revenue Bond application submitted by Hermes Associates, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Council Members Fonnesbeck and DePaulis who voted nay.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt the Inducement Resolution, Resolution 25 of 1982, for Industrial Revenue Bonding for Hermes Associates, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Council Members Whitehead, Fonnesbeck and DePaulis who voted nay.
Q 82-13
RE: Industrial Revenue Bond for Holy Cross Hospital in the amount of $9,500,000 for the purchase of computerized equipment and body scanner and for the refund of 1978 bonds. Councilmember Shearer stated that this request has been heard in committee.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt the Enactment Resolution, Resolution 26 of 1982, subject to the City Attorney’s approval, for Industrial Revenue Bonding for Holy Cross Hospital, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember DePaulis who was absent when the vote was taken.
Q 82-14
FROM OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
RE: The appointment of Wayne I. Baer to the Civil Service Commission. This appointment is to fill the remaining term of Dr. James Mayfield who submitted his resignation effective December 15, 1981. Thus the appointment would be for the remainder of Dr. Mayfield’s term, July 1984. Mr. Baer will bring to the Civil Service Commission an excellent business and civil background. Councilmember Whitehead referred the appointment of Mr. Baer to the consent agenda for March 2, 1982; referred without objection.
I 82-9
RE: Collective bargaining resolution.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the amendment to the collective bargaining resolution.
DISCUSSION: It is the intention of this recommendation to allow the executive branch to recertify the I.A.F.F. Local 1645. It has been determined by the department reorganization review that the positions of lieutenant and arson investigator are non-management. Albert Haines stated that the recommendation is presented as a result of initial activity by the Fire Department and the Personnel Office to evaluate the two positions; it was determined that they do not function as management.
It is recommended that the collective bargaining resolution be amended to delete those positions; it is the intent that if the resolution is adopted, the I.A.F.F. Local 1645 will be recertified by Executive Order. Mr. Haines stated that although the process of defining various positions in the Fire Department is still underway, the city should enter into a more legitimate and formalized collective bargaining relationship and delete the two positions from the resolution.
Charlie Quick, President of Local 1645, addressed the Council. He stated that this resolution was a poor document; it was drafted four years ago and is in conflict with itself. Mr. Quick cited city ordinance 25-11-7,”... no employee shall be discriminated against because of affiliation or membership with any labor union, nor shall any employee be compelled, coerced, or intimidated to join or refrain from joining any such organization”; 25-11-8 “...employees shall have the right to bargain collectively with department heads, the City Commission, on all matters relating to salaries, working conditions, and similar subjects.” Mr. Quick further stated that the employees’ viewpoint may be presented by the representatives of their choice. Local 1645 is the representative of those employees’ choice. Mr. Quick also stated that there was a task force formulated that drafted reports, a performance audit was done, new job descriptions, and the opinion of the new chief was issued; in all of those documents there was no conclusive evidence to support the issue that captains are management. Mr. Quick stated that the real issue was not whether these men are management; the real issue is where will their loyalties be in the case of strike or other job action. He further stated that salaries are an ongoing problem; it is a delicate balance that needs to be maintained between the needs of the employees and the budgetary restraints.
Mr. Quick stated that the firefighters do not accept the terms of the collective bargaining resolution and will not accept the terms offered for the recertification. He further stated that he hoped the Council would discard the resolution entirely and establish a fair and equitable way to deal with the employees of Salt Lake City. Local 1645 will continue to represent all employees at whatever level necessary and will not be divided.
The Mayor reiterated various issues as addressed in a letter to Mr. Quick dated February 9, 1982. He stated that it was recommended that lieutenants and arson investigators be allowed, if the Council amends the ordinance, to become members of the certified collective bargaining unit, but at this time captains would not be able to participate. He further stated that the question of participation by captains will continue to be studied but the Mayor stated that he recommends the step be taken to include lieutenants and arson investigators.
Mr. Haines stated that he and Mr. Quick have discussed the total collective bargaining resolution on numerous occasions and he concurs that the policy direction needs to be studied. The approach that needs to be taken in terms of the relationship with firefighters is to develop a more formalized and constructive relationship. Mr. Haines concurred in the conclusion that there is a need to look at some of the issues outlined by Mr. Quick; this will take time and in the meantime the present recommendation should be pursued.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to refer this issue to the Personnel Committee which all Council Members can attend, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
R 82-7
FROM POLICE DEPARTMENT
RE: Proposed business license ordinance amendment: Sections 20-10-6, 2010-8, 20-10-11, 20-16-1, 20-16-2, 20-16-3 and 20-16-4 relating to license and business regulation.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider amendments to the above listed sections.
DISCUSSION: These changes will allow the ordinances to conform with the State Statutes and provide the Police Department with tighter controls on possible stolen merchandise sold to pawn shops and second-hand stores. A substantial increase in license fees is recommended to place tighter controls on those people licensed under this ordinance.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Ordinance 14 of 1982, amending Sections 20-10-6, 20-10-8, 20-10-11, 20-16-1, 20-16-2, 20-16-3 and 20-16-4 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, as amended, relating to license and business regulation, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
O 82-13
FROM PUBLIC WORKS
RE: Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Council Actions; December 18, 1981 meeting.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the Landfill Council actions taken at the meeting in accordance with the terms setforth in the Landfill Interlocal Cooperative Agreement.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: The funds for the 1982 Landfill budget are totally received from charges made by use of the Landfill.
DISCUSSION: Item three on the agenda is the operating budget for the Landfill for 1982. Included in this budget is $50,000 for the Phase III Resource Recovery Study conducted by the Wasatch Front Regional Council. If the Resource Recovery project continues, the $50,000 will only match the Federal funds which are available for Phase III of the study. It could be that an additional $100,000 to $200,000 local funding will be necessary in the future to issue bonds and actually begin construction of the project, which will probably result in a raise of the tipping fee at the landfill.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to approve the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Council Actions of December 18, 1981, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
M 82-3
RE: Interlocal Cooperation Agreement to provide for the financing of the Salt Lake Solid Waste Management Project.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement be endorsed.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: The funds for the preparatory work for the Resource Recovery Facility are provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency with a local match of $50,000 from the Landfill. Each $50,000 increases the landfill tipping fee about 12 cents per ton or 1 cent per month for the average homeowner. Additional future funds, if required, would come from the landfill by an increase in disposal fees. The funds for construction of the project will be from the sale of industrial revenue bonds.
DISCUSSION: For the past two years, Salt Lake City has been participating with Wasatch Front Regional Council and other municipalities, and Salt Lake County, in a feasibility study for Resource Recovery in the Salt Lake Area. The results of the study suggest that it is feasible to build a facility to burn the refuse generated from within the County to produce steam for electrical generation. The Interlocal Cooperation Agreement creates a board which will recommend whether the project should be built. If that recommendation is in favor of the project, this board would be the implementing agency. As such, they will establish proposed contract terms, issue bonds, and select the builder/operator of the facility.
This agreement involves no financial obligation on the part of the City, other than potential increases in the landfill fee. The funding for the study is from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with a local match from the area landfills. Up to $200,000 extra local funds may be required from the landfills to issue the bonds, but this would be recovered from the bond sale.
The funds for actual construction of the Resource Recovery Facility will be from the sale of industrial revenue bonds. If it is recommended to build the project, each city will have the option to enter into contracts to provide solid waste to the facility. Until such contracts are signed, the City may withdraw from this agremeent and is under no obligation to the project.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Resolution 27 of 1982 authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement for joint or cooperative action to provide for the financing of the Salt Lake Solid Waste Management Project, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
C 82-62
RE: Introduction of Proposed Parking Ordinance amendment: Section 170 of the Salt Lake City Traffic Code.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider addition of Section 170 of the Salt Lake City Traffic Code.
DISCUSSION: Residential parking lots completed last year in two Community Development Project areas (Capitol Hill and Central City) are being used for purposes other then the parking of personal vehicles owned by residents of the street. The recommendation would improve availability of off-street parking spaces to residents and their guests in areas where streets are too narrow for vehicle parking and prevent these lots from misuse. The ordinance would make it unlawful to: 1) Park any vehicle continuously in excess of 72 hours. 2) Park any vehicle over 18 feet in length or 8 feet wide. 3) Abandon any vehicle. 4) Make repairs on any vehicle. 5) Park any vehicle, required by law to be registered in this state, which does not bear a valid license plate and current Utah State inspection sticker.
Councilmember Whitehead referred the proposed Parking Ordinance amendment, Section 170 of Salt Lake City Traffic Code, to the Public Works Committee; referred without objection.
O 82-14
RE: Extra Work Order for EMCON Associates, Consultants hired by the Landfill Council to perform an engineering study on the landfill site.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the Extra Work Order.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Funds are available in the Landfill budget.
DISCUSSION: During the course of EMCON’s work on an engineering study on the Landfill site, extra design requirements were placed upon them due to the City’s Planning Commission and incorrect base data. Therefore, an extra $10,278.23 has been added to the total amount to be paid to the consultant. The minutes of the Landfill Council meeting have been approved and ratified by the City Council that pertain to this subject, therefore, this is a follow-up formality.
Councilmember Whitehead referred the Extra Work Order for EMCON Associates to the consent agenda for March 2, 1982; referred without objection.
C 82-94
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Bernice Cook addressed the Council and stated that large semi-trucks have been parking in the lot at the wave pool. She stated that she was concerned about this situation since children will be in the area during summer.
The meeting adjourned at 7:50 P.M.